YE Intimidation

Do you really believe that's a negative thing?
Both evolution and (7day) creationism are theories (however contadictory that may sound to you) that deserve to be paid attention to and discussed.
In the United States, where the population has been predominantly Christian in the past, it's reasonable that the theory of creation would be most often taught. Evolutionists, although in the minority, have somehow managed to change that. It's not that unreasonable or suprising to you that creationism isn't remaining in the back seat comfortably, is it?
Believers are speaking out. Praise God!

 

Most Christians condemn evolutionism being taught because it most commonly ignores or outright contradicts the word of God.

Yet it is in the textbooks of every public school I know, textbooks which are required use. It was taught to me in school and it was introduced to my children in school in various contexts, both formal and casual. That isn't exactly "vague".

Name 4 schools that require creationism to be introduced.

The theory is given in the word of God.
As a Christian, I assume that you believe in the truth of the Bible. Most followers of Christ believe in the infallibility of the Bible, despite difficulties in coordinating a number of the teachings in it with research. The biggest one that comes to mind is the rising of Christ after His death and burial. You believe in this despite evidences that show the human body to be incapable of physical life after death. Yet you will claim this to be the truth to your last breath despite the mounds of scientific evidence stating the impossibility of such an occurrence.
That takes a giant leap of faith, yet you seem to stumble on less miraculous words such as the following:
GEN 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

EX 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

EX 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Perhaps you have evidence that shows the Bible is not trustworthy? Perhaps you can share with us reasons why we should believe one part of the Bible and deny another?

Creation can handle it quite well. How does your theory handle it? A flat world? "Precise" measurements of unproven matter? It's all in perfect harmony if you get the majority to agree that it is, right?


tachyons

 

One either trusts God, or man; each must make his own choice!

All the scientific rambling doesn't change the fact that God said "IN SIX DAYS----", and man says "IN SIX BILLION YEARS, (or whatever)---"!

So the choice is obvious; God or man!

 

You said: If there is a conflict it is because we may not fully understands God's revelation to us.

Allow me to rephrase that in a more truthful manner:If there is a conflict it MAY be because we have misunderstood God's revelation to us.
What exactly is your reasoning for firmly believing it is a false interpretation of the Bible to believe that God meant he created the heavens and the earth in six literal days, divided by morning and evening, when he said he created the heavens and the earth in six days divided by morning and evening?
What is the proper interpretation of this in your opinion? Why, in the face of scientific study do you believe it improbable, but do not question the rising of Christ in the face of scientific study that makes it, also, an improbability?
How can you pick and choose which parts of the Bible you will take and face value and which parts you will not?

The Bible and nature present us with facts. There is a way to explain our observations of creation and based on what the Bible says it is most logical for a believer to assume that our analysis of our observations are being interpreted falsely. It is logical to start a study with what we know. The Bible is just that.
What exactly ARE YE's promoting? How can much of anything be promoted when NEPS (non-evolution persuasion studiers, or perhaps FDR's...funding deprived researchers resulting in subsequent FDR's to science...fundie deprived revelations, pronounce that fudder fudder) are all but shunned from access to research centers, the ability to publish information and findings, etc.? (I half expect creation science to be re-named the bootleg theory, with secret meetings and writings passed onto other researchers in code) What is the reasoning for this, especially when it involves fellow Christians? It seems only reasonable that such would deeply desire to find compatability between the Bible and science, yet those calling themselves Christian evolutionists appear to resist that attempt with everything in their power.
Why?

A basic definition and expectation of those who call themselves Christian are those that believe in the Word of God as truth and in turn have dedicated their lives to the attempt to tell others of Christ, both through their words and through their everyday lives manifesting the love of Christ that others may see it and desire it.

I don't find it strange that one would question interpretations and meaning of scriptures, neither do I believe that all evolutionists are unsaved. However, I seriously question their intentions as I have yet to meet an evolutionist who attempts to prove himself wrong despite Biblical evidences contrary to the evolutionist beliefs. Many admit that they believe the scriptures aren't interpreted correctly, none have given a logical and reasonable explanation of the correct interpretation.
I honestly cannot understand believing in one scientific impossibility and discarding the next when both have equal contraindications!

On evolution in schools you stated:

The HORROR!
Does it need to be taught so outright when it is so embedded in everything else? Where it is not outright announced it is implied. Young children grow up with storybooks, television shows, magazines, and books that confidently teach the evolution of man, of animals, of formations that occurred millions of years ago. They go to school and it is reinforced in their history, science, biology, and even math books. They follow up at universities where any other theory is treated as childhood whimsy or country bumpkin amusements.

