Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [CreationTalk] Why Science is Quite Logical and is Not from Satan

Expand Messages
  • ri lee
    ... no, it is because no matter what i say compelling or not, you fundementalists would refute anyways. ... yes, that part does matter....but exactly how God
    Message 1 of 50 , Jan 1, 2002
      >From: "Charles Creager" <cpcjr@...>
      >Reply-To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
      >To: <CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com>
      >Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Why Science is Quite Logical and is Not from
      >Satan
      >Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 20:53:10 -0500
      >
      > >I was planning on giving you a lot of evidence to try to prove that the
      > >Earth is indeed old, but have just decided against it.
      >
      >Why? Is it that the evidence is not all that compelling, or is it that you
      >know we already have an answer for it.

      no, it is because no matter what i say compelling or not, you
      fundementalists would refute anyways.
      >
      > >The truth is, it really doesn't matter how you interpret the first few
      >chapters in Genesis,
      >
      >Yes it dose matter, for example, who is responsible for all the death and
      >suffering in the world?

      yes, that part does matter....but exactly how God created the universe
      really doesn't, the fact remains he did.
      >
      >A literal interpretation makes man responsible, because is it the result of
      >man's sin, specifically Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden.
      >
      >How ever if God really used millions of years of evolution and there by
      >millions of years of suffering and death, then it is his fault, since he
      >would have created the world that way.

      not necessarely, remember lucifer opposed God before the creation or the
      fall of man, so Adam's sin wasn't the first sin, it was simply the first of
      man.
      >
      >This is just one example of why it maters.
      >
      >How would you answer the following questions:
      >
      >Why did Christ die on the cross?

      i would hope you know this but i'll explain it to prove that i do....he died
      because we sinned, we're imperfect and weren't worthy to be with God, and he
      loved us enough to die for us to atone for that.
      >
      >How come we are all born sinners?

      because adam was the first man(i will admit that humans didn't come from
      apes and that adam was indeed the first human, i hope you can be satisfied
      with that) and we all decended from him, his imperfection is passed down to
      all of his decendents aka. the world.
      >
      >----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >----
      >
      > >I personally believe that seeing how bronze age desert nomads would have
      > >absolutely no concept of space and physics and seeing how such things
      > >didn't matter much any ways, God chose to give them a simple symbolic
      > >message of the creation knowing we'll just figure it all out any ways
      > >thousands of years later. But of course, that's just my opinion.
      >
      >What "bronze age desert nomads" are you referring to. This description
      >hardly fit the Israelites coming out of Egypt. They had just come out of
      >the
      >most one of the most sophisticated societies of the day. The Egyptians had
      >a
      >old earth, so if God had used evolution, and billions of years to make the
      >world, they would have understood, enough that he could have done a better
      >job of explaining it. So there would have been no point in using such a
      >poor
      >etymology for evolution. He could have at least gotten the time scale and
      >the order right.

      actually at the time it WAS the bronze age which lasted until the early days
      of the romans when iron had begun to be used, and they WERE desert nomads,
      duh. and the genesis account really does do a good job of explaining
      evolution. i'm not saying these people were stupid, but they were not
      brought up in a scientific society like ourselves and so would have hard
      time grasping those concepts, my dad for instince is a very smart man but is
      absolutely useless when it comes to computers for the exact same reason.
      >
      >Also this whole idea is oozing with evolutionary assumptions. You are
      >selling the inelegance of the Israelites and all ancient people short. This
      >is typical evolutionary thinking.
      >
      >----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >----
      >
      > >From all the evidence I have seen and read, the
      >evolution/uniformitarianism
      > >theory seems to be quite consistent among scientists and actually does
      >make
      > >sense,
      >
      >You are making the same mistake as every other old earthers make. You are
      >confusing evolutionary interpretation for the evidence.

      no i'm only talking about my interpretation and no one elses, based on the
      evidence i have seen, especially in astronomy. for instance, given the
      thousands of craters seen on the moon, they would have had to hit the moon
      every other year over history (which there is only ONE known case of anybody
      seeing the moon get struck) if they did not hit all at once, which with any
      educated observation one could tell that is not the case seeing as some
      craters are much more aged than others by extraordinary contrasts. and
      also, what about the light from the stars, even the closest galaxy (the
      Andromeda Galaxy) is two million lightyears away, i have heard some
      creationists say that God simply placed the beams of light to us immediatly
      so as those lengths of time weren't necessary, but in that case the light
      isn't actually the light of the Andromeda Galaxy and therefor, there really
      isn't any way for one to know if it even exists, what would be the point of
      that?

