Is there ANY possible scientific evidence that could change your mind? I mean clearly you deny anything that dates the Earth past when you think it was created that we currently show. A lot of different scientific evidence points to the Earth being quite old. You reject all this. So is there ANYTHING that may change your mind from science in the future? Or will it always be…“that must be incorrect, because it doesn’t jive with what I believe the Bible says.” ?
Just curious.
My point with the geocentric universe was that this was a universal truth to most people for the longest time. And then the evidence made showed it that this was not the case, that we were mistaken. If evidence comes out that is even clearer than what we have now (I mean I think it’s crystal already, but clearly some don’t) and say many more people who think like Pat used to think change their minds could you see yourself ever changing?
It did always seem odd that the literalists wanted the universe to be small, young, and simple.
Way to prove your God is all that.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
It did always seem odd that the literalists wanted the universe to be small, young, and simple.
Way to prove your God is all that.[/quote]
Exactly. I am willing to bet that the Bible was meant to be useful to all, not just college educated scientists. Literalist Christians must also believe the Tower of Bable was literally a really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really tall sky scraper.
[quote]H factor wrote:Is there ANY possible scientific evidence that could change your mind? I mean clearly you deny anything that dates the Earth past when you think it was created that we currently show. A lot of different scientific evidence points to the Earth being quite old. You reject all this. So is there ANYTHING that may change your mind from science in the future? Or will it always be…“that must be incorrect, because it doesn’t jive with what I believe the Bible says.” ?
Just curious. [/quote]This is a much larger question than you realize and is the subject of numerous threads already. A world view, a paradigm of reality, stands or falls as a system, the individualized components of which immediately point to the rest of the whole for their validity. the answer to this question resides in the system. It is not possible for a truly Christian world view to be philosophically defended in an effective way on a point by point basis.
The points are kinda like fish. They swim in an intellectual ecosystem if you will, on which they depend for life. On the other hand the system, the whole, is contemporaneously apprehended by faith AS the entire sum of the points rightly divided within the system itself. Circular? You betcha. All finite human reason is. Yours included. Only yours provides absolutely NO basis for one single coherent thought to say nothing of so called scientific evidence. Those other threads will demonstrate why.
The point is, in my system, which I firmly believe is God’s own revealed comprehensive system of thought, He is Himself the first and most foundational axiomatic standard by and through which ANY other proposition of knowledge is even possible. So, No. It is not possible for there to exist one particle of “evidence” except which screams" I AM GOD AND YOU OWE ME". Sinners suppress that truth in their unrighteous. The bible clearly says so. It’s not that there’s insufficient evidence of the God of the bible. It’s also not that there is very good evidence. It’s that there is NOTHING BUT evidence. Why doesn’t everybody see it then? They do. God says so. His signature is on every sub atomic particle, the universe as a whole and everything in between, but ESPECIALLY man. Because man (and woman) bears God’s direct image and likeness. They see it and run. Just like Adam did after he sinned. They pride themselves on their erudition and advancement as if that were to provide escape. The worst deception of all is when they claim to see god, but not THE God, which is idolatry for which the most horrific judgements imaginable fell upon the nation of Israel.
No. There is not now nor can there ever be such a thing as evidence that contradicts the revealed mind of almighty God. Make no mistake. Even by your own standards ya’ll are on much shakier than you even think I am. You just never REALLY thought about it. Right DrMatt? You can just tell me if you don’t think I’m worth talking to. The roundabout insults are unnecessary. I can take it… with a smile.
[quote]H factor wrote:
My point with the geocentric universe was that this was a universal truth to most people for the longest time. And then the evidence made showed it that this was not the case, that we were mistaken. If evidence comes out that is even clearer than what we have now (I mean I think it’s crystal already, but clearly some don’t) and say many more people who think like Pat used to think change their minds could you see yourself ever changing? [/quote]I am open to changing my mind on just about anything that doesn’t attempt to call my God a liar. What difference does it make whether we know about galaxies and solar systems or not? None to the biblical system of thought I have been here espousing. Dark matter, Higgs Boson, _________, doesn’t make any difference. I don’t know how many times I said in the bodybuilding and nutrition forums that this week’s goose bump inducing study is next week’s “oops”. 500 years from now we’ll be snickering at things that today are propound in these forums as if THEY were the Word of God.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
It did always seem odd that the literalists wanted the universe to be small, young, and simple.
