Dr. Shane Posted June 29, 2005 Author Posted June 29, 2005 I doubt I can tell you anything you have not already rejected. Since you have choosen to reject truth, why will repeating that truth make any difference? Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity
bevin Posted June 29, 2005 Posted June 29, 2005 Quote: I doubt I can tell you anything you have not already rejected. Either (a) you will tell me something I have already rejected, and I will explain why I have rejected it, and then you might learn something or ( you will tell me something I have not already rejected, and I will learn something Neither outcome is bad. What experiment do you wish to use as your instance? /Bevin Quote
Dr. Shane Posted June 29, 2005 Author Posted June 29, 2005 I know when to dust off my shoes and move on. If God is going to use someone to bring you to the truth it is going to be someone else. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity
bevin Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 To reiterate: You remind me of other conservative short-age SDA I have talked to about this issue. They keep telling me that the solid explanations exist, but they can never actually produce one. Bye /Bevin Quote
Robert Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 Quote: bevin said: To reiterate: You remind me of other conservative short-age SDA I have talked to about this issue. They keep telling me that the solid explanations exist, but they can never actually produce one. Bye And I wonder why you keep questioning what the Bible states? It seems you desire to make your mind the litmus test for truth concerning creation....Why place doubt in the Bible unless you desire to draw off disciples unto yourself!?! Rob Quote
Nicodema Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 []http://nicodema.adventist.ws/images/story20050630.gif[/] Lighten up, people. Quote "After such knowledge, what forgiveness?" -- T.S. Eliot
Ron Lambert Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 When people claim that science and belief in a Creator have to be kept in separate compartments of their minds, I think they ignore the historical fact that the scientific method was first invented by scientists back in the days when all scientists still believed in divine creation, and they did so because it was faith in God that enabled them to believe that the universe could be counted on to function according to laws that worked reliably, so that you could expect to get consistent, repeatable results from experiments. It was no trouble for creationist scientists to believe in an orderly universe, where natural laws always worked the same; faith in God led to that very expectation. What is a mystery to me is how those who cast God aside and refuse to include Him in their "science" can believe that physical laws are reliable and consistent, and not fear that the whole nature of reality and all its laws could drastically change in the next instant. If you do not believe in a Lawgiver, or Enforcer of natural law, how can you have faith in the scientific method? Just because experiments have always been repeatable before, does not necessarily mean they will be tomorrow, if you do not believe in God. The universe itself is not, and cannot be, God. So you cannot say physical laws will remain the same just because that is how the universe is. Quote
bevin Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 Quote: What is a mystery to me is how those who cast God aside and refuse to include Him in their "science" can believe that physical laws are reliable and consistent, and not fear that the whole nature of reality and all its laws could drastically change in the next instant. With or without God, the question is the same - because God could change the laws (and indeed does - miracles). The answer is easy. My personal experience says that this doesn't happen often enough to be a major concern to me. It is not a question of belief, simply an empirical thing that I will - if the evidence requires - ditch without hesitation. If, for instance, the earth instantly and for no obvious reason, started going the opposite way around the sun - it would just be a curious fact for me to toy with. /Bevin Quote
Robert Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 False assumption: “Yes, it’s a classic, yet tragic, example of evolution through natural selection.” Your point is moot! Again, why do you guys as Christians question the Bibical account of creation? Answer: Ego.... Quote
Robert Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 Quote: it would just be a curious fact for me to toy with. And that's all you're doing with evolution...toying....You are playing with concepts to big for humanities' limited intelligence. I find it ironic that Christians buy into evolution and yet believe in God simultaneously. Can you prove He exists or do you take the Bible's word for it? If the latter then why question creation? Quote
bevin Posted July 1, 2005 Posted July 1, 2005 Quote: Can you prove He exists or do you take the Bible's word for it? Neither. I have no emotional need for certainty - I am much happier knowing and admitting that some things are uncertain. However I do need consistency. I can not accept that some very consistent-with-the-facts theory is wrong just because some people interpret some ancient literature in a manner that disagrees with the facts. /Bevin Quote
NormF Posted July 1, 2005 Posted July 1, 2005 </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr /> Again, why do you guys as Christians question the Bibical account of creation? Answer: Ego.... <hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> This looks to be a pretty fair example of a logical fallacy called mindreading. Regards, Norm Quote Debile fundamentum, fallit opus. - "Where there is a weak foundation, the work falls."
