Enoch2021 Posted February 1, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted February 1, 2014 PPS. By the way Enoch, mind me asking your area of expertise, be it educational or occupational? Are all those biology interests your vocation? Or hobby? Sorry Spock I missed this. I do not want to discuss this specifically as I feel it is irrelevant and it appears may go against the TOS. However, parts of that list.... shall we say, can be very telling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 75% of churched youth leave the church altogether within two years of graduation from high school. Many of these Christian youth grew up in a social church bubble and their lazy youth leaders never taught them any critical thinking skills, never exposed them to the challeges they would face in college and how to respond to them. As a result many churched youth attend university science classes and their atheistic/agnostic professors convince them that the Bible is wrong, that God didn't create the earth in six days and that Genesis is a fairytale. They graduate from college with a shipwrecked faith and are unable to believe the Bible, not just about Genesis; they can believe any of it. None of it can be trusted. We have one member on this board who is a good example of what I am talking about. She is a young girl just out of university or just about to graduate and she was on fire for Jesus going into college and is a professed atheist now and she credits her atheism, in part to the science professors at her university. Perhaps if people like you did not make them ignore science while growing up, if people like you did not make the age of the universe a litmus test for one's faith, then perhaps they would not fall away. No one has asked them to ignore science and I have certainly not made the age of the universe a litmus test for faith. The fact is that many lose their faith in the Bible because of the way science is taught in schools, particularly universities today. I am not saying that it is the ONLY factor, but it is a major contributing factor. They are not shielded from science at all, growing up. The problem is that they haven't been taught to respond to the kinds of challenges that atheists will pose to their faith, especially in the area of science. It is not OEC that drove these people from Jesus, it is the instance they ignore science and being told that to deny the earth was created in less than 140 hours is tantamount to deny God. Who's making that argument? You didn't get that from me. Those of us who believe the earth is a bit more than 6000 years old also believe the Bible, we do not deny it. I never said you did. Just think how different things would have been for this young girl you speak of if she had not grown up being told that she has to choose between believing in a 144 hour creation cycle or walking away from her faith. If anything is driving people from God, it is YEC not OEC. I don't think she was ever taught that at all, and she never said she was. She was simply more impressed with her science teacher than she was with the Bible and embraced the entire naturalistic worldview because in her mind, the claims of the Bible are false. She didn' blame YEC for her lack of faith. She credited the enlightment she received from her science professors and others for her rejection of the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Actually, OEC strengthens faith because there is more scientific evidence to support it and many Bible verses that allude to an old earth and the dateless past. It is more of a stretch to make YEC fit and as Spock said could be a stumbling block to those who are seeking, but cannot get past a mere 24 hour period being the initial creation of the earth. OEC explains it scientifically, with Bible references and does not compromise G-d as the great and wonderful creator; who has been creating from the very, very, very beginning. Before earth was formed. No, it doesn't really strengthen faith at all. In fact, faith doesn't come from science or knowledge. The Bible says that faith comes from God himself through His Word (Rom.1:16, Rom.10:17, Eph. 2:8) There are no Bible verses that point to an old earth existing in the dateless past. There are verses that you have penciled that meaning into that have nothing to do with the age of the earth, but there is actually treatment of that issue in Scripture. YEC cannot be a stumbling block to faith because it points people toward trusting the Word of God. No one loses faith on the grounds of trusting the very Word that God says produces faith in our hearts when we believe it. So this notion that YEC causes people to stumble is a load of hogwash. It is a desperate and irrational line of reasoning. And by the way, the Old Earth view was ORIGINALLY proposed by nonbelievers. OEC isn't rooted in the Bible. The first old earthers in history were nonChristians who didn't beleive the Bible during the "Age of Reason." It was proposed over 200 years before modern science as we know it. For Christians to desperate try to support a view first championed by nonChristians is very disappointing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted February 1, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Author Share Posted February 1, 2014 You also FAILED to Address 99.9% of the content of my post. Hi, Enoch, what does this mean to you? "Anyway, it's late and I have work I should have started 3 hours ago." If I have the energy tonight, I'll get back to you. ~Nebula, taking a mini-break~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted February 1, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted February 1, 2014 PPS. By the way Enoch, mind me asking your area of expertise, be it educational or occupational? Are all those biology interests your vocation? Or hobby? Sorry Spock I missed this. I do not want to discuss this specifically as I feel it is irrelevant and it appears may go against the TOS. However, parts of that list.... shall we say, can be very telling. They're not and Weren't a Hobby, and....... I'm Retired Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spock Posted February 1, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.86 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted February 1, 2014 PPS. By the way Enoch, mind me asking your area of expertise, be it educational or occupational? Are all those biology interests your vocation? Or hobby? Sorry Spock I missed this. I do