Way to prove your God is all that.[/quote]
Exactly. I am willing to bet that the Bible was meant to be useful to all, not just college educated scientists. Literalist Christians must also believe the Tower of Bable was literally a really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really tall sky scraper.[/quote]LOL!!! This is not your thing Doc. You are in so far over your head. You’re better off slinging lying accusations at me and running away like you did in the other thread. You’re much better qualified for that. That hurt my feelings btw. I would have never done that to you.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
This is the very issue that created a huge divide between Tiribulus and I. I lamented the fact that I thought a large number of people, including many intelligent young people, were turned off by the church vigorously forcing the creationist story as fact in spite of all the clear evidence that it was allegory. I still have problems with my church over this very issue. It is just plain silly. [/quote]
It is plain silly, because the Bible was never intended to be a science book, and to reduce to the level of a book on natural history is, frankly, an insult to the purpose of the Bible. As if the genius of a divine universe - with its complex organization and immaeasurable wonderment - was meant to be served up in a reductionist format (all that divine blueprint in a handful of pages in the text of the Bible) therefore eliminating the need for humans to use their divine gifts to engage in a vast inquiry into the laws of the universe.
You said it best. Plain silly.[/quote]Nobody ever said this , but I know you don’t wanna talk about it. Nobody who can claim Christ while denying the sinfulness of homosexuality would be equipped in any way to propose so much as 3 syllable of sound biblical truth. You’re in good company here though.
[/quote]
I have been covered up with work lately and have had very little time to contribute. I do not now if you are referring to me or TB.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:Is there ANY possible scientific evidence that could change your mind? I mean clearly you deny anything that dates the Earth past when you think it was created that we currently show. A lot of different scientific evidence points to the Earth being quite old. You reject all this. So is there ANYTHING that may change your mind from science in the future? Or will it always be…“that must be incorrect, because it doesn’t jive with what I believe the Bible says.” ?
Just curious. [/quote]This is a much larger question than you realize and is the subject of numerous threads already. A world view, a paradigm of reality, stands or falls as a system, the individualized components of which immediately point to the rest of the whole for their validity. the answer to this question resides in the system. It is not possible for a truly Christian world view to be philosophically defended in an effective way on a point by point basis.
The points are kinda like fish. They swim in an intellectual ecosystem if you will, on which they depend for life. On the other hand the system, the whole, is contemporaneously apprehended by faith AS the entire sum of the points rightly divided within the system itself. Circular? You betcha. All finite human reason is. Yours included. Only yours provides absolutely NO basis for one single coherent thought to say nothing of so called scientific evidence. Those other threads will demonstrate why.
The point is, in my system, which I firmly believe is God’s own revealed comprehensive system of thought, He is Himself the first and most foundational axiomatic standard by and through which ANY other proposition of knowledge is even possible. So, No. It is not possible for there to exist one particle of “evidence” except which screams" I AM GOD AND YOU OWE ME". Sinners suppress that truth in their unrighteous. The bible clearly says so. It’s not that there’s insufficient evidence of the God of the bible. It’s also not that there is very good evidence. It’s that there is NOTHING BUT evidence. Why doesn’t everybody see it then? They do. God says so. His signature is on every sub atomic particle, the universe as a whole and everything in between, but ESPECIALLY man. Because man (and woman) bears God’s direct image and likeness. They see it and run. Just like Adam did after he sinned. They pride themselves on their erudition and advancement as if that were to provide escape. The worst deception of all is when they claim to see god, but not THE God, which is idolatry for which the most horrific judgements imaginable fell upon the nation of Israel.
No. There is not now nor can there ever be such a thing as evidence that contradicts the revealed mind of almighty God. Make no mistake. Even by your own standards ya’ll are on much shakier than you even think I am. You just never REALLY thought about it. Right DrMatt? You can just tell me if you don’t think I’m worth talking to. The roundabout insults are unnecessary. I can take it… with a smile.