      I have yet to see a
      >case were when one strips away the evolutionary baggage and gets down to
      >the
      >real data that is consistent with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

      and there's your bias, a LITERAL interpretation. if you interpret this
      literally, do you interpret revelation literally, do you really think that
      there are gonna be dragons and human-headed locusts flying around?
      obviously not everything in the Bible is literal, and denying the literal
      truth is not denying the truth.
      >
      >Also unifromitarianism is predicted by the Bible as a view point that will
      >be invented as an excuse to ridicule the Bible:
      >
      >2 Peter 3
      > 3. Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers,
      >walking after their own lusts,
      > 4. And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers
      >fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the
      >creation.
      > 5. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the
      >heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the
      >water:
      > 6. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water,
      >perished:
      >
      >Let me translate this into 21st. century English for you.
      >
      > Verse 3 and 4 sate that men will ridicule the Bible on the false claim
      >of unifromitarianism.
      >
      > Verses 5 and 6 state that they; evolutionists; are will ignorant of
      >the
      >how God created the world and the judged it with a global flood.

      or it be, mr scholar, talking about the people who are using scientific
      theory as an excuse to ignore the divine. i believe in a local flood that
      destroyed earths entire population minus noah and his family, in which case
      one could say that it DID destroy the whole world. however your
      interpretation (remember the words now "whereby the world....perished")
      would imply that the world as planet earth was destroyed. did the planet
      earth perish? from what i can tell, no.
      >
      >----------------------------------------------------------
      >
      > >I cannot however say the same for creationism which more often than not,
      > >seemingly, uses completely unfounded scientific facts and figures.
      >
      >I don't know what you have been reading but it cant be any source I have
      >read.

      You know, I once believed in YEC, and at the time I thought the facts seemed
      pretty accurate to me. but over time, the nagging doubts about it (pleas
      refer to my moon and galaxy things I was talking about earlier) were eased
      when I read a book by Dr. Hugh Ross "The Creator and the Cosmos" which
      helped me to realize that I could believe in the more logical scientific
      theory without comprimising my faith, which I fear is what your actually
      really worried about.
      >
      >Lets see a sample of the bases for evolution:
      >
      >In 1795, James Hutton developed the concept of unifromitarianism. He did so
      >with no scientific bases, What he was trying to do with come up with a way
      >to explain geological formation apart from the Flood referred to in the
      >Bible. He succeeded in fulfilling II Peter 3:3-6

      he succeeded in distorting the natural evidence to use as an excuse for
      atheism. I may suggest you go to www.godandscience.org and read there pages
      on atheist accusations against Christians and the Bible

      >
      >In 1830 Charles Lyell developed what is called the geologic column once
      >again there was no scientific bases for it only his assumptions of long
      >periods and evolution. This "geologic column" can not be found any place
      >compleat except in text books. Even relative depth is not consistent. The
      >fact is that it does not exist in the real world and yet, it is the bases
      >of
      >all old Earth time scales. It is even the vases for determining good and
      >bad
      >radiometric dating results.
      >

      your contridicting yourself there, have YOU looked to see that there wasn't.
      I don't know about you but i've seen the fossils at museums and such and I'm
      pretty sure they know were they got them from.

      >--------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      > >What really bothers me is how Creationists telling these things
      > >often turn evolutionist scientists off from Christianity.
      >
      >Actually is the theory of evolution itself that turns evolutionist
      >scientists off from Christianity. There are several Young Earth
      >creationists
      >who use to be evolutionists. Once they realized that The real evidence
      >supports Genesis, they became interested in Christianity and came to the
      >Lord as savor. I know that Dr. Donald Chittick and Dr. Russell Humphrey fit
      >in to this category.

      there has also been many professed Christians who have turned to Mormonism.

      >
      >I know of no case were an Evolutionist was told that he can believe the
      >Bible and evolution, such person being led to the Lord this way. Perhaps
      >you
      >would like to give an example of this happening.

