Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[Derf]

That's hilarious. You claimed that two articles at Science Daily described evidence that should cause people to reject evolution. All I asked was for you to explain how that was so.

So I guess you took yourself off topic? :chuckle:

And, if you actually read my post you were originally responding to, I never said those two articles were enough to cause people to reject evolution. Thus not only was your post off-topic for the OP (which is talking about whether we should be doubting YEC), it was off-topic for responding to my post.

Do you really feel the need to go through all this for so long, just so you can argue a single point that the authors of at least one of the articles argued against?

Here's my post if you want to review: http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?p=5222721#post5222721

As I said before, this is tedium.

 

[jamie]

Overwhelmingly, the Bible teaches that man is immortal, and that man will live for eternity, either at peace in the presence of God in heaven, or in punishment apart from God in the lake of fire.

So you are saying eternal life is not a gift from God?

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12-13)

Were you born of blood?

If so your life is in your blood.

Someone said, "For dust you are and to dust you shall return."

Are you talking about immortal dust?

 

[Derf]

No surprise to me. The point is, it might not be science, but it can be. Let me give an example: The sky is blue. You can just accept it OR you can do some tests to see if indeed the sky is blue. I had one science teacher say it wasn't actually blue. He was being silly. The sky IS blue. It has to do with light refraction, filtration and scattering.

It all boils down to the meaning of "is", I suppose.

 

[Jose Fly]

I never said those two articles were enough to cause people to reject evolution.

When I asked if you had read and understood those articles, this is how you responded....

I was remembering that I'd read that article, or one of several like it, and thought it fit the discussion. Does that bother you, that evolutionists give the evidence to reject evolution (as a theory that explains all of the diversity of life), but somehow don't reject it? (It should, but I doubt it does.)

And I used their own words, since they made my point for me.​

So you weren't referring to those two articles, what exactly were you referring to when you said "evolutionists give the evidence to reject evolution"?

Thus not only was your post off-topic for the OP (which is talking about whether we should be doubting YEC), it was off-topic for responding to my post.

Then what was your point in posting links to those two articles?

Do you really feel the need to go through all this for so long, just so you can argue a single point that the authors of at least one of the articles argued against?

Not sure what you're talking about.

As I said before, this is tedium.

I agree. All you had to do was explain your point in posting those two articles. Instead you've spent a lot of time doing everything you can to avoid doing so.

But again, that's the stereotype.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So you are saying eternal life is not a gift from God?

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12-13)

You're conflating "eternal life" with "living for eternity," and "death" with "ceasing to exist," which the Bible never says happens except to the the old heavens and the old earth, and all animals and plant life.

There's a crucial difference.

ALL of mankind will live for eternity, but only those who are "born of God," aka those who accept Him, have eternal life.

Of course eternal life is a gift, it's a gift because we don't deserve eternal life, yet we will all live for eternity, either with God or apart from Him.

God designed man to live for eternity, to live life in two stages. The first stage is here on this earth. The second stage is what we here on Earth call the "afterlife," though a more accurate analogy would be that while we are here on this earth, we're standing on the porch of two houses, one of them is God's house, and the other one is hell/the lake of fire. When we die, we will go through one of those two doors, never to return to the porch again, those who truly know God go through the door to God's house, called eternal life, those who died rejecting Him go through the door to hell/the lake of fire.

Were you born of blood?

If so your life is in your blood.

Correct, though it could also be said (especially since babies in the womb are alive) that life comes from oxygen (think, "breath of life"), which is transported in the blood, but that's a moot point.

Someone said, "For dust you are and to dust you shall return."

Are you talking about immortal dust?

No, I'm speaking of the soul, the human spirit, the incorporeal. Man is comprised of three parts, a physical body, a soul, and a spirit.

Our physical body allows us to interact with the physical world, our soul allows us to interact with other beings that have souls, but our spirit allows us to interact with God Himself.

Plants only have bodies. They don't have souls, and they don't have spirits. They live, and they die, and when they decompose, they cease to exist.