[quote]H factor wrote:
My point with the geocentric universe was that this was a universal truth to most people for the longest time. And then the evidence made showed it that this was not the case, that we were mistaken. If evidence comes out that is even clearer than what we have now (I mean I think it’s crystal already, but clearly some don’t) and say many more people who think like Pat used to think change their minds could you see yourself ever changing? [/quote]I am open to changing my mind on just about anything that doesn’t attempt to call my God a liar. What difference does it make whether we know about galaxies and solar systems or not? None to the biblical system of thought I have been here espousing. Dark matter, Higgs Boson, _________, doesn’t make any difference. I don’t know how many times I said in the bodybuilding and nutrition forums that this week’s goose bump inducing study is next week’s “oops”. 500 years from now we’ll be snickering at things that today are propound in these forums as if THEY were the Word of God.
[/quote]
Yeah that is what I was trying to understand. To believe any science which says otherwise and contradicts Genesis must be false no matter what this science looks like essentially. I didn’t know if you were going to start the well how long is a day type argument in the Bible, that I’ve seen a lot of young earth people talk about before.
Just trying to get a little more clear focus of what you actually believe. Thanks for the answer.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
It did always seem odd that the literalists wanted the universe to be small, young, and simple.
Way to prove your God is all that.[/quote]
Exactly. I am willing to bet that the Bible was meant to be useful to all, not just college educated scientists. Literalist Christians must also believe the Tower of Bable was literally a really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really tall sky scraper.[/quote]LOL!!! This is not your thing Doc. You are in so far over your head. You’re better off slinging lying accusations at me and running away like you did in the other thread. You’re much better qualified for that. That hurt my feelings btw. I would have never done that to you.
[/quote]
OK…I am in over my head? Dude, no offense, but you seem to have a really hard time staying on topic if I am involved at all. This discussion isn’t about you, me or some other thread.
If I am way over my head, please tell me how like an adult.
I do not believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. You said this makes Jesus a liar and discredits the entire Christian religion.
Please, dear sir, explain yourself.
Its tough to square a 6000 year old universe with the speed of light and the observable/measurable distances of other stars and galaxies. If that doesn’t sway you I’m not sure there exists any type of evidence that could or would.
I’m not aware of anywhere in the Christian Bible that claims the earth is only 6,000 years old. Granted I’m not a Biblical scholar and it might just be there but I’ve never read it. I can see how interpretation might lead some to believe that, but as I said I really don’t think it makes a direct claim.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Its tough to square a 6000 year old universe with the speed of light and the observable/measurable distances of other stars and galaxies. If that doesn’t sway you I’m not sure there exists any type of evidence that could or would.[/quote]
You’d think they would see the light.
Bad pun. Anyways, I think we’ve come to a point at which all of those who can be swayed by evidence have been. It’s doubtful that anything can be said or done or discovered to persuade any remaining YEC to rethink their beliefs.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’m not aware of anywhere in the Christian Bible that claims the earth is only 6,000 years old. Granted I’m not a Biblical scholar and it might just be there but I’ve never read it. I can see how interpretation might lead some to believe that, but as I said I really don’t think it makes a direct claim.[/quote]
It is based on the genealogies supplied in the Pentateuch, which lead to the conclusion that the Earth is something like 6,000 years old if they’re regarded as inerrant and exhaustive.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:Is there ANY possible scientific evidence that could change your mind? I mean clearly you deny anything that dates the Earth past when you think it was created that we currently show. A lot of different scientific evidence points to the Earth being quite old. You reject all this. So is there ANYTHING that may change your mind from science in the future? Or will it always be…“that must be incorrect, because it doesn’t jive with what I believe the Bible says.” ?
Just curious. [/quote]This is a much larger question than you realize and is the subject of numerous threads already. A world view, a paradigm of reality, stands or falls as a system, the individualized components of which immediately point to the rest of the whole for their validity. the answer to this question resides in the system. It is not possible for a truly Christian world view to be philosophically defended in an effective way on a point by point basis.
