Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 199

Thread: Question ...

  1. #21
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Faith
    Christian Bible-based
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,373
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Kbertsche View Post
    This is a common YEC claim, of course. I have two problems with it: 1) it is fundamentally wrong-headed, and 2) it conflicts with Scripture.

    Your claim is wrong-headed in that it makes the a priori assumption of conflict between science and Scripture, pits the two against one another, then discounts general revelation to resolve the perceived conflicts. One could take exactly the same approach between the OT and the NT: the OT was incomplete, providing an imperfect glimpse of truth; the NT is more complete. So whenever we see an apparent conflict between OT and NT, we should just discount what the OT says. But I don't think many Christians (even YECs) would take this position. Instead, we make the a priori assumption of consistency (not conflict) between the OT and the NT, and we seek to interpret both in a way to resolve the conflicts. If we truly believe that God is the author of both general and special revelation, we should take the same approach for perceived conflicts between science and faith.

    Your claim conflicts with Scripture in that it says that general revelation is unclear and misleading. But Paul said otherwise (emphasis mine below):
    Source: Rom 1:19-20, NET


    because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse.

    © Copyright Original Source


    Paul said that God revealed truth through general revelation, and that this truth is revealed plainly and clearly. The reason that people reject this revelation is not related to its clarity, but to man's fallen nature. The problem is with man, not with general revelation. This fallen nature affects man's acceptance of special revelation just as much as it does his acceptance of general revelation.
    With all due respect, you need to cease and desist reading and interpreting things as you want to in order to serve your personal agenda. There is nothing wrong with the General Revelation BUT we see as though through a dark glass -- I had made that point previously. The reason for this is because we are in a fallen state and there is no way around that for now. That is why we should not ever make the mistake of elevating our natural observations and theories based on the General Revelation over what God has revealed to us in the Special Revelation. Yet, that is precisely what TEs/OECs constantly do - Evolution and giga-years invariably 'trump' Genesis. Though that is denied and indignation is expressed, the proof is in the pudding.

    To wit: The Universal Flood account in Genesis 6:9-9:17 is fairly simple and straightforward language. So, what do the vast majority of TEs and OECs believe about that account? How many rescuing hypotheses have they fabricated in order to dismiss the "simple and straightforward" account in Genesis? And all of these shenanigans are aimed primarily at allowing them to retain Evolution and giga-years - Genesis is invariably trumped.

    No, absolutely NOT - I do NOT "assume a conflict between science and Scripture" nor do I "pit the two against each other". What you're doing is attributing to me the typical lying propaganda of TEs and OECs against Biblical Creationists. The same applies to your accusations regarding the OT and NT. We Biblical Creationists uphold a total unified harmony between the OT and NT. The Bible - God's Word - is a single book composed of 66 'sub-books'. It doesn't get any more harmonious than that.

    Jorge
    Last edited by Jorge; 06-20-2016 at 05:37 AM.

  2. #22
    tWebber Sea of red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,762
    Amen (Given)
    281
    Amen (Received)
    1003
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    I am not against ID per se, in that to believe God crated the uinverse is to believe that the universe is designd. But what goes by tends to be more of a 'God of the gaps' approach that looks for constructs that can't be explained with current theory, or that, based on current and necessarily crude assessments of probabilities appear naturally impossible. This kind of approach has failed over and over again and tends to assume God's original design was insufficient to become what He intended without explicite intervention - an assumption that may not be true.

    And to be specific to the ID that is typically opposed, it's ideas have been shown to be flawed, and in some cases such as the attempts to change the definition of science, intrinsically hostile to good science.

    Personally however, I am very much against the sort of witch hunt mentality that want to disallow any discussion of ID concepts in a classroom.


    Jim
    There's really no 'witch hunt' when it comes to ID.

    Opponents of ID simply want to preserve the foundations of science and not redefine it in the name of a metaphysical concept.

    ID proponents didn't advocate their ideas being taught in a philosophy class room, they advocated them being taught in a science class room - which is a different game, with different rules. If they had wanted to be in a philosophy class of some kind nobody would have objected or cared. But in science there is a specific methodology that has to be in an idea for it be considered scientific at all. Any idea in science from Newtonian mechanics, Relativity, Cell theory, Atomic theory, and every other idea in it's history had to pay it's dues by winning the community of scholars. ID/Creationism has not done that, and so allowing it to be taught in a science class room is to introduce something totally alien to it's principles.

    That's not a witch hunt, that's standing up for education.
    Last edited by Sea of red; 06-20-2016 at 05:43 AM.

  3. Amen Wally amen'd this post.
  4. #23
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,423
    Amen (Given)
    91
    Amen (Received)
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by Kbertsche View Post
    Paul said that God revealed truth through general revelation, and that this truth is revealed plainly and clearly.
    vs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge View Post
    There is nothing wrong with the General Revelation BUT we see as though through a dark glass -- I had made that point previously.
    So, which is it?