Animals have both bodies and souls, but nowhere near the quality soul that man has, but they do not have spirits. The live, they die, they decompose, and they cease to exist. (Sorry animal lovers, your beloved pet isn't waiting for you in heaven.)

Man has Body, soul, and spirit. We live, we die and our physical bodies decompose, but we don't cease to exist, we still exist as spirit.

Our bodies may die, but our soul/spirit never dies, not in the sense that it ceases to exist.

Have you heard it said "live once, die twice; live twice, die once"? That's because death is naught but separation. Live once (here on this earth, never accepting the free gift of salvation offered by Jesus Christ), die twice (be separated from your physical body, and then separated from God); live twice (here on this earth, but then accepting the free gift and being born again), die once (be separated from your physical body, but be instantly transported to be with God forever, never to be separated from Him again).

 

[Stuu]

Interesting. It SAYS 'no appreciable change' right on that page :think:

Referring to what exactly? The 18-39 group?

Stuart

 

[6days]

As @6days noted, he sees theistic evolutionists as having "a poor grasp of Scripture and theology... or even incorrect doctrine".

I haven't followed your discussion with Lon so I'm not sure what point anybody is trying to make. But belief about our origins is not a salvation issue. It is however important to our understanding of the nature of God and proper Doctrine.

 

[Stuu]

Take Darwin's birds for example. His speculation was that some birds lived in a valley. The weather changed and they moved up onto two separate mountain peaks. One peak was rich in seeds and the other rich in flying insects. On the peak rich in seeds the birds developed bills that are well adapted for eating seeds while on the other peak the birds developed beaks well adapted for eating bugs. When the weather changed again and the birds moved back down into the valley, there were two separate species of birds. Seems fairly straight forward.

My question has always been what "triggered" the mutation that resulted in the adaptation of the beaks? At some point, the allele for the seed beaks had to come into existence. There is no "communication" between the environment and the birds DNA to develop a new allele. If the bird dies because it can't get enough food passes on nothing. The ones that did get enough to eat did so with their original beak so that beak was sufficient and is passed along. What causes the genetic mutation that results in a better beak for eating seeds?

Good questions: what causes genetic mutation, and is natural selection sensitive enough that a small advantage because of a slightly altered beak will result in a change in the frequency of that allele?

And that brings us to the thread title: does a 10,000 year old earth give enough time for accumulation of changes of the kind observed in Darwin's finches?

I'd say the answers are: radiation/copying errors; yes; and no.

Obviously there is more detail to be had in each case.

Would you agree?

Stuart

 

[Derf]

When I asked if you had read and understood those articles, this is how you responded....

I was remembering that I'd read that article, or one of several like it, and thought it fit the discussion. Does that bother you, that evolutionists give the evidence to reject evolution (as a theory that explains all of the diversity of life), but somehow don't reject it? (It should, but I doubt it does.)

And I used their own words, since they made my point for me.​

So you weren't referring to those two articles, what exactly were you referring to when you said "evolutionists give the evidence to reject evolution"?


Then what was your point in posting links to those two articles?


Not sure what you're talking about.


I agree. All you had to do was explain your point in posting those two articles. Instead you've spent a lot of time doing everything you can to avoid doing so.

But again, that's the stereotype.

I DID explain my point--when I posted about the two articles. One of them came right out and said that they were not trying to bash Darwin. Their data speaks for itself, and they couldn't refute the Darwin-bashing message. Instead they bowed down in lip service to Darwin while their results refuted him.

Many science articles have the obligatory nods to Evolution even when the results prove nothing towards Evolution and often refute it, or at least the prevailing understanding of it.

Stereotype indeed!

 

[Jose Fly]

I DID explain my point--when I posted about the two articles. One of them came right out and said that they were not trying to bash Darwin. Their data speaks for itself, and they couldn't refute the Darwin-bashing message. Instead they bowed down in lip service to Darwin while their results refuted him.

Many science articles have the obligatory nods to Evolution even when the results prove nothing towards Evolution and often refute it, or at least the prevailing understanding of it.

And that brings us directly back to the original question....exactly how do you think those articles "refute" evolution?

Stereotype indeed!

