Bill Nye the Science Guy Is Not a Cre...
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Proud To Be A Christian”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#56 Oct 1, 2012
MRSMURPHY wrote:
<quoted text>Another behind the computer screen tough guy.. you azzwipes are a dime a dozen on topix.
I only post under one screen name! LOL!
Punisher

Brentwood, NY

#57 Oct 1, 2012
WTF is going on around here? What is it with all this...nonsense?

Every thread now is filled at least 75% with; You said, I said, He said, I'm gonna knock you out, Oh no, you aint Im the bigger bully!

WTF? Class it up folks! Geesus!

“Proud To Be A Christian”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#58 Oct 1, 2012
By S. Michael Houdmann, Got Questions Ministries
Being a young earth creationist can be difficult. If you are a young earth creationist, it seems like the vast majority of scientifically-minded people in the world think you are an ignorant buffoon. Theistic evolutionists believe in an old earth. Old earth creationists believe in an old earth (hence the name). Progressive creationists believe in an old earth. So, why are young earth creationists so stubborn or thick-headed in their thinking?
For me, there are two primary reasons. First, young earth creationism seems to be what the Bible teaches. While I do not deny the possibility of gaps, even significant gaps, in the genealogies in Genesis chapters 5 and 11, why would those passages give ages if it was not intended to give some sort of a timeline?
A literal and specially-created Adam and Eve are crucial to Christian theology (see Romans 5). If you deny a literal understanding of Genesis 1-3, it causes all kinds of problems in other areas of biblical interpretation. For me, even a very practical question is key: Why should we interpret the rest of the Bible literally if we don’t interpret the beginning of the Bible literally?
Do I think the Bible explicitly declares the earth is only 6016 years old? No, but I am far more comfortable with that age than I am with 14.6 billion. Why?
Because in order for Darwinian/naturalistic evolution to be true, the universe must be exceedingly old. Therefore, I am not going to easily grant the old earth hypothesis. In order for evolution to have even the slightest chance of occurring, billions of years are necessary. The odds of even one protein molecule forming by chance is infinitesimally small, even if given billions of years of time. I am surprised scientists have not yet decided that the universe is actually trillions of years old.
When I see the absolute hatred of God that spews forth from many atheists (hatetheists), I am not going to compromise with them on anything. Naturalistic evolution is the creation story of atheism. In order for atheism to be true, evolution must also be true. In order for evolution to be true, the universe must be billions of years old. That is why "billions of years" are pounded into our brains relentlessly from childhood by the scientific community.
We must have billions of years or else evolution is not true, and if evolution is not true, then creationism is true, and if creationism is true, God exists, and if God exists, I am accountable to Him for my actions–therefore the Earth must be billions of years old!
So, that brings me to my second primary reason for being a young earth creationist. Granting billions of years is like giving the hatetheists the first three moves in a chess match. Why should we so easily surrender a point that is absolutely essential to our opponents’ argument, especially when the Bible seems to teach something different?

“Proud To Be A Christian”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#59 Oct 1, 2012
I understand why old earth and progressive creationists hold to an old earth. There is scientific data which seems to point to this theory. I do not believe, as some young earth creationists do, that old earth creationists are rejecting the Bible and accepting the old earth hypothesis in order to earn respect in the eyes of the scientific community.
Rather, the vast majority of old earth creationists arrive at the old earth theory by examining the data and arriving at an old earth conclusion. I do not doubt the validity of their faith. I do not question their love of God’s Word. More than anything else, what I question is their strategy.
As can be easily seen in the scientific community’s rejection of intelligent design (which entirely accepts an exceedingly old earth), agreeing with them on an old earth does not get us anywhere. The hatetheists and scientific community intelligentsia are ardently opposed to intelligent design, and all the various forms of old earth and progressive creationism. They are not satisfied with anything other than pure, atheistic, naturalistic evolution–and they never will be.
Ultimately, their problem is not with creationism. Their problem is with God.
Romans 1:18-22 declares, "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles."
With that passage in mind, I am going to stick with a literal understanding of the Genesis creation account. If Romans 1:18-22 and 3:10-18 are what drive the hatetheist mindset of those who seemingly control the scientific community, I am not going to grant anything in this argument. While old earth creationism is compatible with the Christian worldview and the Gospel of Jesus Christ (although not without some significant issues), why grant an old earth when doing so is meaningless in terms of opening an atheistic evolutionist’s mind to the truth? Ultimately, the issue is their hatred of God, not the age of the earth.
Perhaps the Earth really is billions of years old. Should God one day correct me on this, I will gladly and humbly accept His enlightenment. But, until that day, I am not going to grant the hatetheists the first three moves. I am bad enough at chess as it is! Just ask my old earth creationist friend who can beat me with his back turned to the board.

Sceptical_Mal

“Born again atheist”

Since: Jun 12

Melbourne

#60 Oct 2, 2012
Why do you use the word hatetheist? Do you find all atheists full of hate?

I am an atheist as is my wife and two children. I don't hate religion, I just don't believe it and I live my life as though I had not been taught religion as that is what happens, we are taught and told it and led to believe it.

If I had of been born in Australia 300 years ago there is no chance I would never had heard about it.

“Proud To Be A Christian”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#61 Oct 2, 2012
Sceptical_Mal wrote:
Why do you use the word hatetheist? Do you find all atheists full of hate?
I am an atheist as is my wife and two children. I don't hate religion, I just don't believe it and I live my life as though I had not been taught religion as that is what happens, we are taught and told it and led to believe it.
If I had of been born in Australia 300 years ago there is no chance I would never had heard about it.
By S. Michael Houdmann, Got Questions Ministries.

