User Panel
Quoted: It's funny, no one really questions their perception of things as maybe fallible. So, an old looking earth, perception, is proof that materialism is true or God is trying to deceive us. View Quote Uh huh. Who are you going to believe? Your own lying eyes or Allah's true word? Stop studying nature... all you need to know about nature is in the Koran. I mean, Bible. |
|
Quoted: So you did understand his points? If I look up confirmation for my flat earth belief on pro flat earth websites I'm likely to get it correct? View Quote Flat earthism isn't generally accepted in the church at large, it never really was. Some brethren believe it, I disagree with them, and would argue against that. Again, we all have bias, none of is absolutely objective, some might be closer than others. I know of only one being that is absolutely objective. |
|
Quoted: No, they did not. In fact, none of them probably even considered the concept of YEC. That concept is very recent. View Quote |
|
Quoted: Was sure, that why the question, I was answering your response. Flat earthism isn't generally accepted in the church at large, it never really was. Some brethren believe it, I disagree with them, and would argue against that. Again, we all have bias, none of is absolutely objective, some might be closer than others. I know of only one being that is absolutely objective. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: So you did understand his points? If I look up confirmation for my flat earth belief on pro flat earth websites I'm likely to get it correct? Flat earthism isn't generally accepted in the church at large, it never really was. Some brethren believe it, I disagree with them, and would argue against that. Again, we all have bias, none of is absolutely objective, some might be closer than others. I know of only one being that is absolutely objective. Bible mentions flat earth plenty. https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-flat-earth/ Maybe your a flat earther? |
|
I put YEC people in the same category as flat earthers and people who believe in bigfoot.
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted: My point exactly. Scientific theories are falsifiable. As new evidence is discovered, they can be modified to better fit the observed reality. YEC is not falsifiable because, by your own admission, it depends on the infallibility of "the Word of God." No amount of observed reality can modify its teachings because no evidence is considered valid if it might disprove the conclusion. Its a belief system that assigns value to evidence only if it agrees with the pre-selected conclusion. In other word, its a belief that relies on faith and cannot be swayed by evidence. I YEC likes to pretend to be science but it almost instantly reveals itself as an article of faith when put to any kind of scrutiny. View Quote |
|
|
|
Quoted: It's come to the forefront today because of all the attacks on Genesis as history and the encroachment of evolution into the church, but it was actually just the way scientist thought back then, it wasn't a big issue then, like it is today. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: No, they did not. In fact, none of them probably even considered the concept of YEC. That concept is very recent. You keep saying that, but it's simply not true. |
|
Quoted: Bible mentions flat earth plenty. https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-flat-earth/ Maybe your a flat earther? View Quote |
|
|
Quoted: Some things in the bible are to be taken literally, some not. Context is important. The bible says the "sun rose". Some did think that that meant the earth was at the center of the universe, many didn't. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Bible mentions flat earth plenty. https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-flat-earth/ Maybe your a flat earther? Oh, so some things are not to be taken literally and some are. Like a six day creation? Like a 6 to 10 thousand year timeline? How are you so wise that you can tell literal from not? Hmmmmm. |
|
Quoted: It was important to Jesus, He quoted Genesis as history. And believe it or not revealed Genesis to Moses. View Quote We are arguing interpretations of text, not whether it was said. Most would say that the events of Revelation are largely figurative, and yet those people are not deemed heretics. If it’s not an issue of salvation, it’s really not worth fighting over. We have enough trouble with that, what with LGBTQ ideology infecting the church, distortions of the gospel, etc. |
|
|
Quoted: Uh, yeah, huge swaths of academia are wrong about a WHOLE lot of things. The telescopes are machines, they aren't particularly right or wrong, pretty much everyone, creationist/non-creationist is using the same facts, it's ALL in the interpretation of those facts...that's the issue. My old book, says, Thou shalt not murder, is it right about that? I believe God rather than fallible and fallen men. Maybe the article isn't for you. View Quote Wow... lol |
|
|
|
Quoted: Maybe the Earth is young and flat? Maybe it's banana shaped? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/137867/main-qimg-c2652ad8032790119c9c05536f0b56-2993374.JPG View Quote I welcome our #BananaEarf Overlords. |
|