      I'm sorry I don't have an example (I really don't have many examples of very
      many peoples testimonies anyways) but again, I suggest you take a look at
      "the Creator and the Cosmos" by Dr. Hugh Ross, and tell me he isn't right in
      the Lord.
      >
      >-----------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      > >They remind me of the inquisition that imprisoned Galileo for saying the
      >Earth was round.
      >
      >There is big difference. First off. Galileo was say the Earth orbits the
      >Sun
      >rather than Aristotle's theory that the Sun orbits the Earth. They already
      >knew the Earth was round.

      yes, yes, I know....I couldn't remember what it was at the time and didn't
      feel like checking, my mistake, but either way, it's the same point.


      Note that is was a dogmatic acceptance of
      >Aristotle that Galileo was up against not anything from the Bible. Your
      >analogy is false on face of it.

      actually I can't remember it perfectly but I know they used several passages
      in Psalms and such that seem to state that the earth is stationary. by the
      way, if you're so literal, why don't you believe that?
      >
      >---------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      > >See http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-100a.htm for a very good example of
      >what I'm saying.
      >
      >This is just sincere criticism of Old Earthers.

      but whats wrong with Old Earthers, if we're bringing people to Christ, we're
      doing our job. remember what Jesus said about a kingdom divided against
      itself?

      If you think this was any
      >thing like the Catholic inquisitions you must be ignorant of what they were
      >really like.

      your right, I am ignorant. I am not Roman Catholic have no interrest in them
      whatsoever, it was just an analogy trying to show how you guys are so
      fixated with YOUR interpretation that you try to prove to everybody that
      your right and forget about what you we're really commanded.

      It sound like a typical Ad Hominem argument, you can beat the
      >opposition so start using insults.

      it is impossible for you to tell the basis of anothers argument.

      >
      >--- Charles Creager Jr
      >
      >
      >




      _________________________________________________________________
      Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
    • watk082@aol.com
      I m not sure how this verse shows that there was no death for plants or animals prior to the Fall. If you take the creation account to be six, twenty-four hour
      Message 50 of 50 , Jan 3, 2002
        I'm not sure how this verse shows that there was no death for plants or
        animals prior to the Fall.

        If you take the creation account to be six, twenty-four hour days, then how
        did plants survive before the sun was created?

        THE BIBLICAL DEFINITION OF LIFE REQUIRES BLOOD. SEE GENESIS 9:4,LEV.
        17:13-14,DEUT. 12:23

        NO WHERE IN THE GENESIS ACCOUNT DID GOD CALL PLANTS LIVING,ONLY MAN AND
        ANIMALS DID HE REFER TO AS LIVING. SEE GENESIS 1:11-12,20-28,

        IN GENESIS 1:29-30 GOD GIVES MAN THE PLANTS FOR FOOD,AGAIN NOT REFERING TO
        THEM AS LIVING.

        AS FOR THE SUN AND PLANTS ISSUE SEE GENESIS 1:3 -LIGHT WAS CREATED BEFORE THE
        SUN -I BELIEVE THAT GOD IS OMNIPOTENT AND CAN DO AS HE PLEASES -IN THE BIBLE
        HE TELLS US WHAT HE DID. WE STUDY SCIENCE TO HELP US UNDERSTAND HIS CREATION
        AND HOW HE DID THINGS NOT TO TRY TO LOCK HIM UP AND QUESTION THE POSSIBILITY
        OF WHAT HE DIDI WHEN IT IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIS.THE FACT REMAINS ALL THAT
        EXISTS IS HERE.GOD DID CREATE IT .IT IS REAL.



        Although it is possible for all animals to have been plant-eaters, when you
        consider the insects and microbes, there must have been death….


        ALL ANIMALS WERE PLANT EATERS SEE GENESIS 1:29-30.
        PLANTS DID NOT HAVE THORNS AND THISTLES PRIOR TO THE FALL-SEE GENESIS 3:18.
        IF THE GENETIC INFORMATION WAS PRESENT FOR SUCH THINS AS THIS IS IT NOT
        POSSIBLE FOR THE MICROBES ,ETC.

        The last time I checked, "good hades" and "goshdarn" were not
        proffanity


        CHECK WITH A DICTIONARY OF SLANG YOU WILL FIND THE SECOND WORD IS A POLITE
        WAY OF SAYING G-DAMN. UNACCEPTABLE AND THE BIBLE SPEAKS OF VAIN WORDS BEING
        USED IS WRONG.

        JOHN WATKINS
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.