NormF Posted July 2, 2005 Posted July 2, 2005 </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr /> I find it ironic that Christians buy into evolution and yet believe in God simultaneously. Can you prove He exists or do you take the Bible's word for it? If the latter then why question creation? <hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> Under the circumstances you've set up, your sense of irony is understandable, though I believe misplaced. For many, the question of creation is more nearly how than if. Not everyone who disagrees with a literalist interpretation of Genesis throws God out of it. Many also believe that such an exclusivistic construct regarding God's existence is malapropos within this frame of reference. None of these things are subject to empirical proof. Therefore, such conclusions aren't really adapted to the questions found in the larger picture. Quote Debile fundamentum, fallit opus. - "Where there is a weak foundation, the work falls."
Robert Posted July 2, 2005 Posted July 2, 2005 Quote: bevin said: I have no emotional need for certainty - I am much happier knowing and admitting that some things are uncertain. However I do need consistency. I can not accept that some very consistent-with-the-facts theory is wrong just because some people interpret some ancient literature in a manner that disagrees with the facts. /Bevin Huh...that's double talk! You can't accept "creation" because of so called evolutionary facts...but you can accept "God" with no proof? You funny man.... Rob Quote
Robert Posted July 2, 2005 Posted July 2, 2005 Quote: NormF said: Quote: Again, why do you guys as Christians question the Bibical account of creation? Answer: Ego.... This looks to be a pretty fair example of a logical fallacy called mindreading. Regards, Norm No mind reading, just a simply sinful human trait! In a nutshell God must be wrong; I suspect you guys will set Him straight? Quote
Robert Posted July 2, 2005 Posted July 2, 2005 Quote: Not everyone who disagrees with a literalist interpretation of Genesis throws God out of it. "Literalist"? 2 Tim 2:13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. [Paul] Maybe it should read, "For it was Adam who evolved first, and then Eve"? No, Paul states that Adam was created...something you can't explain. Creation is another subject you can't explain...so why try? Before you try to explain the big things in life, try explaining how a simple apple seed becomes an apple tree. That seed is much more powerful than any microprocessor. Sure you can talk of photosynthesis...you can talk of the soil and its nutrients, but explaining how the seed "knows" how to produce an apple tree that will adapt to just about any environment is beyond your capability. Hence why should I listen to you on bigger issues? I shouldn't! Rob Quote
Robert Posted July 2, 2005 Posted July 2, 2005 Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And do not lean on your own understanding. 6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight. 7 [:"red"]Do not be wise in your own eyes....[/] "Human inventions, called education, have been counterworking the infinite counsels of Heaven. This is called higher education; but it is an insult to God." [3MR 321] "To learn science through human interpretation alone is to obtain a false education....The confusion in education has come because the wisdom and knowledge of God have not been exalted." [CG 293] Quote
Ron Lambert Posted July 2, 2005 Posted July 2, 2005 If God exists, then He is a part of reality. Can a scientist be a true scientist if he arbitrarily chooses to ignore a part of reality? Quote
bevin Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 Robert, no-one here is proposing ignoring God. Deciding that the evidence that God has provided through the senses God has provided and reasoned about using the brain has God has provided points to a long-age earth IS NOT the same as discarding God. /Bevin Quote
NormF Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 Robert wrote:</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr /> No mind reading, just a simply sinful human trait! In a nutshell God must be wrong; I suspect you guys will set Him straight? <hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> Sadly, it's true that errors involving the ego are a human failing. Used in this fashion though, that's: A) an over-generalization, and it's claiming to know the what, why, and how of the thinking of all members of a category, which is, by definition, mind reading. Sorry, repetition and denial doesn't change anything. As for the Deity, I have grave doubts that either of us will set Him straight. And there is reason to believe that the time is coming when, instead, we will be the recipients of His uncurling. For my part, the idea could be rather agreeable, and I'm looking forward to it. Regards, Norm Quote Debile fundamentum, fallit opus. - "Where there is a weak foundation, the work falls."
NormF Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 Ron Lambert wrote:</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr /> If God exists, then He is a part of reality. Can a scientist be a true scientist if he arbitrarily chooses to ignore a part of reality? <hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> Probably not. He may be at the least shorting the fullness of his humanity if he is denying his own spiritual nature. But let me ask you a question: If the natural world/universe is a part of God's doings, can a believer safely disavow it's true dimensions, asserting that he will only accept the Bible? Regards, Norm Quote Debile fundamentum, fallit opus. - "Where there is a weak foundation, the work falls."