  5. #24
    tWebber HMS_Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Thinking
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,080
    Amen (Given)
    58
    Amen (Received)
    455
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge View Post
    ................... ......... IGNORED on the grounds of stupidity and intellectual dishonesty! .......

    Jorge
    Just to clarify: Roy's post was ignored because of Jorge's stupidity and intellectual dishonesty.

    You're welcome.

  6. Amen Roy amen'd this post.
  7. #25
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Faith
    Christian Bible-based
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,373
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Sea of red View Post
    There's really no 'witch hunt' when it comes to ID.

    Opponents of ID simply want to preserve the foundations of science and not redefine it in the name of a metaphysical concept.

    ID proponents didn't advocate their ideas being taught in a philosophy class room, they advocated them being taught in a science class room - which is a different game, with different rules. If they had wanted to be in a philosophy class of some kind nobody would have objected or cared. But in science there is a specific methodology that has to be in an idea for it be considered scientific at all. Any idea in science from Newtonian mechanics, Relativity, Cell theory, Atomic theory, and every other idea in it's history had to pay it's dues by winning the community of scholars. ID/Creationism has not done that, and so allowing it to be taught in a science class room is to introduce something totally alien to it's principles.

    That's not a witch hunt, that's standing up for education.
    Not that I expect for you to understand and/or accept what I'm about to write but that's okay, others will.

    It IS a witch hunt and it's one of the worst kinds because it is hypocritical. You say that you do not want science redefined in the name of a metaphysical concept YET THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT YOU PEOPLE HAVE DONE AND CONTINUE TO DO!!!

    Materialism - as anyone that has taken Philosophy 101 knows - is a metaphysical stance incapable of ever being empirically proven. Furthermore, there is a huge amount of evidence that does not support Materialism.

    All that said and known, how do you people define science? As we all know, you define it solely as if Materialism were a proven fact, namely, that mass, energy and physical laws are able to explain and account for everything: life, consciousness, emotions, ... everything!

    Then, you shamelessly take that METAPHYSIC, you label it "science", and then force-ram it down everyone's throat in the name of "education".

    To top things off, you employ the blatantly dishonest tactic of keeping everything else out of the "science" classroom so that ONLY your metaphysic remains and does so without being threatened or challenged. Yeah, it's impossible to lose if you have no opposition, right?

    Then, you justify such dishonest actions by saying, "We want to keep only science in the classroom." Yeah, "science" as defined by who? Re-read the above for the answer to that question.

    Go try to bamboozle young, inexperienced children, SeaRed ... ya ain't fooling me.

    Jorge

  8. #26
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Faith
    Christian Bible-based
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,373
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    vs.

    So, which is it?
    Actually, it's both.

    If (IF!) we were not in a Fallen state, we would not be seeing the general revelation as though through a dark glass.
    We would be seeing God's truth plainly and clearly.
    But in our Fallen state we do NOT see anything plainly and clearly.

    IOW, it's not that it isn't plain and clear (it is!); it's that we cannot see it plainly and clearly.

    God does not lie nor does He obfuscate things. We are totally to blame: sin in, clarity out.

    Jorge

  9. #27
    tWebber HMS_Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Thinking
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,080
    Amen (Given)
    58
    Amen (Received)
    455
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge View Post
    Not that I expect for you to understand and/or accept what I'm about to write but that's okay, others will.

    It IS a witch hunt and it's one of the worst kinds because it is hypocritical. You say that you do not want science redefined in the name of a metaphysical concept YET THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT YOU PEOPLE HAVE DONE AND CONTINUE TO DO!!!

    Materialism - as anyone that has taken Philosophy 101 knows - is a metaphysical stance incapable of ever being empirically proven. Furthermore, there is a huge amount of evidence that does not support Materialism.

    All that said and known, how do you people define science? As we all know, you define it solely as if Materialism were a proven fact, namely, that mass, energy and physical laws are able to explain and account for everything: life, consciousness, emotions, ... everything!

    Then, you shamelessly take that METAPHYSIC, you label it "science", and then force-ram it down everyone's throat in the name of "education".

    To top things off, you employ the blatantly dishonest tactic of keeping everything else out of the "science" classroom so that ONLY your metaphysic remains and does so without being threatened or challenged. Yeah, it's impossible to lose if you have no opposition, right?

    Then, you justify such dishonest actions by saying, "We want to keep only science in the classroom." Yeah, "science" as defined by who? Re-read the above for the answer to that question.

    Go try to bamboozle young, inexperienced children, SeaRed ... ya ain't fooling me.

    Jorge
    You could end the whole discussion by providing one verified instance of supernatural intervention anywhere in the physical, material world. But alas, you can't.