I'm stunned to hear this from a fellow believer. How can you separate our "religion" from fact? It is not only spiritual, the belief system of the Christian assumes...no, requires application also to the physical. It permeates every part of our lives, unable to be separated from any aspect of it. Evolution itself is most often associated with atheism. I could just as justifiably say that it is a "religious" belief that has no place in our public schools.

There is a grain of truth to that. Much of it depends on what part of the country you are in, and is often not without it's consequences and is rarely taught with anymore specifics and certainly most often with more vagueness than is evolution.

Already addressed, but as for faith in things unseen, there is just as much observed and studied in the medical field, with much more accurate and provable theories, than is seen for evidences of evolution. If one must start with science, as you have implied, then one must admit that there is even less evidence and possibility of the resurrection than there is (in your opinion) of a six day creation.
What made you choose to have faith in one and doubt for the other?

We also have humans and death to examine. How does it make it a different situation?
How God created is written into the Bible, what God created is seen in nature. We have yet to figure out the details, but research, despite attempts of evolutionists to curtail it, has and is being done. I'm sure you are more than aware of the work that is being done, as you have been involved in discussions with those attempting to defend creation over evolution, even on this board.

Explain why it isn't a dilemma. If I have a problem reconciling your take on things and am in need of an explanation, it is indeed a dilemma.

On the trustworthiness of the Bible being questioned you stated:

How can it be trustworthy if it makes a plain and simple statement about creation that is not true or able to be interpreted? How do we know what else is being interpreted wrong or what we should question? Illogical and unexplainable events happen throughout it, yet we accept them mostly without question.

I had meant to link the word to a page and then reference it with another which I ended up not being able to find at that moment, must have forgotten to delete the word when I erased the end of the post. Sorry.
Inflation is an assumption based on assumptions that make the CMB fit into the theory of evolution. CMB and the stretching of the heavens go hand in hand, while inflation will have the universe eventually collapsing. As far as predictions I have none but simply watch with interest as it all unfolds.
Flat/o=1

[/quote]A final question. Or set of questions. You avoided accounting for the geological and biological items I alluded to. Do you think that these observations are accurate?

If they are not, what is wrong with the observations?
If they are accurate, do you have an alternative theory as to why these observations are as we see them that best fits a young earth? [/quote]

The problems with radiometric dating and geological explanations in light of Bible age catastrophes have been discussed on here ad nauseum to no avail.

How do you know what evolution looks like verses an instant creation? Forgive me if you got together with Linde and tested this out in your lab and now know, but I'm assuming you haven't. What do you compare data to for accuracy in dating procedures?

By no means do I find them incompetent, although I do believe they may be persuaded to some degree by such issues as non-belief, the direction of funding, and a reluctance to think outside the box of evolution and be ridiculed, and possibly have their life's work reduced to a joke once they come out of the box.

I do not believe it is a secret conspiracy. What we are seeing is the result of man's attempt to elevate himself, to gain knowledge that comes from the mind instead of the Word. Even the best of Christians can fall victim to this temptation.
Also, you need to explain your interpretation of what defines a Christian. I'm beginning to think we may have a bit of disagreement on that issue.

Define expert.
IMO anyone who starts and ends their study with the evidences and statements given to us in the Bible will be better at figuring out most anything. I do not see evolutionists doing that. Please do explain how evolution is compatible with the Bible.

PS: Apologies for my terribly off sense of humor.

 

Mareese: The problem with your approach is, it has been tried before and failed miserably. When Copornicus and Gallileo were starting to point out it is the rotation of the earth that causes the sun to only appear to rise and set in the sky all the clerics, both protestant and catholic, rose up and defended the literal interpretation of God's word against the upstart opinions of scientists, and that uprising is recorded in history. They were merely attempting to uphold exactly the thing you are attempting to uphold, but with the disasterous results to their reputation that we all know of today.

Why do you wish to repeat their unfortunate history?

 

I find myself irresistably drawn to unfortune, although not in this case.

There is a difference between explaining what is seen in science from a creationist view and ignoring science in order to have a creationist view.

 

NOt sure what you said in that post. Take the case of radioactive decay. Scientests tell us that on the whole, the earth shows signs of accumulating 4.5 billion years of radioactive decay isotopes.

I take this as evidence the earth is 4.5 billion years old. How do you take that?

 

4.5 billion years atomically is definitely not the same as 4.5 billion years dynamically.

 

evidence that the two different time scales run at different rates was given by Van Flandern when he was working for the US Naval Observatory. National Bureau of Standards US, Special Publication 617, 1984.

The fact that atomic and dynamical time have different run rates has been known for some time now.