jane May 10, 2004 Author Share jane Member May 10, 2004 ..... wow never thought that this thread would turn into a flood debate.... watchtower. do you believe in God now? You have been speaking like you do....if thats the case....Do you believe that Jesus is God's son? And if that too....do you believe that he Died for You? Have you accepted this and given your life to Him? maybe a PM would do, unless you wanna talk bout it here.... as to flood evidence, all(any quoted in my college textbooks, from a secular school that is) scientists believe the earth as once covered with water. They claim it was just before the dawning of Man, and that what are now the Rocky Mountains and Hymalayas(sp?) were once only a few hundred feet below sea level. Interesting that they dont admit it could have happened like the bible tells it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trouble .gc May 10, 2004 Share Trouble .gc Member May 10, 2004 watch here. i've never denied the existance of God. What would make you think that? Christianity does not equal God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa May 10, 2004 Share Playaa Member May 10, 2004 well to Jane it does... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jane May 10, 2004 Author Share jane Member May 10, 2004 lol playaa, you got me . yeah watch, i know you havent denied His existance. Was just wondering at a few statements thats all... as you can tell im not much for this "contemplative" arguement, because I jsut cant find the logic in both "scientific" sides. One(christian~) is going to science to explain God, which is so rediculous that i wont even laugh at it. The other(secular) is going to science to prove science. Circular logic, using things we see today to "prove" what happened yesterday. Understandable, but not sound in the fact that none of these circular based theories can literally be proven. Gravity is provable. What goes up must come down. Energy is provable. It never disapates, but just goes to a seperate or different use. Light is provable. It is all around us. The Principles of Geology are not, because we cant put them in a lab and prove them. Im not saying they arent valid points, and follow some version of logic, but that they arent as sound as the scientists like to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower May 11, 2004 Share Watchtower Member May 11, 2004 All I'm saying is if there was a Global flood, there would be unsurmountable evidence. I'm sorry the earth is Not only 6000 years old. There are very few people that believe this. Show me some valid arguments outside the bible and christian science that say it is. THe idea is almost preposterous. It is "Generally Accepted" that the earth is over 4 billion years old. The young earth theory cannot prove the earth is young, but only attempts to prove modern dating methods wrong. I'll agree that the methods Can be wrong, but if you take thousands of tests, they All cant be wrong. You can't take a handfull of erroneous test results and write off the rest.. Well you could but that's not good logic. I also understand that you few will have to argue to your death about this because your whole belief system past and present hangs in the balance.. How could you possibly fathom that you and the people you look up to have been wrong all along. We all can't be right. Someone has to be wrong. I go with what makes the most sense to me. Same with everyone else. I am open to all ideas but a few.. Not the case with everyone else. Again, show me some sound proof.. I don't think it can be done. I can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower May 12, 2004 Share Watchtower Member May 12, 2004 No one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower May 15, 2004 Share Watchtower Member May 15, 2004 When all the evidence contrasts what I believe, I would have to take that into consideration... Noone cares to comment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwEEziL May 15, 2004 Share dwEEziL Member May 15, 2004 Not at this moment. I would have to re-read this thread to find out the pertinent topic in question and I don't have the time right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower May 15, 2004 Share Watchtower Member May 15, 2004 Here is my main question at this point.. Unsurmountable evidence.. Which I feel is everywhere. All I'm saying is if there was a Global flood, there would be unsurmountable evidence. I'm sorry the earth is Not only 6000 years old. There are very few people that believe this. Show me some valid arguments outside the bible and christian science that say it is. THe idea is almost preposterous. It is "Generally Accepted" that the earth is over 4 billion years old. The young earth theory cannot prove the earth is young, but only attempts to prove modern dating methods wrong. I'll agree that the methods Can be wrong, but if you take thousands of tests, they All cant be wrong. You can't take a handfull of erroneous test results and write off the rest.. Well you could but that's not good logic. I also understand that you few will have to argue to your death about this because your whole belief system past and present hangs in the balance.. How could you possibly fathom that you and the people you look up to have been wrong all along. We all can't be right. Someone has to be wrong. I go with what makes the most sense. Same with everyone else. I am open to all ideas but a few.. Not the case with everyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa May 15, 2004 Share Playaa Member May 15, 2004 why do you feel there would be unsurmountable evidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower May 17, 2004 Share Watchtower Member May 17, 2004 Of a global flood and all living organisms living and evolving only during the last 6000? years? Are you kidding? The fact that only fundamentalists and biblical literalists can believe this logic tell me there's not much "evidence"... You'd be posting link after link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa May 17, 2004 Share Playaa Member May 17, 2004 I'm still not sure what sort of evidence you'd be looking for...you've never accepted any evidence I've provided and I honestly can't provide you scientific evidence because I believe in God and miracles which is outside science... so what else do you want? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower May 18, 2004 Share Watchtower Member May 18, 2004 How about thousands of human fossils all in a nice little layer.. How about No trees or other living organisms being able to be dated back past 6,000 years.. How about a scientist from an Accredited college showing a Plausable scenario and some proofs.. I'm asking for Anything... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa May 18, 2004 Share Playaa Member May 18, 2004 How about thousands of human fossils all in a nice little layer.. tell me you're kidding...you do know that fossils aren't just made from things dying...they're made from extreme pressure circumstances (like Pompei)...so alot of rain may indeed drown the entire world...but it wouldn't fossilize a single one of them really. How about No trees or other living organisms being able to be dated back past 6,000 years.. tell me what living organism on this earth that would be killed by 40 days of water could be over 6,000 years old? would a massive tree survive underwater for 40 days? I honestly don't know... How about a scientist from an Accredited college showing a Plausable scenario and some proofs.. again, you have biased ideas already. first off...you will only accept it from a scientist from an "accredited" college...which we all know would be a college who would follow the evolutionary ideal about 99.9999999% of the time...so tell me how a creation scientist is even supposed to get in there? I've told you in the past about the video I've seen from a Christian production company. It talks about 9 EVOLUTIONARY scientists who decided to take a little "vacation" to the beach and spend weeks studying nothing but the origins of man...and not a single one of those scientists was a Christian and all of them were acclaimed in their fields...these men proceeded to study DNA (amongst other things) and after their studies were over, every single one of them agreed that this earth came about through intelligent design (though they didn't all agree it was "god")...some of them are now Christians, some aren't...but all of those 9 accredited scientists agree that the macro evolutionary theory is false. (I'm trying to find the video for you now) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa May 18, 2004 Share Playaa Member May 18, 2004 Illustramedia.com pretty sure that's the video Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa May 18, 2004 Share Playaa Member May 18, 2004 Preview (in real media format) in the real video by the way...it doesn't have that stupid music that makes it seem like an epic film...don't know why they put that in the preview...it's annoying Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jane May 18, 2004 Author Share jane Member May 18, 2004 ive said it before and ill say it again. Dr Hoyt, Dean of the Earth Sciences Department(geology, meterology, etc) at the University of Northern Colorado(check it out, its accredited) was my personal, real life, classroom instructor. He explained the first day in class that he is a creationist and a christian. He didnt go into details of why he is, but he explained that the how is easier to understand. He said(common, though amazingly true annecdote) that it takes more faith to belive that the earth was formed out of accident and destruction than from a specifically intelligent creator. He went on to teach the class (Physical and Chemical Oceanography) as the text was intended: with strong evolutionist backup. My point being that he is a department chair, head of the school of earth sciences and he still believes that God created the earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower May 18, 2004 Share Watchtower Member May 18, 2004 they're made from extreme pressure circumstances (like Pompei)... So kinda like thousands of tons of water suddenly covering the earth and all the people at the bottom? The remains of plants and animals may have been deposited in ways that cannot be predicted or even imagined in terms of present processes. The flood was not just a natural process but a supernatural judgment. We don't know where God used the normal laws of nature and where he used his power directly in miraculous ways that surpass naturalistic explanation. And this is kinda how you have to think about it.. God did all kinds of strange things to try to hide it. Yet spelled it out for us in black and white. The patterns of nature don't limit God; he controls those patterns and can change them if chooses to do so. When God rescued Israel from Egypt, he brought them through the Red Sea on dry ground by making water stand in walls on either side of the path through the sea. When Jesus was on earth, he walked on water, and he quieted raging waves simply by speaking. We can't explain scientifically how water could stand up in like a wall or how Christ could walk on water and make it obey him. But it's clear that whenever the Lord wishes, he can make water behave outside the ordinary boundaries and properties he created for it. He simply needs to give a command, and water does what he says. Noice the theme there? THe water? The seas? The great deep? Those hugely mysterious powers of the unknown.. The Oceans.. Scary, untamable, unrelenting, mercilous forces.. Tales of giant sea serpents and killer whales.. Huge, unfathomable creatures with the thirst for the blood of man. And God walks right up and lays the smack down. Impressive. At the time, man was trying to stretch across these great divides.. He wasn't trying to reach into the stars as much as he was trying to spread out. I don't know what I'm trying to say, it's late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwEEziL May 18, 2004 Share dwEEziL Member May 18, 2004 You do know that most of the dating methods are flawed in design right? To get an accurate date, the item to be dated needs to have been in a controlled environment the entire time elsewise, components could be lost or brought in that would alter the dating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower May 19, 2004 Share Watchtower Member May 19, 2004 I'm sorry but dating many items found in the same location Will give you a good idea.. "We've got a match, Ohp, we've got another match, Ohp this one says it's not even in existance yet, but these other 30 match" type deal. Many types of dating, and None "prove" a Young Earth theory. Not all dating methods involve measuring an amount of something found in the material.. Many do though and to say they are All totally wrong is well, a stretch