Robert Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 Quote: NormF said: Sadly, it's true that errors involving the ego are a human failing. Used in this fashion though, that's: A) an over-generalization.... Of course in your mind it's an overgeneralization, but the Bible doesn't agree with your poor argument: Is. 1:5 "The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. 6 From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it" And in Ps. 58:3 David states that "The wicked are estranged from the womb: They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies." We are born self-seeking and because of our natural love of self "we have turned every one to his own way." [isaiah 53:6] We have been infected by Lucifer's principle of "self"! What was his problem? "For thou hast said in thine heart [the seat of desires], I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God. [is. 14:13] We are born in unbelief...Paul calls this "heart" problem "the deceitfulness of sin". Here's the context: Take care, brethren, lest there should be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart, in falling away from the living God. But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called “Today,” [:"red"]lest any one of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin[/]. For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end. [Hebrews 3:12-14] I'll close my "preaching to the choir" with this warning from EGW: Man's great danger is in being self-deceived, indulging self-sufficiency, and thus separating from God, the source of his strength [both mentally and physically]. Our natural tendencies, unless corrected by the Holy Spirit of God, have in them the seeds of moral death. Unless we become vitally connected with God, we cannot resist the unhallowed effects of self-indulgence, self-love, and temptation to sin. Quote
Ron Lambert Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 NormF asked: Quote: If the natural world/universe is a part of God's doings, can a believer safely disavow it's true dimensions, asserting that he will only accept the Bible? That word "true" is loaded with the presupposition that the conclusions reached through naturalistic science are soundly reasoned from a correct analysis of all the evidence. This is very much in dispute. God tells us He created the earth in seven literal days. The Bible does not tell us how old the physical earth or the pre-existing universe are, and it certainly does not indicate how big the universe is. Young earth, young universe Creationists have come upon quite a few evidences and reasonable arguments that indicate the universe need not be as old as naturalistic, evolutionist, gradualists assert that they are. They do not claim the universe need be any smaller than the other side postulates; rather, they believe that the size does not prove it is vastly old. They have answers to the speed of light argument, backed up by experimental evidence. There are solid, experimentally verifiable contradictions to all the key basis assumptions made by the naturalistic (etc.); and there is experimentally verifiable evidence that supports the young earth/young universe paradigm. The quality of science on the YEYU side is not the least bit inferior to the quality of science of the old earth, old universe side. The only difference is the latter is considered mainstream by a large majority who are wedded to the cherished traditions of a science that did originate in a desire to deny God's existence or involvement with the universe. Once this majority view changes (and many people will be shocked to see how easily the majority will be led to do a complete 180 degree turnaround), the YEYU Creationists will be seen as just as respectable genuine, "true" scientists as the dissembling agnostics are now. But you will have to wait for a short process of time for this prophecy to be fulfilled (it is based, as I have said previously, on Daniel 11:40). I suggest you familiarize yourself with the fine and growing body of scientific theory and research in evidence in the publications of the Creation Research Society, including the peer-reviewed CRS Quarterly and the monthly Creation Matters Newsletter. These are organizations that are truly in the forefront of upholding Creationism presently, since too many professonal Adventists have chosen to let the torch trail in the dust with their unnecessary compromises. Quote
bevin Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 Quote: The quality of science on the YEYU side is not the least bit inferior to the quality of science of the old earth, old universe side. There is a huge difference between doing good science, and having a good theory. Yes, there are some scientists who are in the all-life-on-earth-is-recent scbool (nobody cares about the age of the universe - that is a red herring) who are doing good science. They are producing miniscule advances, and not getting any closer to (a) explaining any of the observations I gave in the Origins forum, or ( finding any cracks in the theory of evolution. The truth is the theory of evolution has more experiments, and results, and explanations for observations now than it ever has in the past. Every year for the last 150 years the theory has been getting stronger. All the extra scientific instruments and measurements and ideas have all resulted in strengthening it and improving it. If it was wrong, one would have expected that 150 years of banging on it would have produced at least one significant crack. Your specific example, the Creation Reseach Society, can be easily tested by looking at http://www.crsq.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_02_rp.pdf There they repeat several utterly bogus arguments, including the "life begets life" nonsense. You can also see the nonsense "decay of the earth's magnetic field" argument in this publication. http://www.crsq.org/creation_matters/pdf/1999/young_world2_rp.PDF These people are charlatans. This is not good science, it is bad nonsense. Peer-review does not guarantee quality if the peers are badly selected. It is no different to having a jury of drug-addicts for a drug trial. /Bevin Quote
Robert Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 Quote: bevin said: . If it was wrong... [edit - saying that those who disagree with you are doing Satan's work is inappropriate] Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.