The points are kinda like fish. They swim in an intellectual ecosystem if you will, on which they depend for life. On the other hand the system, the whole, is contemporaneously apprehended by faith AS the entire sum of the points rightly divided within the system itself. Circular? You betcha. All finite human reason is. Yours included. Only yours provides absolutely NO basis for one single coherent thought to say nothing of so called scientific evidence. Those other threads will demonstrate why.
The point is, in my system, which I firmly believe is God’s own revealed comprehensive system of thought, He is Himself the first and most foundational axiomatic standard by and through which ANY other proposition of knowledge is even possible. So, No. It is not possible for there to exist one particle of “evidence” except which screams" I AM GOD AND YOU OWE ME". Sinners suppress that truth in their unrighteous. The bible clearly says so. It’s not that there’s insufficient evidence of the God of the bible. It’s also not that there is very good evidence. It’s that there is NOTHING BUT evidence. Why doesn’t everybody see it then? They do. God says so. His signature is on every sub atomic particle, the universe as a whole and everything in between, but ESPECIALLY man. Because man (and woman) bears God’s direct image and likeness. They see it and run. Just like Adam did after he sinned. They pride themselves on their erudition and advancement as if that were to provide escape. The worst deception of all is when they claim to see god, but not THE God, which is idolatry for which the most horrific judgements imaginable fell upon the nation of Israel.
No. There is not now nor can there ever be such a thing as evidence that contradicts the revealed mind of almighty God. Make no mistake. Even by your own standards ya’ll are on much shakier than you even think I am. You just never REALLY thought about it. Right DrMatt? You can just tell me if you don’t think I’m worth talking to. The roundabout insults are unnecessary. I can take it… with a smile.
[quote]H factor wrote:
My point with the geocentric universe was that this was a universal truth to most people for the longest time. And then the evidence made showed it that this was not the case, that we were mistaken. If evidence comes out that is even clearer than what we have now (I mean I think it’s crystal already, but clearly some don’t) and say many more people who think like Pat used to think change their minds could you see yourself ever changing? [/quote]I am open to changing my mind on just about anything that doesn’t attempt to call my God a liar. What difference does it make whether we know about galaxies and solar systems or not? None to the biblical system of thought I have been here espousing. Dark matter, Higgs Boson, _________, doesn’t make any difference. I don’t know how many times I said in the bodybuilding and nutrition forums that this week’s goose bump inducing study is next week’s “oops”. 500 years from now we’ll be snickering at things that today are propound in these forums as if THEY were the Word of God.
[/quote]Yeah that is what I was trying to understand. To believe any science which says otherwise and contradicts Genesis must be false no matter what this science looks like essentially. >>>[/quote]I don’t believe ANY science can be done at all without assuming the God of the bible first. The conclusions are moot before the investigation starts as regards the existence of the God I worship and His essential truths. Snicker if you must, but even by your own logical method you are in no better shape than you think I am. [quote]H factor wrote:<<< I didn’t know if you were going to start the well how long is a day type argument in the Bible, that I’ve seen a lot of young earth people talk about before. >>>[/quote]That really IS a waste of time and I’ve said and demonstrated why many times.
[quote]H factor wrote:<<< Just trying to get a little more clear focus of what you actually believe. Thanks for the answer. [/quote]That’s fine and you’re welcome. The view count is much more important to me than the post count. Almost a thousand views and less than 60 posts.
Again, I said: [quote]Man has throughout his history, by virtue of the remaining though sinfully broken image of God, been so absolutely RIGHT about so very much of what he’s observed and published. While, due to this brokenness in sin, being so ABSOLUTELY wrong about how and why he’s right about it. This has led him to utterly corrupt and perverse conclusions even from the things he’s right about. [/quote]
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
It did always seem odd that the literalists wanted the universe to be small, young, and simple.
Way to prove your God is all that.[/quote]
Exactly. I am willing to bet that the Bible was meant to be useful to all, not just college educated scientists. Literalist Christians must also believe the Tower of Bable was literally a really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really tall sky scraper.[/quote]LOL!!! This is not your thing Doc. You are in so far over your head. You’re better off slinging lying accusations at me and running away like you did in the other thread. You’re much better qualified for that. That hurt my feelings btw. I would have never done that to you.