Quoted: I think young earth creationism is ridiculous. View Quote I happen to agree. Now, having said that here is the deal. I strongly believe that the earth IS much older than five thousand years and some change. There is definitely a evolutionary process. Anyone who says there's not is someone who is not paying attention to the process. In my belief system the earth is younger that 4.5 billion years old. Possibly only as old as several million years or so. As a Christian individual, I know it takes some amount of time for anything to develop. I also agree that there is good science out there and junk. On both sides of the fence. The Christian Bible in no way states according to the scriptures anything definitive about a timeframe about any of this contraversy. In fact, scientifically, there are a few theories out there that are very compelling and realistic about the earth being older than the young earthers might proclaim. Logically speaking, if the earth is young, and in the scheme of things in it's infancy stages, then why would God deceive the creation by making it appear to be much older? Biblically, during the initial "week" of the creation of the world the sun didn't shine on the earth until the forth day and out of the realm of time as we understand it today. Literally, eons and eons of time could have easily passed before man came on the scene in some form that he is in today. I say at least millions and possibly many millions of years old as we continue down it's trek as created by our Creator. The One who knows and understands all things. |
|
Quoted: I am ignorant of where in the bible a straightforward ~complete chronology of the world can be found. Is there a simple case to be made from scripture? (asked in earnest) View Quote It actually does give a pretty detailed genealogical account from Adam through to Jesus. But then you have things like Noah living 950 years and things like calling all Jews children of Isreal... Imho it gets difficult to explain the archeological and geological evidence but then time space breaks down below plank level and God is omnipotent omnipresent and omniscient so he does what he wants. |
|
Quoted: No, that should be taken literally, it's history. You read the article? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Oh, so some things are not to be taken literally and some are. Like a six day creation? Like a 6 to 10 thousand year timeline? How are you so wise that you can tell literal from not? Hmmmmm. The young earth creationism article said young earth creationism is true. I don't need to read the article. That article made you a young earth creationist? Again how can you tell what's literal and what isn't? |
|
I was looking at a road in the mountains recently where about 1 foot of material was washed onto it over the winter, and they needed to bulldoze to repoen it.
Was thinking it would be funny to use YEC logic. If you assume this happens once every 10 years, then it would mean you are eroded 1800 miles down to the mantle in only 100 million years. |
|
Quoted: Yes, the interpretations of YEC can be falsified, but the underlying presuppositions can not be. Anymore than a secular scientist is willing to falsify his materialism/naturalism. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: My point exactly. Scientific theories are falsifiable. As new evidence is discovered, they can be modified to better fit the observed reality. YEC is not falsifiable because, by your own admission, it depends on the infallibility of "the Word of God." No amount of observed reality can modify its teachings because no evidence is considered valid if it might disprove the conclusion. Its a belief system that assigns value to evidence only if it agrees with the pre-selected conclusion. In other word, its a belief that relies on faith and cannot be swayed by evidence. I YEC likes to pretend to be science but it almost instantly reveals itself as an article of faith when put to any kind of scrutiny. It doesn't mean "faking evidence." It's a metric synonymous with verifiable, testable, empirical. |
|
Quoted: Allah, ok? View Quote That's fine. Its a free country. Just please don't gaslight us by pretending your "science" is anything but religious dogma. I mean, you literally just did exactly what I described. You are completely unable to accept any evidence that contradicts your chosen conclusion. Given the notion that physical evidence suggests an old earth... you claim our eyes cannot be trusted. |
|
Quoted: The young earth creationism article said young earth creationism is true. I don't need to read the article. That article made you a young earth creationist? Again how can you tell what's literal and what isn't? View Quote One of the ways we know Genesis is history is how Jesus Himself referred to it. He referred to it as history, as you can imagine that has a lot of pull with me. There are other ways. The way it is written...In the beginning God did this, He did that, it's written in a very matter of fact way. The entire Gospel sits on the foundation of a literal Adam and Eve and their literal fall. There are other ways, but I'm not that good at explaining them, I understand what more learned men are saying, I just can't explain it well. |
|
|
Quoted: You don't understand the term "falsifiability" as an investigative principle. It doesn't mean "faking evidence." It's a metric synonymous with verifiable, testable, empirical. View Quote |
|
Quoted: Some things in the bible are to be taken literally, some not. Context is important. View Quote Exactly... and the context of the Bible is an message delivered to a people did not have, or care about, science in any form. The Bible makes far more sense when this is understood. This is why we can't use the mystical numerology of the ages of the patriarchs to calculate the age of the universe. |
|
For me it’s simple, the Bible is infallible, my understanding is fallible. Things like how old the earth is aren’t worth arguing about and have zero effect on my faith. God didn’t tell us how he made the earth. He’s God, He can make a billion years happen instantly, His ways are beyond our understanding.