of enormous proportions. If that's a leap your willing to make, that's your choice. My point being that he is a department chair, head of the school of earth sciences and he still believes that God created the earth Thank you Dr. Hoyt.. From a Christian scientist.. It is because of this foundational character of the Biblical doctrine of creation that it is unfortunate when the word "creation" is used narrowly and restrictively to refer--not to the fact of Creation--but to a possible means in the creative activity, usually to that means known as fiat creation. When it is implied that creation and evolution are necessarily mutually exclusive, or when the term "creation" is used as if it were primarily a scientific mechanism for origins, a profound confusion of categories is involved. The implication is given, deliberately or not, that if evolution should be the proper mechanism for the growth and development of living forms, then creation would have to be rejected. To pose such a choice is to do basic damage to the Christian position. It is to play directly into the hands of those evolutionists who argue that their understanding of evolution does away with the theological significance of Creation. If such an evolutionist is wrong to believe that his biological description does away with the need for a theological description, the Christian anti-evolutionist is wrong to believe that his theological description must make any biological description impossible. We believe in Creation. We praise the Lord for that faith. But let us avoid either posing creation and evolution as intrinsically antithetical alternatives, the acceptance of one demanding the rejection of the other, or presenting creation as a scientific mechanism alternative to evolution, as though good science must ultimately lead to the verification of fiat creation and a falsification of evolution. So they like to think Creation then Evolution.. Not one or the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jane May 19, 2004 Author Share jane Member May 19, 2004 Thank you Dr. Hoyt.. From a Christian scientist.. How about a scientist from an Accredited college showing a Plausable scenario and some proofs.. I'm asking for Anything... whats the difference? oh yeah ones a christian? so? you asked for an accredited school so i gave you one im personally familiar with..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa May 19, 2004 Share Playaa Member May 19, 2004 again, you have biased ideas already.first off...you will only accept it from a scientist from an "accredited" college...which we all know would be a college who would follow the evolutionary ideal about 99.9999999% of the time...so tell me how a creation scientist is even supposed to get in there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower May 20, 2004 Share Watchtower Member May 20, 2004 which we all know would be a college who would follow the evolutionary ideal about 99.9999999% of the time Well if that's how you feel, I'd ask myself why that is.. I'm of the opinion, which Janes reference backs up perfectly, that going in you have conceptions of literaly biblicy(my new phrase) and come out of the notion that just because the bible isn't exactly correct, you can still believe just as much as the other.. So to me, the most informed(99.999999 %) don't believe in the Young Earth theory and feels that this is not pivotal to their faith. A little more reasonable and rational if you ask me. And Jane, we'er not talking Evolution/Creation here, we're talking about a biblical flood/Age of the earth dealy.. whats the difference? oh yeah ones a christian? so? you asked for an accredited school so i gave you one im personally familiar with..... yes I thank you for that. he is a Christian and feels the same way I do about the age of the earth. Thanks for your note and your heartfelt question. First, let me say that the answer to this question about a young or old earth is not pivotal to faith in Jesus Christ. In many church circles, this question has been elevated to the level of an article of faith (i.e. somebelievers will say that if you believe the earth is old, you cannot be a Christian). This is a great mistake and plays into the hands of evil, essentially reducing the faith to a long series of litmus tests that cannot be supported by any reasonable reading of the scriptures. Narrow-minded legalism is not what Jesus supported, so we should take that as a starting-off point. And as far as biased opinions, if you have any thoughts at all in your head, you could say any opinion you have is biased.. Not a bad thing considering you are siding with 99.999999 percent of the population. Basically what Most Christian Scientists say is that you don't have to believe literally to believe.. Now many will say(me included) that you should take it as literally as possible, but that's gotta be next to impossible. I don't know. About your videos Playaa.. That's good. We know cells, their functions, production and origin are pretty amazing events. We are just beginning to comprehend Anything about this process. And this does lend to the idea of something "Creating" this system in one swipe. Or something happening totally out of the scope of our Earthly views(alien) But unfortunately, Creationism does not equal Christianity. The Christians feel obligated to debate because their Bibles lay everything out very plainly and any kind of evolutionary theory seemingly goes against what the Bible says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jane May 20, 2004 Author Share jane Member May 20, 2004 my bad watchtower. i wasnt very clear. He believes in a 40 day flood, which is the explanation for many of the things in Oceanography(his specialty) and many of the things in the rest of the earth sciences. I did a paper on it and he didnt even think my paper was good enough and marked as a D! Ugh, he was tough on what he called evidence and he really made me work. My point is that he doesnt see it the way you do, he sees it the way the bible tells it. He just teaches the stuff because its science and they ask him to. He cant teach much of the creationist side of the "flood" because most of it isnt very scientific..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower May 21, 2004 Share Watchtower Member May 21, 2004 Jane I'm sorry but I think you're wrong.. He made it very clear in his email..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.