[/quote]
OK…I am in over my head? Dude, no offense, but you seem to have a really hard time staying on topic if I am involved at all. This discussion isn’t about you, me or some other thread.
If I am way over my head, please tell me how like an adult.
I do not believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. You said this makes Jesus a liar and discredits the entire Christian religion.
Please, dear sir, explain yourself.[/quote]You’re right on schedule schedule Doc. I did not say this. I did say that macro evolution is utterly destructive of the history of sin and redemption revealed in the bible. That was right after I said that old earth creationism was something I disagreed with, but that is not fatally heretical. The fool speak before he hears a matter Doc. (Proverbs 18:13) Proverbs 18:13 He who answers a matter before he hears it--this is folly and disgrace to him. All this anger is not good for ya my old friend. I have the solution ya know.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:Its tough to square a 6000 year old universe with the speed of light and the observable/measurable distances of other stars and galaxies. If that doesn’t sway you I’m not sure there exists any type of evidence that could or would.[/quote]God created an “adult” universe. Just He created an adult man.
Tirib, I’d agree that both your assertions are equally plausible.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:Its tough to square a 6000 year old universe with the speed of light and the observable/measurable distances of other stars and galaxies. If that doesn’t sway you I’m not sure there exists any type of evidence that could or would.[/quote]God created an “adult” universe. Just He created an adult man.
[/quote]
To look at the Hubble Deep Space field, though, is to look at something that happened 13 billion years ago. It’s not an image of an adult universe, it’s an image of an extremely young universe which took billions of years to arrive at our eyes.
So for your analogy to hold up, we’d have to not only be presented with an adult Adam, but with an Adam who had somehow had a childhood that we could talk about despite the fact that he had been created as an adult.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]ranengin wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Hmmm I guess I should have figured that it would be Tirib that held onto this view. Any others besides him?.[/quote]
Tirib is not the only young earther on this board. [/quote]
Pushharder is another.[/quote]
Really? I find that hard to believe, he seems like a reasonably intelligent kinda guy and certainly isn’t an evangelical fundamentalist christian type[/quote]
He’s certainly intelligent.[/quote]
I’ll throw my hat in here too. He and I disagree at times, but he’s very smart/knowledgeable.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
]I don’t believe ANY science can be done at all without assuming the God of the bible first. The conclusions are moot before the investigation starts as regards the existence of the God I worship and His essential truths. Snicker if you must, but even by your own logical method you are in no better shape than you think I am. [quote]H factor wrote:<<< I didn’t know if you were going to start the well how long is a day type argument in the Bible, that I’ve seen a lot of young earth people talk about before. >>>[/quote]That really IS a waste of time and I’ve said and demonstrated why many times.
[quote]H factor wrote:<<< Just trying to get a little more clear focus of what you actually believe. Thanks for the answer. [/quote]That’s fine and you’re welcome. The view count is much more important to me than the post count. Almost a thousand views and less than 60 posts.
Again, I said: [quote]Man has throughout his history, by virtue of the remaining though sinfully broken image of God, been so absolutely RIGHT about so very much of what he’s observed and published. While, due to this brokenness in sin, being so ABSOLUTELY wrong about how and why he’s right about it. This has led him to utterly corrupt and perverse conclusions even from the things he’s right about. [/quote]
I can assure you I’m not snickering, I’ve been trying to understand. Our difference is while you are 100% sure of your position I am anything but. I can only believe what reason and logic allows me to think is true. I cannot change my mind if something doesn’t make sense to me through those. It’s just the way I’m built. It’s not just this…I can’t buy political conspiracy theories either if most reason and logic turns me away from coming to the conclusion something is true.
I’m in no way convinced my way of thinking is the right way through anything. I have no way of knowing if it’s Muslims, or Methodists, or Buddhists, or Mormons, or Atheists or whoever else has the right answer. And I will completely acknowledge that throughout my life, and likely NEVER be able to reconcile this thinking. The evidence that makes the most sense to me doesn’t point towards what you’re supporting. I will always acknowledge that I may be wrong though.