No doubt. You post links to two articles, claiming they refute evolution. When asked to explain how they do so, you cry "I don't have to answer these tedious questions!!!"

That sort of stereotypical behavior is one reason why creationists lose in court and are irrelevant in science. You can get away with that sort of silly dodging in online forums, but not in the arenas of law and science.

 

[Derf]

And that brings us directly back to the original question....exactly how do you think those articles "refute" evolution?


No doubt. You post links to two articles, claiming they refute evolution. When asked to explain how they do so, you cry "I don't have to answer these tedious questions!!!"

That sort of stereotypical behavior is one reason why creationists lose in court and are irrelevant in science. You can get away with that sort of silly dodging in online forums, but not in the arenas of law and science.

Ask the authors of the one article! They were the ones that recognized their data (and conclusions, apparently) bashed Darwin.

 

[Lon]

Not in this thread or discussion. You made a claim and have since done everything you can to avoid backing it up.

Like I said, that's the stereotype.

Incorrect. Are you ONLY lazy, or slovenly too? I gave it to Stu. He saw it.

That's because fundamentalist Christians have gone out of their way to make science and education an enemy of their faith, so now merely advocating science is perceived as "anti-Christian and atheistic".

Nope. Just what you take for granted uncritically. It is against agenda, as I said. If you have no agenda? No problem. Right?

Simply put, fundamentalists have ceded the sciences to non-Christians.

Nope. You already said you have Christians in your department.

That was because they were trying to turn a 3 year old into a missionary for something she didn't understand. The subject matter was irrelevant.

:chuckle: "Invite your friends" is making her into a missionary? I suppose you'd say the same thing about Girl Scout cookies. I found it reactionary without much thought to your overt knee-jerk. Stuck with me that I remember it.

You keep throwing around these terms like "Christian science" and "atheist science", but you go out of your way to avoid saying what they mean. Like I said, that's the stereotype.

Somewhere 'between' there is you and I. We BOTH know what we believe respectively. There is little need to describe your position to yourself. I don't have to, because there is no need for it. You know already where you are against Christian thought and where you knee-jerk all the time. Occasionally I can have a rational exchange with you but YOU told me you weren't here for that, remember? You said you were only here for fun and no serious thought. Add that to your sig. You simply don't need me to tell you what you CLEARLY portray on TOL.

Try and keep up Lon.

No. YOU try and keep up.

You referred to something you called "atheist science". Since then I've been asking you what that is and how it differs from just plain ol' science, and you've dodged that question every time.

Simply: Science with no admission of God in your observations as well as purposeful obtrusion and obstruction to the idea. That man is you. It is right there in your sig. It was part of your entrance introduction on TOL.

A saying among lawyers is "the questions a person avoids tells you more about them than the questions they answer". There's obviously a reason you're avoiding this.

You are no lawyer. Try again.

You're still not making any sense at all.

And if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black on dodging... :chuckle:
If you can't follow something as simple as that, you are the one who is a simpleton, not I. Sorry, but you shouldn't be doing TOL just to take inane potshots at your opponent. Such doesn't even accomplish your 'for fun' goal, when you are the one that looks simple for it.

I've not disputed that at all. As I noted, I have it there because I agree with its sentiment. What amuses me is how you assume it must be about you.

Not at all. YOU told me that was why you were on TOL when you first arrived. YOU did. lain:

Um.....no Lon. Geez.

This is an in-house discussion. I appreciate that you can agree with some of us, but it isn't the hanging point. Knowing Jesus Christ is more important over the difference than where any of us respectively stand on origins. Your need is the same, even with science being a job for you.

As @6days noted, he sees theistic evolutionists as having "a poor grasp of Scripture and theology... or even incorrect doctrine".

Again, in-house. I guess I can see some vested interest, but really, your greatest need in said conversation is about Jesus Christ, not whether you think God created by evolutionary process or not. This thread is a bit of cart before the horse as well. It is the difference between in-house discussion and a huge degree of separation. We have commonality as far as members of the human race, but these threads often don't grasp the elephant in the room. It is a peripheral discussion to more pertinent needs.

 

[Lon]

Referring to what exactly? The 18-39 group?