|
|
Dogma and science are antithetical, the conflict is inherent. There isn't any inherent conflict with the existence of God though.
It's always seemed to me that the real conflict between Christianity and science has to do with the idea that human sin brought suffering and death into the world. If that's just poetry, then what are y'all saved from? Fundamentalism is always at an advantage in theological discussions, they can just point to the text. |
|
Quoted: Basic astronomy shows the whole concept of young earth is not possible. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/Eagle_nebula_pillars.jpg/1280px-Eagle_nebula_pillars.jpg View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Wow, lol...ok? Academia wants to disarm you, they get that right? Basic astronomy shows the whole concept of young earth is not possible. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/Eagle_nebula_pillars.jpg/1280px-Eagle_nebula_pillars.jpg Very good illustration there. Thank you. |
|
Quoted: That's fine. Its a free country. Just please don't gaslight us by pretending your "science" is anything but religious dogma. I mean, you literally just did exactly what I described. You are completely unable to accept any evidence that contradicts your chosen conclusion. Given the notion that physical evidence suggests an old earth... you claim our eyes cannot be trusted. View Quote |
|
Quoted: You know what's really weird to me...that people would believe we evolved from some chemicals in a pond. Weird. View Quote Attached File They will also get very angry if you say you don't believe you're just highly evolved pond scum. As if the origins of highly evolved pondscum in a purposeless directionless universe matters in the slightest. |
|
Quoted: Basic astronomy shows the whole concept of young earth is not possible. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/Eagle_nebula_pillars.jpg/1280px-Eagle_nebula_pillars.jpg View Quote |
|
Quoted: Then we just don't agree, you read the article? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: You keep saying that, but it's simply not true. Of course not. Creation.com has outright lied many times. Show me an original source, an autobiography or a biography by a reliable source that says "so and so believed the universe was created 6,000 years ago" or just drop it. You're simply wrong. At some point, you're going to step from wrong into deceptive. |
|
I believe man to have been created, along with all living things somewhere around 6,000 years ago. The earth want created then, neither water, Genesis begins with the earth already existing, dark and covered in water
|
|
|
Quoted: Exactly... and the context of the Bible is an message delivered to a people did not have, or care about, science in any form. The Bible makes far more sense when this is understood. This is why we can't use the mystical numerology of the ages of the patriarchs to calculate the age of the universe. View Quote |
|
Quoted: It's always seemed to me that the real conflict between Christianity and science has to do with the idea that human sin brought suffering and death into the world. If that's just poetry, then what are y'all saved from? View Quote Very good question. Human beings are not naturally immortal, only God is (1 Timothy 6:16). Believers are saved from eternal death (annihilation) after the last judgement (Matthew 10:28, Malachi 4:1, 4:3, Isaiah 66:22-24). |
|
Quoted: How do you know they weren't interested in the things they saw and experienced. They aren't "mystical numerologies", they are genealogies. View Quote To ancient man, they were both mystical numerologies and genealogies... numbers weren't just math to them! If you are interested in digging into the topic, here's a good article: https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Hill.pdf |
|
Quoted: The linked article assumes that young earth creationism is what the Bible teaches. In fact, this is a misunderstanding of the Bible. The Bible was written long before the invention of science. It was written to people who knew nothing about science (which did not exist), geology, biology or anything of the sort... and the audience cared nothing about these non-existent fields of study. There is no science in the Bible as a result. Trying to pull scientific information where it does not exist yields absurdities, like saying the earth must be 6,000 years old or so. No one who wrote or read the Bible (in the original audiences) cared about this, nor was the Bible written to address these topics. The Bible as written reflects the worldview of the ancient near east audience, and should be read with this in view to prevent confusion. For example, the seven