The Church Is Fading...

[sub_zer0]

This is absolutely ridiculous and NOT Biblical.

The Episcopalian Church (Anglicanism in America) comes out strongly and officially in support of a position that rejects Genesis the way Christ taught and understood it. More ... (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4458)

[JoeR]

Yet it is also the belief of the majority of Christians in the world.

[brainpan]

You should celebrate this, sub. If the mainline churches weren't willing to soften their position on certain things, Christianity really would fade. Personally, I believe Christianity will endure. If all the membership of churches that don't accept literal genesis suddenly disappeared, there wouldn't be a lot of Christians left.

[heel31ok]

Yet it is also the belief of the majority of Christians in the world.
In polling data that is not true. In fact those who do not even claim to be christian as a majority believe in God as creator without help of evolution.
Some of the institutions of the major denominations have turned but as for the people that is a different story.Which is in line with what the Bible says will happen.

[Bassman]

This doesn't surprise me really. The "mainline" denominations have been falling away from the essential tenents of the Christian faith for years. Most don't preach the Bible anymore, nor preach against sin.

[heel31ok]

47% of americans alone fall into the category of believing in God as the creator without help of evolution.

[Dangerrmouse]

47% of americans alone fall into the category of believing in God as the creator without help of evolution.

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."
-Bertrand Russell

[heel31ok]

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."
-Bertrand Russell
Your reply does not apply here because I merely commented on the fallacy that a majorty ofthe world not has rejectedthe genesis account of creation , which it has not. It has more to do with the mindset that some think they can post anything as if it were fact when in fact it is not.Though I believe the account to be true that was not the point of the reply. Truth is truth no matter how many believe it, which is lost on many.

[JoeR]

47% of americans alone fall into the category of believing in God as the creator without help of evolution.

Imagine that, it's not a majority. In America where biblical literalism is the strongest, and even then it's only 47%.

I was referring specificly to the young-earth creationism you and sub spout.

[heel31ok]

i understand your reply though it does not fit the context of the %.

[JoeR]

How doesn't it? I said a majority of christians don't believe that, which I should have clarified as YEC. Not even a majority of people in the U.S., the vast majority Christians, believe that God did it without evolution, let alone the young earth stuff.

Since biblical literalism is strongest in the U.S., it follows that it is even less elsewhere.

[cpwill]

:shrug: the numbers don't lie: the branches that move furthest away from traditional christianity are the ones' losing the most people; those with the strongest emphasis in doctrine are those that are succeeding.

[JoeR]

If the majority of the world is ever made up of young earth creationists again, it will be a dark dark day for the scientific progress of mankind.

[Meek Heir]

:shrug: the numbers don't lie: the branches that move furthest away from traditional christianity are the ones' losing the most people; those with the strongest emphasis in doctrine are those that are succeeding.

And couldn't that have something to do with the fact that a great many people of all stripes are unthinking followers and that if you change your policies then some will leave for something more like they remember?

[sub_zer0]

If the majority of the world is ever made up of young earth creationists again, it will be a dark dark day for the scientific progress of mankind.

In case you are wondering it is YEC scientists that get no recognition or funding or publishing of their adequately qualified and researched works by the evolution mainstream. Thus, the slowing down of overall progress of science that could be made if there was only fair treatment.

It is a dark day in science now.

[JoeR]

Flat-earth researchers aren't funded either.

[Dangerrmouse]

[QUOTE=heel31ok]Your reply does not apply here because I merely commented on the fallacy that a majorty ofthe world not has rejectedthe genesis account of creation , which it has not. ... [ /QUOTE]

Notwithstanding your fallacy that 47% of Americans is an American majority, let alone your conflation of America with the World, in which all of the Christian believers total one third of the population.

How does a minority viewpoint of a minority country of a minority belief become the " majorty ofthe world " pray tell?

[neo of the mind]

If the majority of the world is ever made up of young earth creationists again, it will be a dark dark day for the scientific progress of mankind.


I would counter that the "knowledge" that the earth is not young hasn't produced anything. What exact scientific advances has been a direct result of this?