not want to discuss this specifically as I feel it is irrelevant and it appears may go against the TOS. However, parts of that list.... shall we say, can be very telling. Ok, I will put my inferencing skills to work. Side note: I thought our only prohibition were using titles like Dr, PhD, JD, Rev, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted February 1, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted February 1, 2014 You also FAILED to Address 99.9% of the content of my post. Hi, Enoch, what does this mean to you? "Anyway, it's late and I have work I should have started 3 hours ago." If I have the energy tonight, I'll get back to you. ~Nebula, taking a mini-break~ Culturally or Logically ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-seeker Posted February 1, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 589 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/06/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted February 1, 2014 Hello, once again I will chime in from a different angle. I believe the "debate" between OE and YE is futile, but I will submit my reasons for a vote. No scientific or even exegetical argument attempting to validate a very old earth will win over the majority of those committed to a YE. The reason is that all attempts to reconcile scientific claims with the Bible will be seen as subordinating Scripture to Science, or man, or whatever. We have infallible Scripture forced to make concessions to fallible man. The whole project is suspect, and so every individual proposal from Gap Theories to literary analysis or history is, almost a priori, inadmissible. Perhaps if a Biblical exegesis arose before the maturity of the sciences (or their vanity, as some on this thread would say) which allowed room for a reading that was not 6 24 hour periods, there would be little problem. But because all of this comes after claims made from non-biblical quarters, they are automatically deemed "apostate". Hence the frequent pitting of Scripture vs. Science, or God's word vs. man's word. We OE plead in vain that we see it as Interpretations of Scripture made in light of scientific claims (not opposition, but cooperation)--or as I have said elsewhere (borrowing from Augustine) the exegesis of one of God's books (Scripture) read side by side with the exegesis of the other (Creation--which He did create!). It is not a debate therefore. It is a shouting match. And, from what I can see, it involves a whole lot of mud-slinging. I do not see how Christ is being glorified and the Church edified by this topic. But that is my take. clb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 In every response you have given, you have shown by your words time and time again that you are not interested in the scientific understanding, nor the scientific definitions, nor the scientific descriptions of these things - basically, you are not interested in the science. Up to this point, all scientists have been able to offer is assumptions and hypothesis, not facts. Why should put much faith in the assumptions of fallible when I hold in my hands the truth of an all-knowing, all powerful God? So what is the goal of YEC, to usurp science, overthrow science, ignore science - all the while pushing for a scientific interpretation of Genesis 1? I don't get it. YEC simply holds to the literal account of Creation in Genesis. Nor is it trying to usurp science. If anything, it is the scientific community that tries to usurp the authority of the Bible as our source for understanding God as the source of life and the universe itself. Until someone produces substantial data that the forces of the universe changed, what valid reason is there to assume otherwise? Arent these forces what bring order to how creation works. What would happen if all of those forces suddenly stopped working? What would be the end result? Actually, science does produce "facts" - only it's more accurately called "data". Interpretations are another matter. But not when it comes to origin of the univsere ALL they have are assumptions. Even YEC is grounded on an assumption - while to you it might be faith, to an outsider it's an assumption and they can discredit your conclusion based on the assumption(s) they don't agree with just as you do. More precisely, YEC is grounded on the claims of the Bible that the earth was created by God and that He did it in 6 days. Now the 'assumption' if there is one, is that God's word is true and accurate on this matter. Truth is Jesus Himself, not interpretations and doctrines of Scripture. Jesus is THE truth, but truth as an objective reality is also part of Scripture. Trying to limit the meaning of truth, theologically to Jesus only, isn' t a very theologically credible argument to make. "Literal" is in the eye of the beholder. No, it's not in the eye of the beholder. "Literal" from the vantage point of literary analysis is objective and is supplied by the author of a piece of literature and not by the reader. Thus it is in the words of the author, not in the eye of the reader or "beholder." You don't get to decide what is literal or not. The author tells you what he means and what the "literal" meaning is. You as the reader or "beholder" are expected to understand a text in the light of the object the author has in view. "Literal" is not up to you. It is not arbitrary. OK, I am still failing to see a case for how YEC can be taught as a science? I don't think anyone has made a case for YEC in particular to be taught as science. I think the push was for Creationism/Intelligent Design to have an equal voice as an explanation of origins alongsdie evolution. If every force stopped working, my guess is that eventually the universe would be filled with a bunch of unmoving subatomic particles. Of course, I have no idea what would happen to the whole expansion vs. collapsing of the universe. But I wouldn't call it a state of chaos, and there certainly would not be any water. Why wouldn't you call that chaos? What makes you think there would be a universe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted February 1, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted February 1, 2014 OK, I am still failing to see a case for how YEC can be taught as a science? I'm failing to see why Old Earth/Universe can be taught as "Science"?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.03b9a592ab3fbf402fba028ca0d40a97.thumb.jpg.2258d605d3ad1f34b6effde23d20e7d7.jpg)
Recommended Posts