Dialogue envisioning: Creationist vs Conventional scientist

[MrsRational]

The great thing about fantasy conversations is they always go our way.

[nebula]

The great thing about fantasy conversations is they always go our way.

 

The purpose, though, is to use a different method of explaining one's point.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

The great thing about fantasy conversations is they always go our way.

 

The purpose, though, is to use a different method of explaining one's point.

 

Yeah, but it comes off as more than that.   Your envisioned conversation doesn't really deal with the actual claims we make.  It was a very lopsided conversatoin where "S" makes well reasoned arguments while "C" has nothing meaningful or substantve to offer.  

[nebula]

 

 

The great thing about fantasy conversations is they always go our way.

 

The purpose, though, is to use a different method of explaining one's point.

 

Yeah, but it comes off as more than that.   Your envisioned conversation doesn't really deal with the actual claims we make.  It was a very lopsided conversatoin where "S" makes well reasoned arguments while "C" has nothing meaningful or substantve to offer.  

 

I was expressing my frustration. If you will notice, "S" didn't say anything substantial either, just asked questions.

 

And like I said from the beginning, anyone can add their own dialogue. A couple of the guys here did that.I thought it made things interesting.

[enoob57]

Enoch, with that mindset, you might as well just turn off the telescopes like Hubble and SOHO, shut down the radio observatories like Greenbank and the Very Large Array, and every observatory around the globe, and miss out on all the cool and useful technologies that have come out of the space program because in your mind observational science is not "real" science.

 

Likewise, you need to not listen to Creationists who point to the dramatic landscape changes, formation of a petrified forest, and rapid ecological recovery around Mt. St. Helens, because all of that is being reported from observational science as well.

 

What other mindset can a YEC have? They have to find a way to deny any science that does not agree with their interpretation of Genesis 1.  To the YEC crowd Edwin Hubble is a snake oil salesman and Ken Ham is the ultimate authority.

the assumption that YEC needs outside of it's own fact of 'IS' ...

[enoob57]

Hey Enoch,

Do you clench your fist when you hear any or all of these words- Hubble, COBE, WMAP, and Planck.

I'll bet you do.

No I perceive that by the logic and accuracy of His facts he doesn't feel threatened by that which

comes against it... Simple logic the eternal conclusion 'IS' cannot be 'not' but the present conclusion

'not' proclaims itself as 'IS' hence the confusion of sin! Love, Steven

[enoob57]

My objection all along. AIG and ICR and others are more interested in debunkiing than in original research and proposing alternative scientific hypotheses. They claim no one in the community takes them seriously, but who is to blame for that?

My understanding from God is thus: the place we are born in 'IS' darkness and the

and the light of truth must be rejected by the overwhelming darkness that is

the first begin from which all have been born! As that which is few must agree

to truth

Matt 7:14

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way,

which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

KJV

just as the permeation of light into the darkness >NO< but as light then

no darkness remains... so truth and lie... so fact and error- CHOOSE-

as evolution of any sort has God building upon death in the first

representation of Himself through creation- How foolish is this? The

eternal God of Life building upon death to proclaim Himself through

that same creation as Life-

John 14:6

6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and

the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

KJV

I Know 'not' cannot be 'IS' and Life cannot be built upon death!

Rom 1:20

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of

the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things

that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;

so that they are without excuse:

KJV

Remember the rock and sand... choose wisely the foundation from which we are

to build as we are to build upon the rock- which 'IS' Christ The Lord and

death in His first creative act was choice not 'IS' ...

Love, Steven

[Spock]

S: hey c, what about starlight? We are seeing light from stars wayyyyyyyyy longer than 10,000 years old.

C: there you go again s, wanting to talk science while all I want to talk about is the Bible and Hebrew grammar.

S: take for instance this supernova that was observed in 1987 that came from the large magellinic cloud galaxy not to far from our own galaxy. It has been determined through several independent studies that the light from this supernova explosion occurred 167,000 light years ago. Obviously, that is way more than 10,000.

C: good question s, and I don't have an answer right now. But let me check and see if Answers in Genesis has one. They are pretty good at doing that (coming up with rebuttals whenever science comes out with something new.)

S: do they have open minded scientists working there in AIG?

C: I think they are, but of course, they are not allowed to share any study or finding that would oppose their mission, which is to pooh pooh any science discovery that can possibly question the six day creation account.

S: what about all the Christian scientists who support an old earth? Do you consider their work knowing that they too have the Holy Spirit guiding their lives?

C: no, like I told you, we don't trust science or scientists even the ones who bow their knee to Jesus. They obviously sold their birthright like Esau did.

Disclaimer: a wee bit of a hyperbole with tongue in cheek, but was done to make a point or two. (Good writing does that at times.)

[Spock]

Thank you Nebula for that post, it is good to see where people are coming from.  YEC delayed my conversion for a few years and I guess because of that I tend to get a chip on my shoulder.  These sorts of discussions would be much better if people (and myself included) would just post what they believe and why vice trying to prove the other person wrong.   To say that something is not science or that it is just fantasy does not help the situation and causes people such as myself to go on the defensive.   I apologize to all for losing my cool and being so defensive.

Great testimonies here from both nebula and LFA. Mine isn't to dissimilar. I was so conflicted by being forced to exclude science because "God said it so it must be this way" influence. Finally, I realized the distinction between what God said and what people interpret God said can be two different things. I also believe God challenged me to help people see that he is the greatest scientist and that good, honest, and reliable science does support him, and is not against him.

[Enoch2021]

Hey Enoch,

Do you clench your fist when you hear any or all of these words- Hubble, COBE, WMAP, and Planck.

I'll bet you do.

 

What are those?