Stuart

Not even that removed from separations: 4 of every 10 Americans are YEC. Another 3 believe the earth could be older, but it still amounts to the same figure: 7 in 10 question evolution theories and timelines (likely more than that too!).

▲unchanged▲

 

[Jose Fly]

Ask the authors of the one article! They were the ones that recognized their data (and conclusions, apparently) bashed Darwin.

Again, such a stereotype.....

Make assertion
Get asked to explain/substantiate assertion
Do everything to avoid doing so

Hilarious.

 

[Jose Fly]

Incorrect. Are you ONLY lazy, or slovenly too? I gave it to Stu. He saw it.

Still dodging.

Make assertion
Get asked to substantiate/explain the assertion
Do everything to avoid doing so

You either back up your claim about this 70% or you don't.

Nope. Just what you take for granted uncritically. It is against agenda, as I said. If you have no agenda? No problem. Right?

It's hilarious how you think "Nuh uh" is a valid rebuttal.

Nope. You already said you have Christians in your department.

Try and avoid all-or-none, black/white thinking Lon. In the US, fundamentalist Christians have most certainly made science and universities to be their enemies. There's not a day goes by that I don't hear a right-wing Christian radio broadcast railing against evolution, climate change, an ancient earth, or universities. Would you like me to post some examples?

"Invite your friends" is making her into a missionary?

No, it was "memorize these talking points and Bible verses, and then use them to confront your friends and family", and using candy to encourage it. I don't believe that's appropriate for 3 year olds.

Simply: Science with no admission of God in your observations as well as purposeful obtrusion and obstruction to the idea.

FINALLY!!! So when you say "atheist science" you mean any science that doesn't mention or include God.

Of course as anyone even slightly familiar with science will realize, no science relies on or includes God. Don't believe me? Then go to any scientific journal (here are a few: PNAS, Science, Nature, AGU) and see how many papers include God doing things in their explanations, results, conclusions, or discussions.

In fact, I'd say a more efficient way to approach this would be for you to cite any scientific paper that relies on God to explain something.

Can you do it, or will you dodge this too?

This is an in-house discussion.

Yet you don't seem interested in having said discussion with folks like [MENTION=15431]6days[/MENTION] who referred to theistic evolutionists as having "a poor grasp of Scripture and theology... or even incorrect doctrine".

Again, in-house. I guess I can see some vested interest, but really, your greatest need in said conversation is about Jesus Christ, not whether you think God created by evolutionary process or not. This thread is a bit of cart before the horse as well.

[MENTION=15431]6days[/MENTION] has said that evolution and millions of years destroys the purpose of Christ's sacrifice at Calvary. Do you agree?

 

[jamie]

You're conflating "eternal life" with "living for eternity," and "death" with "ceasing to exist," which the Bible never says happens except to the the old heavens and the old earth, and all animals and plant life.

What about Satan?

"All who knew you among the peoples are astonished at you, you have become a horror and shall be no more forever." (Ezekiel 28:19)

And shall be no more forever.

 

[Stripe]

Please note that I replied to your first post with points that disprove a young earth, and you never replied to that.

It's not me who is a coward.

Maybe get back to us when you have something relevant to contribute.

Stuart

Please note that your contribution had nothing to do with what I said.

And you're a coward because you want to see the annihilation of ideas you don't like.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

What about Satan?

"All who knew you among the peoples are astonished at you, you have become a horror and shall be no more forever." (Ezekiel 28:19)

And shall be no more forever.

It's literally in the verse...

"You have become a horror and shall be no more forever."

He won't be a horror anymore forever

 

[jamie]

Animals have both bodies and souls, but nowhere near the quality soul that man has, but they do not have spirits. The live, they die, they decompose, and they cease to exist.

"For what happens to the sons of men also happens to animals, one thing befalls them: as one dies so dies the other. Surely, they all have one breath; man has no advantage over animals for all is vanity. All go to one place: all are from the dust and all return to dust." (Ecclesiastes 3:19-20)

So goes the flesh.

 

[jamie]

He won't be a horror anymore forever

Where will he be?