days of creation have an weird format. Day 1 is creation of light. Three days later is the creation of the sources of light (sun and moon). Day 2 is the creation of the firmament (division between the water and heavens). Three days later is the creation of the sea and air creatures (winged animals). Day 3 is the creation of dry land and plants.... three days later is the creation of land animals and people. Do you catch this pattern? The days of Genesis are not in any kind of chronological order, they are a poetic structure... The creation story is in the form on an ancient poem glorifying God for creating the heavens and the earth, it is not supposed to tell us that light was created before the sun... Young earth creationist torture the bible to try and find science that would have just confused ancient people. If you are interested in learning to read Genesis, and understand it like the original audience did (well, at least as much as we can) there is a really good book that covers this topic, A Worldview Approach to Science and Scripture by Carol A. Hill. I would like to add that I do not think that creationists are stupid, or anything of the sort. It is a very easy mistake to make when reading the Bible... modern men, who practice and care about science read the Bible and try and work their worldview into it... is natural to us, but would be utterly alien to the original audience of the Bible. View Quote I won't go in to too much depth but are there not other sources of light in the universe besides the sun and moon? There are actually a lot of parallels when you put the big bang and scientific theories of how the universe evolved next to genesis. God saying let there be light. Was the big bang, creation of matter when there was nothing, separating the light from the darkness was actually creating some order from the chaotic matter antimatter soup and gases coalescing, the waters in the heaven and the firmament and the earth is something more like the earth forming from the protoplanetary disc... Id have to find the video that sort of solidified this idea for me to explain it better but I can much more easily reconcile the bible with old earth creationism and what we think we know than yec. Ymmv |
|
If God gave us Genesis as-is, which I believe is the case, then I will accept my inability to answer certain questions and live with them rather than discard my whole faith on account of them.
|
|
Brother, I’m going to be brutally honest here. It is attitudes like yours that drive people interested in Christianity away from it.
Being so vehemently against anyone and everyone that has a different perspective on something that isn’t fundamental to the teaching of Christ is purely driving a wedge where it isn’t needed. Paul mentions how to handle this in Romans 14. |
|
Quoted: Yes, those at the website believe YEC is true, they've been defending it for years and years, no this article didn't convince me of YEC, I have been convinced of it for years and years. I looked at the arguments over years and years and was ultimately convinced by the scriptures themselves. One of the ways we know Genesis is history is how Jesus Himself referred to it. He referred to it as history, as you can imagine that has a lot of pull with me. There are other ways. The way it is written...In the beginning God did this, He did that, it's written in a very matter of fact way. The entire Gospel sits on the foundation of a literal Adam and Eve and their literal fall. There are other ways, but I'm not that good at explaining them, I understand what more learned men are saying, I just can't explain it well. View Quote No one is saying that there wasn't a first two. Belief in God to many people is important. Many people also believe that the word of God is important as I do also. However, their are times in a person's life where the possibility exists that we must go about certain matters with a measure of faith as the situation calls for it to be exercised. But, not exactly every time. Viable science works and I don't think that many people would deny or disagree with that. |
|
|
|
Quoted: Dogma and science are antithetical, the conflict is inherent. There isn't any inherent conflict with the existence of God though. It's always seemed to me that the real conflict between Christianity and science has to do with the idea that human sin brought suffering and death into the world. If that's just poetry, then what are y'all saved from? Fundamentalism is always at an advantage in theological discussions, they can just point to the text. View Quote Is not naturalism/materialism the "dogma" of the atheist? Seems so to me. |
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.