“Proud To Be A Christian”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#62 Oct 2, 2012
Sceptical_Mal wrote:
Why do you use the word hatetheist? Do you find all atheists full of hate?
I am an atheist as is my wife and two children. I don't hate religion, I just don't believe it and I live my life as though I had not been taught religion as that is what happens, we are taught and told it and led to believe it.
If I had of been born in Australia 300 years ago there is no chance I would never had heard about it.
On another note, yes it has been my experience that most atheist are very hateful people, some more than others. I do have some who are personal friends that are not hateful at all.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#63 Oct 2, 2012
CIMLAS2 wrote:
<quoted text>
I will fight this tooth and nail locally!
Scientific literacy ?

God bless Bible worshippers.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#64 Oct 2, 2012
CIMLAS2 wrote:
<quoted text>
On another note, yes it has been my experience that most atheist are very hateful people, some more than others. I do have some who are personal friends that are not hateful at all.
Got Questions is a Bible worshipping hate site.

“Proud To Be A Christian”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#65 Oct 2, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Got Questions is a Bible worshipping hate site.
.......Burp!

“ ILKS r kewl ”

Since: Apr 09

Conch republic

#66 Oct 2, 2012
CIMLAS2 wrote:
<quoted text>
On another note, yes it has been my experience that most atheist are very hateful people, some more than others. I do have some who are personal friends that are not hateful at all.
Actually what atheists "hate" is your pompousness and your 'religious' arrogance!
Religious folks who have neither are well liked by ALL atheists. Now you (and your religious zealot/fundie types) are reviled by most if not ALL atheists.
And they have good reason to revile you.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#67 Oct 2, 2012
CIMLAS2 wrote:
<quoted text>
.......Burp!
I bet the chicks love that. How often does that get you laid?
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#68 Oct 2, 2012
“People gave ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus] who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." - Martin Luther, 1539

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus Christ was not born of a virgin." - Cardinal Bellarmine 1615, during the trial of Galileo

In 1642 Galileo died under house arrest condemned for heresy.

In 1758 the general prohibition against works advocating heliocentrism was removed from the Index of prohibited books, although the specific ban on uncensored versions of the “Dialogue” and Copernicus's “De Revolutionibus” remained.

In 1835 “De Revolutionibus” and “Dialogue” were finally dropped from the Index of prohibited books.

On 15 February 1990 Cardinal Ratzinger (later to become Pope Benedict XVI) said the “verdict against Galileo was rational and just”.

On 31 October 1992, 350 years after Galileo's death, Pope John Paul II gave an address on behalf of the Catholic Church in which he admitted that errors had been made by the theological advisors in the case of Galileo.

It has only been 153 years since Darwin published “On the Origin of Species”. Religious people don’t like to admit they are wrong and they don’t learn from history.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#70 Oct 2, 2012
CIMLAS2 wrote:
Ultimately, the issue is their hatred of God, not the age of the earth.
And here we have it: "I would rather be ignorant and deny reality in order to hold on to the religious beliefs that my parents and pastors, etc, have programmed into me, which they have TOLD me is "The Truth," and which I must therefore believe.

As Augustine, one of the great early church fathers, wrote in the 3rd century ---

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion." [quoting 1 Tim 1:7](qtd. from The Literal Meaning of Genesis).
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#71 Oct 2, 2012
From Peter Enns, Senior Fellow in Biblical Studies at the BioLogos Foundation:

You cannot expect the Bible — written in ancient times for ancient eyes — to enter a modern scientific discussion, and you cannot fault the Bible when it fails to answer our questions.

This is not a new insight. Augustine said famously 1600 years ago that Christians embarrass themselves when they appeal to the Bible to settle scientific matters (cosmology was the issue he was dealing with). Even if many Christians throughout history did assume that the Bible is scientifically accurate, the problems with that position have been understood for a very long time, long before the modern era.

The problems with thinking of the Bible as a science book have been made clearer in recent generations. Beginning in the middle of the nineteenth century, archaeologists unearthed other creations stories from the ancient Mesopotamian world, the same environment that produced the Bible. These discoveries have helped us understand a lot about how creation stories worked in the ancient world.

Ancient peoples did not investigate how things came to be; they assumed that there was a “beginning” when the gods formed the earth, people, animals, trees, etc., as you see them now. You can hardly blame them for making this assumption. The “how” question of creation was settled. They were interested in the “who” question: which of the gods is responsible for all of this? Each society had its own answer to this question, which they told in story form. The biblical story cannot claim a scientific higher ground. It, too, works with ancient themes and categories to tell Israel’s distinct story (qtd. from “Does God Talk to Us Through Fiction? Unpacking a Non-Literal Interpretation of the Bible”).

“Proud To Be A Christian”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#72 Oct 2, 2012
Troth for Leogere wrote:
<quoted text>Actually what atheists "hate" is your pompousness and your 'religious' arrogance!
Religious folks who have neither are well liked by ALL atheists. Now you (and your religious zealot/fundie types) are reviled by most if not ALL atheists.
And they have good reason to revile you.
It's all good, I have lived all my life without you kind, it is not like it is any sweat off my forehead!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Early Christianity 5 hr Barmswebhallucinate 911
The False Teachings of the Hebrew Israelites, s... (Jan '14) 5 hr Barmswebhallucinate 410
Intelligent People Question Everything 5 hr Barmswebhallucinate 1,946
IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS Gospel 6 hr truth 528
News Abortion law reform in Northern Ireland 'unfini... 8 hr scientist 26
If you see demons or angels you have schizophre... (Nov '09) 8 hr scientist 89
The teaching God is a trinity is a lie! 10 hr Messywentcrazy 14
More from around the web