[Alvin T. Grey]

I would counter that the "knowledge" that the earth is not young hasn't produced anything. What exact scientific advances has been a direct result of this?
Off the top of my head? - The fields of Paeloclimatology, Archeology, Geology, Vulcanology, that kind of thing.

[neo of the mind]

Off the top of my head? - The fields of Paeloclimatology, Archeology, Geology, Vulcanology, that kind of thing.

Again, what exact scientific advances have been a direct result of this information? Where's my flying car I read about in Popular Mechanics? LOL.

[FlyingGuineapig]

Again, what exact scientific advances have been a direct result of this information? Where's my flying car I read about in Popular Mechanics? LOL.

For scientific applications of such YEC-hostile sciences as genetics, quantum mechanics and radioactive decay, you don't have to travel very far - no need for your flying car:
- Your local grocery store will provide plenty of examples of genetically-engineered food. Not to mention all the pharmicidicals being tested on genetically engineered mice (I'm not sure if the cloned mice are getting used yet).
- Diagnostic equipment and gamma sterilization equipment in hospitals - all relying on the same atomic-level laws used to date items back millions of years.
- Your cell phone probably has quantum effect transitors, not to mention receiving time from a centralized atomic clock. Your PC will likewise make use of them.
- Law enforcment makes plenty of use out of genetic "fingerprints" - with DNA evidence being almost synonmous with "truth" (except for ex-footplayers with darn good lawyers)

I could go on, but I know you're not going to choose to accept the reality of the world around you, and it probably doesn't matter - it will go on without your belief (as my sig says - reality is what refuses to go away when you stop believing in it).

[Alvin T. Grey]

Again, what exact scientific advances have been a direct result of this information? Where's my flying car I read about in Popular Mechanics? LOL.
Do you even know what half this stuff means?

Paeloclimatology,
The study of prehistoric weather conditions. Instrumental in showing us climate change over time *for whatever reason* to better understand our relationship to the planet. If the earth was 6,000yo, we'd have written records.

Archeology,
The study of our ancestors. Again the science of radiocarbon dating was devoloped specifically for this science.


Geology,
Do you drive a car? Where do you think the oil comes from? More importantly how do you think it was found?

Vulcanology
By extension, if we know how old the earth is, how it was formed, how it behaves, how it changes over time, we can learn more about such devastating events.

[steveksux]

How does a minority viewpoint of a minority country of a minority belief become the " majorty ofthe world " pray tell?You've fallen for that trick of the Devil, called "LOGIC" again... and dabble in the evil witchcraft called "MATH"! Repent of your logic, your math, and you can yet be saved.

Randy

[Alvin T. Grey]

But 'Maths' is ok? Right?

[burntgorilla]

Your cell phone probably has quantum effect transitors,

Really? Cool.

[FlyingGuineapig]

Really? Cool.
Yeah, they're not directly related to the q-bits or "quantum computing" that you may hear about (where they contain all possible states at the same time and somehow "resolve") - rather, it's dealing with the tunneling effects you get as the barriers get real, real thin as the semiconductor process nodes shrink.

[neo of the mind]

For scientific applications of such YEC-hostile sciences as genetics, quantum mechanics and radioactive decay, you don't have to travel very far - no need for your flying car:
- Your local grocery store will provide plenty of examples of genetically-engineered food. Not to mention all the pharmicidicals being tested on genetically engineered mice (I'm not sure if the cloned mice are getting used yet).
- Diagnostic equipment and gamma sterilization equipment in hospitals - all relying on the same atomic-level laws used to date items back millions of years.
- Your cell phone probably has quantum effect transitors, not to mention receiving time from a centralized atomic clock. Your PC will likewise make use of them.
- Law enforcment makes plenty of use out of genetic "fingerprints" - with DNA evidence being almost synonmous with "truth" (except for ex-footplayers with darn good lawyers)

I could go on, but I know you're not going to choose to accept the reality of the world around you, and it probably doesn't matter - it will go on without your belief (as my sig says - reality is what refuses to go away when you stop believing in it).



and you have failed to give me one example of a direct result of the knowledge that the earth is not young has progressed science.

All the examples you have given were not hindered from being discovered.


" could go on, but I know you're not going to choose to accept the reality of the world around you, and it probably doesn't matter - it will go on without your belief" - nice debating trick, so that if I had the audacity to refute your comments, it's made void.

[FlyingGuineapig]

and you have failed to give me one example of a direct result of the knowledge that the earth is not young has progressed science.

All the examples you have given were not hindered from being discovered.

Of course they weren't hindered by YEC - because 99.9% of science rejects YEC and moves on without it, thus discovering/inventing things which YEC would claim are impossible or invalid or shouldn't be studied. Like radioactive decay, or genetics, or evolution.

[neo of the mind]

Do you even know what half this stuff means?


Paeloclimatology,
The study of prehistoric weather conditions. Instrumental in showing us climate change over time *for whatever reason* to better understand our relationship to the planet. If the earth was 6,000yo, we'd have written records.

Archeology,
The study of our ancestors. Again the science of radiocarbon dating was devoloped specifically for this science.


Geology,
Do you drive a car? Where do you think the oil comes from? More importantly how do you think it was found?

Vulcanology
By extension, if we know how old the earth is, how it was formed, how it behaves, how it changes over time, we can learn more about such devastating events.


duhhhhhhh...nope. What's a car? Thanks professor, but I don't need you to tell me what these fields of science are.

[Alvin T. Grey]

duhhhhhhh...nope. What's a car? Thanks professor, but I don't need you to tell me what these fields of science are.
I can give you the name. The deffinition, but if you understood what these are, and how they relate to the present day, then you wouldn't have asked such a darn fool question.
Sorry for misreading you.

[neo of the mind]

I can give you the name. The deffinition, but if you understood what these are, and how they relate to the present day, then you wouldn't have asked such a darn fool question.
Sorry for misreading you.


Continue with your insults, that's all you have to offer on the subject.

[cpwill]

And couldn't that have something to do with the fact that a great many people of all stripes are unthinking followers and that if you change your policies then some will leave for something more like they remember?

more to the point is that, just like the free market is the best mechanism for discovering what people really want, those churches that provide a watered down christianity are clearly not what people are seeking, whereas those that continue to provide a christianity truer to its' intent are still fufilling the need that people feel in their lives.

[burntgorilla]

Yeah, they're not directly related to the q-bits or "quantum computing" that you may hear about (where they contain all possible states at the same time and somehow "resolve") - rather, it's dealing with the tunneling effects you get as the barriers get real, real thin as the semiconductor process nodes shrink.


Oh, that's not quite so cool. But still, tunneling electrons are always a good laugh.

[Mr. Awesome]

more to the point is that, just like the free market is the best mechanism for discovering what people really want, those churches that provide a watered down christianity are clearly not what people are seeking, whereas those that continue to provide a christianity truer to its' intent are still fufilling the need that people feel in their lives.

Scientology is growing at a rapid rate. Is that because it's right?

[FlyingGuineapig]

Scientology is growing at a rapid rate. Is that because it's right?
Well, I think it's because of all the great press they get from South Park Episodes.

Some interesting stats here as to the Demographics of various churches here (as of 2001):
http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/Demographics/map_demographics.htm#The%20Big%20Picture

[Mr. Awesome]

Well, I think it's because of all the great press they get from South Park Episodes.

Some interesting stats here as to the Demographics of various churches here (as of 2001):
http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/Demographics/map_demographics.htm#The%20Big%20Picture

Well, either way, it proves that just because are joining it doesn't mean it's right. There are many other factors involved.

[neo of the mind]

Atheist 0.4% of the population.

They must be the top 0.4% of the most intelligent of the population because they coudn't be the bottom 0.4%.

[cpwill]

Scientology is growing at a rapid rate. Is that because it's right?

:shrug: my guess would be that it's sure of itself, however, yes, apparently it is successfully providing what people think they need.

[Dangerrmouse]

Atheist 0.4% of the population.

They must be the top 0.4% of the most intelligent of the population because they coudn't be the bottom 0.4%.

You could be right......
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/guest/casey.html

"I am of above average intelligence (I have a degree in Pure Maths from Imperial College, London, and a MENSA level IQ) and consider myself to be a benevolent, caring person. I was given enough freedom to make my own decisions. Under these circumstances their is very little choice other than to be atheist - it is the only rational position. "

[Dangerrmouse]

:shrug: my guess would be that it's sure of itself, however, yes, apparently it is successfully providing what people think they need.

That can't be right...all religions do that...perhaps they are better at spotting the gullible?

[neo of the mind]

You could be right......
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/guest/casey.html

"I am of above average intelligence (I have a degree in Pure Maths from Imperial College, London, and a MENSA level IQ) and consider myself to be a benevolent, caring person. I was given enough freedom to make my own decisions. Under these circumstances their is very little choice other than to be atheist - it is the only rational position. "


That can't be right...all religions do that...perhaps they are better at spotting the gullible?"

I guess he would also make up the 0.4% population that isn't gulliable.

[neo of the mind]

Interesting read from a atheist you linked to DM.

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/ath...uest/casey.html

Conclusion of why she became an atheist:
So, I questioned my beliefs and they didn't stand up to much scrutiny. I abandoned religion as it had nothing to offer me (it had never really played a big part in my life anyway) and set off down the Road Of Truth.

She abandoned religion (Christianity) because it had nothing to offer and never really played a big part of her life....that's an understatement.

All of her stated reasons for rejecting religion are as lazily thought out as her stated reasons for embracing atheism.

[Dangerrmouse]

I guess he would also make up the 0.4% population that isn't gulliable.

Once again, America is not the world, and she is English, but the American figure for "Non-religious" is 12%. Atheist, agnostic, humanist etc....

[neo of the mind]

Once again, America is not the world, and he is English, but the American figure for "Non-religious" is 12%. Atheist, agnostic, humanist etc....

Once again? I am only discussing a link that FGp posted. If you have a link that gives another study of the "world", then do that.

The "Non-religious" category is mostly made up of people that just answered "no religion".

0.4% is for the Atheist....which is the only group that removes the possibilty of a Creator from the possibilities.

[burntgorilla]

Interesting read from a atheist you linked to DM.

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/ath...uest/casey.html

Conclusion of why she became an atheist:
So, I questioned my beliefs and they didn't stand up to much scrutiny. I abandoned religion as it had nothing to offer me (it had never really played a big part in my life anyway) and set off down the Road Of Truth.

She abandoned religion (Christianity) because it had nothing to offer and never really played a big part of her life....that's an understatement.

All of her stated reasons for rejecting religion are as lazily thought out as her stated reasons for embracing atheism.

And? Who cares if she becomes an atheist? What are your reasons for becoming religious? I can't see the article, but I'm not really sure how you can say anything about her reasons.

[neo of the mind]

And? Who cares if she becomes an atheist? What are your reasons for becoming religious? I can't see the article, but I'm not really sure how you can say anything about her reasons.

She gave her reasons. Somethings wrong with the link, go to the orginal link of the English dude you touted as Mr. Mensa and you will find her comments, since she is the one that authored the webpage.

[burntgorilla]

She gave her reasons. Somethings wrong with the link, go to the orginal link of the English dude you touted as Mr. Mensa and you will find her comments, since she is the one that authored the webpage.

I never mentioned an English dude...

The link has incorporated the ellipses that shortens it, so it won't load.

[neo of the mind]

I never mentioned an English dude...

The link has incorporated the ellipses that shortens it, so it won't load.


Your right, Dangermouse refered to the person being English.

[Alvin T. Grey]

Continue with your insults, that's all you have to offer on the subject.
Translation = 'I asked a silly question, I got an answer. I have no responce. I will feign insult.'

[cpwill]

You could be right......
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/guest/casey.html

"I am of above average intelligence (I have a degree in Pure Maths from Imperial College, London, and a MENSA level IQ) and consider myself to be a benevolent, caring person. I was given enough freedom to make my own decisions. Under these circumstances their is very little choice other than to be atheist - it is the only rational position. "

hmm, i would say that given the lack of personal experience, the rational position is either agnosticism or a minor hold on to one of the major religions. the fundamental athiest statement "There Is No God." is self-defeating, because it purports to knowledge of a negative, which is much more difficult to prove than a positive. for example, should i state "there is a mouse in this room" then all i need to do to prove my point is to search until i have found a mouse, and viola. however, should i state "there is no mouse in this room" then i would have to be claiming knowledge of the entire room, i have searched this entire space know for a fact that no mouse exists within it. now, to state "there is a God" isn't that amazing (in comparison) of a claim, all one needs to do to back it up is to have had some kind of experience with God (or, insofar as it is their belief system we are discussing, believe that they had). To argue, however, that "There Is No God" is a claim requiring knowledge of the entire universe; indeed, even beyond the universe, beyond that which we recognize as created time and space. you'll have to have searched (not physically, but enough to have knowledge of) this entire spectrum, and still not found God. of course, to have this knowledge and this ability, by definition, you are God. so the claim "there is no God" really ultimately means "i am God, and I do not exist".
in which case it's rather foolish of me to stay here debating you. :p

[cpwill]

That can't be right...all religions do that..

given that all churches are not growing, clearly they don't.

perhaps they are better at spotting the gullible?

:shrug: it is indeed an option, although i'd be suspicious of a theory which required that the percentage of the population defined as "gullible" be increasing.

[neo of the mind]

Translation = 'I asked a silly question, I got an answer. I have no responce. I will feign insult.'

I can give you the name. The deffinition, but if you understood what these are, and how they relate to the present day, then you wouldn't have asked such a darn fool question.
Sorry for misreading you.


yeah, I'm feigning insult. :rolleyes:

[Alvin T. Grey]

Then I apologise.
I am sorry, I did not mean to insult you.
So.......Can you answer the arguement? (as badly crafted as it was?)

[heel31ok]

Imagine that, it's not a majority. In America where biblical literalism is the strongest, and even then it's only 47%.

I was referring specificly to the young-earth creationism you and sub spout.
upon further review I have to humbly apologise to you. I was the one taking the poll out of context . You are correct and I was wrong. My interpretation was wrong .Thank you for pointing that out to me. :flowers:

[neo of the mind]

Then I apologise.
I am sorry, I did not mean to insult you.
So.......Can you answer the arguement? (as badly crafted as it was?)

NP, What was the argument again?

[Alvin T. Grey]

That valid scientific results have come from knowing accuratly the age of the earth.

[Izdaari]

I applaud the Episcopal Church for rejecting YEC. This Christian is not so presumptuous as to tell God what methods of creation He is allowed to use. If He wanted to use evolution, and the evidence is pretty clear the He did use it, I have no problem with that.

Rejecting YEC by no means implies that a church supports a "watered down" version of Christianity. YEC is neither important to Christianity, nor correct. Many people who are generally theologically conservative, and that includes myself, reject YEC.

[Alvin T. Grey]

I applaud the Episcopal Church for rejecting YEC. This Christian is not so presumptuous as to tell God what methods of creation He is allowed to use. If He wanted to use evolution, and the evidence is pretty clear the He did use it, I have no problem with that.

Rejecting YEC by no means implies that a church supports a "watered down" version of Christianity. YEC is neither important to Christianity, nor correct. Many people who are generally theologically conservative, and that includes myself, reject YEC.
Exactly Iz. Exactly.
:clap: :clap: :flowers:

[Strel]

In case you are wondering it is YEC scientists that get no recognition or funding or publishing of their adequately qualified and researched works by the evolution mainstream. Thus, the slowing down of overall progress of science that could be made if there was only fair treatment.

It is a dark day in science now.


Lies and superstition do not warrant "equal treatment" with verifiable science.

[sub_zer0]

I applaud the Episcopal Church for rejecting YEC. This Christian is not so presumptuous as to tell God what methods of creation He is allowed to use. If He wanted to use evolution, and the evidence is pretty clear the He did use it, I have no problem with that.

Rejecting YEC by no means implies that a church supports a "watered down" version of Christianity. YEC is neither important to Christianity, nor correct. Many people who are generally theologically conservative, and that includes myself, reject YEC.

YEC is Biblical, I have stated in detail that Biblical chronology is 6,000 years from creation of the world until now, that is all that is allowed when using the Bible! So I am not being presumptious as telling God what methods He used, He told us, my views are based on Biblical teachings and by Christ, which is YEC.

ANYTHING evolution is NOT Biblical only creation in 6 days by God, variation within created kinds, or YEC is completely Biblical and following what Christ taught! There is no evidence of evolution that cannot be called YEC.

So when does Christ teach anything but a literal reading of Genesis Izdaari?

When does the Bible say that God uses evolution, and needs it because everything can't be created in 6 days and just have variation within the created kind?

What, in the Bible leads you to believe that evolution is what God used to create?

[Izdaari]

YEC is Biblical, I have stated in detail that Biblical chronology is 6,000 years from creation of the world until now, that is all that is allowed when using the Bible! So I am not being presumptious as telling God what methods He used, He told us, my views are based on Biblical teachings and by Christ, which is YEC.

ANYTHING evolution is NOT Biblical only creation in 6 days by God, variation within created kinds, or YEC is completely Biblical and following what Christ taught! There is no evidence of evolution that cannot be called YEC.

So when does Christ teach anything but a literal reading of Genesis Izdaari?

When does the Bible say that God uses evolution, and needs it because everything can't be created in 6 days and just have variation within the created kind?

What, in the Bible leads you to believe that evolution is what God used to create?Pardon me, but to me your argument seems rather silly, a "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" kind of thing. If the Bible appears to say something that science clearly shows to be false, perhaps we've misunderstood it. Perhaps the Genesis account is not meant to be taken literally. Perhaps it isn't six days, but six time periods of unknown duration. My thought is that Genesis gave the most accurate account that people at the time were able to understand. I'd certainly prefer to believe that, than have to believe the Bible is just wrong and that science disproves it! If you have any hope of convincing me that YEC is correct, it would have to be by showing me that science, not just the Bible, supports your position.

[Alvin T. Grey]

The way I look at it, is this;

I can understand exactly how that would work. Our understanding of creation is limited. Our science can give us an idea of the mechanics of the Universe, but that only goes to a point.
Yes, that point gets further and further into the past, but it will never reach the exact moment of creation. We know what happened 'After' the big bang. Thousands of a millisecond after, but we can only guess what was 'before'.

In science That's where God lives.
So we extrapolate, we theorize, we guess...to a certain extent. But people have to understand, our tools are limited. Starting with a brain which was originaly designed for finding the ripest fruit, and a method of communication designed for one monkey to tell the others where that was.

[sub_zer0]

Pardon me, but to me your argument seems rather silly, a "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" kind of thing.

No, I am saying that you should believe the Bible not the world and its stance on a young earth as that is all Biblical chronology allows.

If the Bible appears to say something that science clearly shows to be false, perhaps we've misunderstood it. Perhaps the Genesis account is not meant to be taken literally. Perhaps it isn't six days, but six time periods of unknown duration.

Science has not done anything to contradict anything within the Bible. Genesis should be taken literally as well the six days, because Jesus taught it that way. If you are a Christian, follow Christ not the world and science.

My thought is that Genesis gave the most accurate account that people at the time were able to understand. I'd certainly prefer to believe that, than have to believe the Bible is just wrong and that science disproves it! If you have any hope of convincing me that YEC is correct, it would have to be by showing me that science, not just the Bible, supports your position.

That is where you are wrong. The Christian life is about faith (no evidence needed) and following Christ. You shouldn't need the science to back up your belief and your following of Christ.

My point was that Young Earth Creationism is Biblical, nothing more needs to be said as it is and you haven't refuted that.

But, even though I wish this weren't the case as you are a Christian, but if you are interested in YEC and how the Bible is verfied through that scientific belief:
http://www.creationwiki.net/index.php?title=Main_Page
http://www.creationwiki.net/index.php?title=Index_to_Creationist_Claims
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.creationontheweb.com/

I could go on...

[Dangerrmouse]

I note the necessity of setting up links to parallel wiki, and other parallel websites to support the deceitful creationist parallel universe.

[FlyingGuineapig]

I note the necessity of setting up links to parallel wiki, and other parallel websites to support the deceitful creationist parallel universe.
Yeah, you almost have to feel sorry for the YEC's. They've got to recreate science in a "Biblically pure" fashion, while the rest of the world is getting useful work done. The Amish are a lot better off - rather than trying to leech off the modern world while trying to cleanse off it's non-creationist aspects, just set yourself apart from it and live an honest life.

[Izdaari]

That is where you are wrong. The Christian life is about faith (no evidence needed) and following Christ. You shouldn't need the science to back up your belief and your following of Christ.Um, no. I don't believe things proven to be false. When I became a Christian, I didn't turn in my God-given gift of the ability to reason and to evaluate evidence, and I became a Christian in the first place because I was convinced of the truth of it, by means of evidence. Not conclusive proof of course, that isn't possible, but enough I think to meet the civil court standard of a preponderance of the evidence, at least if small personal divine revelations were ruled admissible. Without the evidence, I wouldn't been able to get close enough to believing to make the 'leap of faith'. God didn't make a universe that doesn't make sense. Along with the Pope, I don't believe that logic, science or the Bible contradict each other. When they appear to, it's because we haven't properly understood something.

My point was that Young Earth Creationism is Biblical, nothing more needs to be said as it is and you haven't refuted that.I wouldn't try to refute your claim that it's Biblical, because I disagree with your premise that nothing more needs to be said. I can't challenge that because it's a premise, and by nature not falsifiable. You may or may not be right about YEC being Biblical, but even if you are, that wouldn't be sufficient for me, for the reasons I gave above. Why should I waste my time arguing something that won't make a difference?

But, even though I with this weren't the case as you are a Christian, but if you are interested in YEC and how the Bible is verfied through that scientific belief:
http://www.creationwiki.net/index.php?title=Main_Page
http://www.creationwiki.net/index.php?title=Index_to_Creationist_Claims
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.creationontheweb.com/

I could go on...Thanks for the links, I'll check them out.

[sub_zer0]

Um, no. I don't believe things proven to be false. When I became a Christian, I didn't turn in my God-given gift of the ability to reason and to evaluate evidence, and I became a Christian in the first place because I was convinced of the truth of it, by means of evidence.

Good, but faith is the absence of evidence for things, which is what you should have in Christ.

Not conclusive proof of course, that isn't possible, but enough I think to meet the civil court standard of a preponderance of the evidence, at least if small personal divine revelations were ruled admissible. Without the evidence, I wouldn't been able to get close enough to believing to make the 'leap of faith'. God didn't make a universe that doesn't make sense. Along with the Pope, I don't believe that logic, science or the Bible contradict each other. When they appear to, it's because we haven't properly understood something.

Indeed, but YEC is Biblical science however, anything outside of that isn't.

I wouldn't try to refute your claim that it's Biblical, because I disagree with your premise that nothing more needs to be said. I can't challenge that because it's a premise, and by nature not falsifiable. You may or may not be right about YEC being Biblical, but even if you are, that wouldn't be sufficient for me, for the reasons I gave above. Why should I waste my time arguing something that won't make a difference?

You should to hear the YEC side and know that it is Biblical. You are not listening to the word of God and Christ's teachings on the earths age and creation, instead you listen to un-biblical science and modern man and go for evolution. That is my point.

[Dangerrmouse]

Biblical science? Like "if the mountain is tall enough, from the top you can see all of the world below you" kind of science? All four "corners" of it, in "fact"?

[steveksux]

Um, no. I don't believe things proven to be false. When I became a Christian, I didn't turn in my God-given gift of the ability to reason and to evaluate evidence, and I became a Christian in the first place because I was convinced of the truth of it, by means of evidence. .Precisely. God created the physical laws of nature. God gave us the ability and the desire to figure them out. God did not do this, and additionally rearrange all the physical evidence to appear as if it was proving Earth is billions of years old merely to trick us into questioning the literal truth of the bible. :rolleyes:

The fact that YEC is nonsense does not discredit Christianity anymore than finding out that the Earth was not really the center of the universe discredited Christianity back in the Middle ages. Even back then they were smart enough to realize THEY were ones in error, who misinterpreted the scriptures.

The only thing discredited is the shoddy interpretations of the Bible that the false doctrines are based on. Specifically that Earth is the center of the universe, and the Earth is only 6000 years old.

Randy

[burntgorilla]

Izdaari is just the kind of Christian I like. A sensible one.