  10. #28
    tWebber HMS_Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Thinking
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,080
    Amen (Given)
    58
    Amen (Received)
    455
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge View Post
    Materialism - as anyone that has taken Philosophy 101 knows - is a metaphysical stance incapable of ever being empirically proven. Furthermore, there is a huge amount of evidence that does not support Materialism.
    Let me guess - you keep all that evidene in the same vault you keep your evidence for a 6000 year old earth and a literal Noah's Flood.

    All that said and known, how do you people define science? As we all know, you define it solely as if Materialism were a proven fact, namely, that mass, energy and physical laws are able to explain and account for everything: life, consciousness, emotions, ... everything!

    Then, you shamelessly take that METAPHYSIC, you label it "science", and then force-ram it down everyone's throat in the name of "education".

    To top things off, you employ the blatantly dishonest tactic of keeping everything else out of the "science" classroom so that ONLY your metaphysic remains and does so without being threatened or challenged. Yeah, it's impossible to lose if you have no opposition, right?

    Then, you justify such dishonest actions by saying, "We want to keep only science in the classroom." Yeah, "science" as defined by who? Re-read the above for the answer to that question.
    I'd be quite interested to hear how we'd do science if we had to allow for the undetectable intervention of a supernatural entity every time we did a scientific experiment. Let's hear your methodology.

  11. #29
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,050
    Amen (Given)
    464
    Amen (Received)
    1817
    Quote Originally Posted by Sea of red View Post
    There's really no 'witch hunt' when it comes to ID.

    Opponents of ID simply want to preserve the foundations of science and not redefine it in the name of a metaphysical concept.

    ID proponents didn't advocate their ideas being taught in a philosophy class room, they advocated them being taught in a science class room - which is a different game, with different rules. If they had wanted to be in a philosophy class of some kind nobody would have objected or cared. But in science there is a specific methodology that has to be in an idea for it be considered scientific at all. Any idea in science from Newtonian mechanics, Relativity, Cell theory, Atomic theory, and every other idea in it's history had to pay it's dues by winning the community of scholars. ID/Creationism has not done that, and so allowing it to be taught in a science class room is to introduce something totally alien to it's principles.

    That's not a witch hunt, that's standing up for education.
    Not really. There have been cases where a teacher discussed ID because students were specifically curious, asking questions. There is at least one case I remember (but not the specifics) where a teacher was using ID as an example of pseudo-science and discussing it from that standpoint and he/she was STILL fried up for dinner. That is the kind of thing I consider 'witch hunt'. When an idea is actually censored, it can't even be discussed to show what is wrong with it or its current implementation. Or what would be required for it to be a legitimate idea, such as our discussion here.

    I remember being in high school and we discussed a lot of ideas because we were curious as students and it was interesting and useful to be able to banter about ideas and discuss their merit. It seems that is no longer an acceptable activity - and I consider it a loss.

    Jim
    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

  12. #30
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,050
    Amen (Given)
    464
    Amen (Received)
    1817
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge View Post
    With all due respect, you need to cease and desist reading and interpreting things as you want to in order to serve your personal agenda. There is nothing wrong with the General Revelation BUT we see as though through a dark glass -- I had made that point previously. The reason for this is because we are in a fallen state and there is no way around that for now. That is why we should not ever make the mistake of elevating our natural observations and theories based on the General Revelation over what God has revealed to us in the Special Revelation. Yet, that is precisely what TEs/OECs constantly do - Evolution and giga-years invariably 'trump' Genesis. Though that is denied and indignation is expressed, the proof is in the pudding.

    To wit: The Universal Flood account in Genesis 6:9-9:17 is fairly simple and straightforward language. So, what do the vast majority of TEs and OECs believe about that account? How many rescuing hypotheses have they fabricated in order to dismiss the "simple and straightforward" account in Genesis? And all of these shenanigans are aimed primarily at allowing them to retain Evolution and giga-years - Genesis is invariably trumped.

    No, absolutely NOT - I do NOT "assume a conflict between science and Scripture" nor do I "pit the two against each other". What you're doing is attributing to me the typical lying propaganda of TEs and OECs against Biblical Creationists. The same applies to your accusations regarding the OT and NT. We Biblical Creationists uphold a total unified harmony between the OT and NT. The Bible - God's Word - is a single book composed of 66 'sub-books'. It doesn't get any more harmonious than that.

    Jorge
    The most dishonest thing you do Jorge is to over and over again denigrate the individuals trying to have a conversation with you. Whenever you have a disagreement, you almost always (if not always) say something derogatory about their motives. And you consistently, over and over again, try to make the case that the ONLY reason you and they disagree is because THEY are being dishonest and motivated by something other than a desire to understand and know the truth.

    It's really a low blow tactic, and says a very great deal about your character. A character that could not figure out that diploma mill degree wouldn't be worth the paper it was printed on. A character that can stand behind a paper on Asteroid impacts that you know is not legit. And a character that would make a bet and then welch on it. And yet you constantly try to foist your own miserably low character onto those around you. Over and over again.


    Jim
    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

  13. Amen HMS_Beagle, Roy, Wally amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •