Ninevite

I feel the same way, believe it or not. I will argue for a young earth and I do consider myself a YEC, but I am not dogmatic about it. I don't consider it a salvation issue for sure and besides that, I don't think anybody has the age of the earth right. lol. I know that sounds funny, but it's true. I think science is very useful and it will eventually provide an answer to certain questions. As far as science goes...I love it and it scares me about as much as a winning lotto ticket found in MY wallet. I think science (when done correctly) will teach us the ways of God as much as He will permit.

~ Why Would I Condemn The Beloved Jews When They Gave Me Their Holy Book You would not. I hope. God certainly has not. The Jews are the most glaring proof we have for the character of God! He has kept His promises to the Jews. He has included them in everything He does.

Of course. I agree. I happen to think a lot of science is very useful, regardless of the beliefs of the scientist. Not for me. Please don't get that impression of me. I will listen and try to understand. Fair enough. Can I ask why you believe the big bang theory? Maybe we can start a new thread devoted to the big bang, though I have noticed most threads tend to be all over the place. I would still like to discuss it in more detail.

Neil there are many other threads on the forums. Not everyone here is an evolutionist brother. Honestly, the Holy Spirit is the guide of the Believer. So perhaps praying that God would open people's eyes to the truth would be the best thing? God bless, GE Thank You GE, thank you very much.. I feel like people are questioning my faith just because I disagree with one little thing.

and here is the crux of the matter. In order not to agree with atheist you choose to stop using your brain and ignore evidence. I will tell you I agree with atheist all the time. I work as a statistician and the theorems that are essential for my craft to exist are shared between believers and atheist alike. I guess I should disregard the central limit theorem or the law of total variance because atheist agree with those too. Sorry, I will not check my brain at the door. this was a mistake, good day Do you mean to say that athiests have difinitively answered the question to life, the universe and everything or are you simply saying athiests can be right some of the time? They can also be wrong some of the time. For instance, the big bang...this theory is incredibly flawed and time and time again creationists have proven this. The big bang has never, since it's first inception, held up under scrunity. When you start inventing things like dark matter and anti matter to rescue a dead theory, that is checking your brain at the door.

From the link, quote: "This layered universe was a stage for a variety of actors that included heroes, monsters and creatures that could cross between the levels," Simek said in a statement. I find this area of study to be the most interesting as of late. I have been told I have an "unhealthy" fascination with demonic activity. I love the Lord with all my heart. Jesus has not saved me from the world, He has saved me from myself. My faith is strong and demonic activity only serves to strengthen my faith.

I have seen this come up in a lot of other discussions, appearing usually a bit off topic so I will post this here in it's own thread. What is the geocentric model? How does it work? What evidence is there to support this model? What are the alternatives? I am genuinly curious, please feel free to share your thoughts on this topic. Thanks, Nick

I'm not sure. I enjoy sharing my views and reading what others have to say, but you may have noticed that I often "accuse" some of the members of trying to convert. I'm not that way, but I do love a good debate and I will even stay in a debate when it gets a little heated as a result. I noticed you ask a lot of questions, I tend to do the same. I have studied young earth creationism for just over a decade and the geocentric model is not the only thing disagree with. I have issues with evolution I do not want to bring up here...philisophycal reasons for not liking evolution and I think they add little to "science vs. faith".

You should be certain. Nice to meet you, by the way. Then I don’t want to be a fool. In other words: don’t worry, I won’t try convincing you otherwise. Your loss. But I am nevertheless curious: why exactly would I have to prove that the Earth doesn’t rotate, instead of you proving that it does rotate? As I agree with %80 percent of things you say, let's not be antagonistic toward one another, Neil. It is nice to meet you, too. There are many YEC's here on this forum and I'm one of them. Having said that, you seem like a really smart guy and I will admit niavity when it comes to many aspects of science. I always maintain that I believe what I believe because I want to. In my discussions with Gerald McGrew I had to inform him of this bias and he thanked me for it. He also does not seem to want to discuss evolution with me anymore as a result. I don't blame him. He is wasting his time if he is trying to convert me, though I will readily have a discussion on any topic. I am convinced the earth rotates. If you would like to discuss this, I would be happy to. I find it interesting to say the least, but if your only desire is to convert, then you may be wasting your time. If you enjoy talking about it, by all means, please enlighten me. I would love to here about a stationary planet. Just don't start out frusterated thinking it is a conversion thing...it is simply a fun discussion. With that, I believe the earth rotates because that is what I was taught in school and I believe we went to the moon and I have been taught that a moon landing would have missed if calculated using the geocentric model.

Thanks Mark. Indeed, Mark is right, though numbers vary depending on the source material. If we based the age of the universe on the known speed of light (which we don't) then the universe would be closer to 70 billion years old. So, with a 14 billion year model the universe is far too young for distant starlight to have reached us. It is a problem for everyone, and is scientific in nature. It begs questions, though I don't think it has ever been offered up for "proof" of creation. And I don't recall seeing anywhere a YEC using it to antagonize secular world views. Furthermore, The theory presented by Dr. Lisle (above) is not twisting science in any way...he is proposing a theory. The original video is much longer and he offers all known theories dealing with this problem. Edit: He does not offer ALL known theories...what I meant to say is that he offers the BEST known theories and he does not trash the secular theories, he simply points out the flaws in all of the theories he offers, including his own.

I found this interesting. Note that he planned to submit this paper if his password was restored. Who needs to waste time with rejection letters when you can simply lock the creationist out and not allow him to submit in the first place? http://www.orionfdn.org/papers/predicts-enhanced-galaxy-brightness.htm

For anyone interested in reading Gentry's book, mentioned above, here is a link: http://www.halos.com/book/ctm-toc.htm From chapter six: "The financial support for this research is a story in itself. During my tenure as a guest scientist at ORNL, my salary was provided from grant funds obtained through my affiliation with Columbia Union College. Through the early 1970's these funds came from private sources and the National Science Foundation to cover that expense. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the government agency entrusted with allocating hundreds of millions annually for research in the scientific disciplines. Like all government agencies, it is publicly funded and legally obligated to disperse those monies impartially. In theory, taxpayers' money should be dispensed without preference for particular views or discrimination against alternative theories." http://www.halos.com/book/ctm-06-a.htm

Thank you, Mark. This is helpful... http://www.orionfdn.org/documents/index.htm And interestingly: Dear Dr. Press: The February 1987 issue of Physics Today (p. 66) mentions the National Academy of Sciences as one organization which is opposed to the Louisiana creation-science law, now being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Doubtless you already knew this because the booklet written by you and others, Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences (National Academy Press, 1984) is quoted in the Physics Today report as follows: ..."It is, therefore, our unequivocal conclusion that creationism, with its account of the origin of life by supernatural means, is not science. It subordinates evidence to statements based on authority and revelation. Its documentation is almost entirely limited to the special publications of its advocates. And its central hypothesis is not subject to change in light of new data or demonstration of error. Moreover, when the evidence for creationism has been subjected to the tests of the scientific method, it has been found invalid..."

It's right here in this thread. I also addressed that This doesn't help, Gerald. I want to see where you have spoken to every creationist who has ever not submitted work and told you all about not submitting it. You must be getting your information from somewhere, right? So where is the site that says, creationists never submit work? Links back to your own posts are self aggrandizing and useless.

Oh...they do. Check this out. <<< Videos must be submitted in the proper forum for review by the Ministry Team. Please submit all videos in one of these forums: Videos >>>

I understand what you are saying about having google battles, but at some point you have to ask yourself, is this person completely in the dark? And as you pointed out, I can provide you with several links to creationist websites that support my claims, but do you care? Would you even read them? Or would you blow it off that I get my info from a "unicorns are real" website? Any of those possiblities makes it easier for me to say, google it. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I often get the feeling people ask for links just to waste my time. Speaking of unicorns... <<< Videos must be submitted in the proper forum for review by the Ministry Team. Please submit all videos in one of these forums: Videos >>>

You said cosmology is a hobby for you. Don’t you know your own hobby? you have this disconcerting habit of not answering questions, instead you snipe back in a passive aggressive manner. It has been my experience over the last decade of being on internet forum most of the people that do this really have no clue what they are talking about. I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now and hope you can justify that faith in you. So, I will ask you again and change it up a bit...in your own words, why would the night sky blind us? I look forward to reading your answer. I agree. That paper in no way advocates a young universe the way YEC's see it. By "young" the author is suggesting it is millions of years old, not billions...either way his theory leaves out a literal account in Genesis. Blinded by a night sky does not prove evoltution or creation, it seemingly implies that some people have too much time on their hands.

So be it. I "googled it" for you. http://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/members/hatch/ I already googled it and read about him and his book. Let me ask you this, in what way does telling someone to Google something offer any insight into if the person has any knowledge at all about a subject? Telling someone to google something without adding your own two thoughts and words is either a lazy way out or a sign that someone has no real clue what they are speaking of. I have not seen enough from Neil to make up my mind which it is yet Congrats on googling it. Most would simply choose to keep their head in the sand. As for the question, I'd be delighted to answer that and I am very glad you asked. Insight into whether or not a person has knowledge of what they are talking about is a distraction at best. One should not even have to provide you this insight and even when they do, it is still of little to no value. You should be fact checking them anyway for the sake of critical thinking. Telling someone to google something is encouraging them to stop being so lazy and look into things for themselves. I provide links when I think they are of value to the discussion and the point I am trying to make, however I expect others to make an effort to understand what the discussion is officially about. I'm almost positive, based on his posts, that Neil is a geocentrist YEC, though I am not certain. However this fact, if it be one, would not mean that he has no nuggets of wisdom at all. It would simply mean his task is much larger than I originally thought. I think it is easy to prove the earth is young, but I am convinced that the earth rotates. Convincing me otherwise may be a fools errand.

Exactly. Yet this is the stance of most evolutionists today. They hold onto outdated and archaic theories all the while arguing that "most scientists believe it". In my OP I was attempting to point out the fact that "most scientists" is pitiful in comparison to the vast majority of the planet's population. While I hold the stance that popularity means nothing in the creation/evolution debate, I think it is note worthy to point out that creationists are on the rise among the scientific community. To me this indicates that more and more scientists are starting to go where the evidence leads and abandoning their presuppositions.

So be it. I "googled it" for you. http://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/members/hatch/

Completely wrong. In fact, Einstein’s relativity (both of them) is unable to explain things. Why don’t you google Ronald Hatch GPS. You’ll eventually find his scientific papers (or his book) on the topic. You should read them, since this fellow actually had to make the GPS to work. He even has personal patents in it. Let me put it another way, so you’ll understand: without Hatch, GPS wouldn’t work. I will check this out but it does not address the paper. Telling people to Google things is not the same as supporting your claims. If you are going to make claims you need to support them with more than just "Google it" With all due respect, J, I am a firm believer that one ought to google things. I understand the want for links in forum posts, however this "links or it never happened" mentallity is slightly detrimental. Neil has provided several resources above for those with genuine curriosity. I think "google it" ought to be used more often as "linky or this stinky" is often abused.

Where have I done that? So if a handful of scientists who are creationists is compelling to you, why then isn't the fact that the vast majority of earth and life scientists are "evolutionists" even more compelling? I mean, I'm surprised to see a creationist try and argue from numbers of scientists. ~ Gerald McGrew post #41 "Are God's actions falsifiable?" Furthermore, you seem to have trouble distinguishing the difference between the words "scientist" and "believe". Many scientists believe in a creator god. Being a scientist does not in anyway shape or form indicate one's beliefs. It simply means they are a scientist. If a mathematician told you 2+2=5 would you believe him just because he is scientist?

Hmmmm....which among the list of logical fallacies should I choose from? Is it the fallacy of false dilemma, where you only allow two options? Is it the fallacy of argument via straw man, where you describe the non-creationist position as "nothing created matter, order..."? Is it the fallacy of begging the question, where you use the term "create" in describing the non-creationist position? Or is it... ....the fallacy of argument from popularity? So many to choose from. You should also no use the "popularity fallacy" as it is your favorite for trying to dismiss creationists as a minority.

I can say that because I have never seen one. No one has ever offered a fossil that proves one creature changed into another. Dogs are one kind, cats are another. There is no such thing as a species. now that is just silly. "Species" is merely the name given to a basic unit of classification. Men are free to classify things any way they wish. While their classification may not match God's, it is silly to say that "there is no such thing". This would be akin to saying there is no such thing as an automobile. Actually, it would be like saying there is no such thing as a car or a truck, they are both just automobiles.

The creationist is a funny guy. While he may disagree with fellow creationists there is one thing that they all should have in common. When they look at the world they see order and intelligence. To draw the conclusion that there must be an intelligent force responsible for the existance of the Universe is not a difficult leap. The creationists logic can be described as such: Nothing begets nothing, intelligence begets intelligence. The blind watchmaker just doesn't work. You cannot use the laws of nature to create nature. So the question becomes... Did nothing create matter, order, life, intelligence and compassion? Or did some higher creative power give rise to what we have before us? It is easy to get frusterated and pull your hair out, but hey...it can be fun as long as it stays calm, cool, and collected. just thought I would share these thoughts with those who have trouble understanding the higher power crowd...it is an enormous crowd with many denominations across many continents worshipping many gods. Regardless of anything else, the fact remains, higher power is the majority view.