Ask a Young Earth Creationist.

[El_Machinae]

@Sidhe, the Bible only say that Blood is the life of the body, not of the soul.

You need to pull on the Concordance on that one. It says that the "Life/Soul" is in the blood. The same word has multiple meanings. It's elsewhere interpreted as "soul"

 

[Sidhe]

@Sidhe, the Bible only say that Blood is the life of the body, not of the soul.

Fine but that's not what the Jews believed, and that is not the basis of their kosher law. That is all I was saying.

You need to pull on the Concordance on that one. It says that the "Life/Soul" is in the blood. The same word has multiple meanings. It's elsewhere interpreted as "soul"

Hebrew like Aramaic and Arabic has multiple meaning depending on inflection and context, that's why it takes a linguist and theological expert to interpret the OT, and a speaker of classical Greek/Latin and in my case English to interpret The NT, the languages are more readily understandable. Although obviously as likely to cause debate because context is universal. Sadly most people are not either - and neither am I - which is why if I have doubt I ask a theologian, not God. I'll leave that to Thomas, Aquinas or otherwise, or mayhaps Jesus who I would have a little more faith in given his words, if not his life story.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Do you believe the Earth rotates?
Do you believe the Earth goes around the Sun?
Do you believe the Sun was stopped in the sky as claimed in the Bible?

Do you think there would be not the slightest bit of evidence from such a catastrophic event, where the entire 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tonne Earth stopped rotating at 28 kilometres per second (at the equator) and stopped in its 30 kilometre per second orbit, creating accelerations which would throw everything on one half of the Earth out of the atmosphere and crush everything on the other half of the Earth into a thin pulp?

It makes a nice story to claim that the Sun stopped in the sky, of course, and that's probably why the man (or men) who wrote it did so. At the time, they didn't understand just how things are linked in astronomy - that the Earth is not stationary with everything else moving independently - and so they didn't appreciate the sheer physical destruction on Earth that such an event would necessitate.

It's fine to enjoy the story, but to read it literally is utterly ludicrous.

Then of course there are things like the dinosaurs - never directly mentioned in the Bible. Why? Because the men who wrote the Bible didn't know about dinosaurs, had no reason to imagine they existed, and you can't write about something you can't imagine. Oh, of course you can "read into" passages and pretend they're talking about dinosaurs if you really try hard, and shut off most of the logical parts of your mind. But if so, you still have to ask yourself why the passages "talk about" dinosaurs in such incredibly vague terms - why not just talk about them clearly and concisely, and put the matter to rest?

Then there's the distant stars and galaxies whose ages can be measured by modern astronomy, and don't fit in with the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible at all. I could go on and on. The problem with fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible is that you have to assume that God put all these things - fossils, stars, galaxies, etc - on Earth and in the universe just to trick us. The evidence for an old universe exists, and exists abundantly, whether you choose to ignore the fact or not. Personally, I choose to believe that if God exists at all, he wouldn't have wasted his time hiding fossils and sending off photons in mid-space to trick curious people who investigated the Earth and universe into believing a lie. "Heh, if they look closely enough, they'll never guess I made all this a few thousand years ago!" What kind of despicable God would that be?

 

[CheScott]

All the bible says it that an event happened, it did not explain how it happened. So I have a question for you. Do you believe in the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead? If yes, then explain how it happened. It seems that you are forgetting that God can intervene into his creation using supernatural powers that can suspend normal laws. The Joshua long day is a once only event that the Bible says that happened, take it at face

Translation: The bible makes perfect sense as long as you don't think about it. Any problem can be solved by the answer 'Magic', so don't waste your energy asking yourself why a rational God would stop the entire Universe to make a point, though he could have done so otherwise, no problem.

Also the Bible has never been a book that it is an interpretation by a majority vote, their is only ever one true reading of a passage. The Bible can never be a book that needs to have a secondary meaning, since if people cannot understand the plain things of the Bible how can they even understand the Spiritual things. Everything that needs to be explained is explained in the Bible.

I am curious, then. What becomes of those who vote for the wrong thing? Is God's will always the majority decision of a small cross-section of the Christian faith? Was the world flat, until the elected Pope said it wasn't flat anymore?

I am uninterested in the rest of your particular tangent, however I did notice that you said evolution is something you believe is not happening.

However, Evolution is defined in Biological terms as "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."

Are you saying that changes in genetic populations do not occur?

Before saying you 'don't believe in evolution', because someone told you that you shouldn't. I suggest you familiarize yourself with what 'evolution' actually is. =/

 

[Gooblah]

Okay. Most of the posters here are at least somewhat familiar with evolution. Thus, CH, to be on the same footing and to present a clear, coherent, and reasonable arguments on its weaknesses, you'll have to know about what you're talking about. Sorry, but it's true.

Similarly, I'm not Christian, so to present a few facts I'll either have to read The Bible, OR go off the psalms (?) that you and others have presented.

Oh right..the Joshua long day could be represented by the fact that (IIRC) summer equinoz is the longest day of the year...so really there is no "bending of supernatural laws", just odd observations (or poor observations) that can be explained by planetary motion.

 

[classical_hero]

Oh right..the Joshua long day could be represented by the fact that (IIRC) summer equinoz is the longest day of the year...so really there is no "bending of supernatural laws", just odd observations (or poor observations) that can be explained by planetary motion.

But the day is most certainly a special day because that event you described happens every year and as such it would not explain what happened.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/652/

Christianity is a religion of the miraculous—from God’s creative acts of Genesis 1 to the wonderful events of Revelation 22. The Bible does not tell us how any of these happen, other than that God wills them to happen and they do. He may use (intensify) some existing natural law (as in Noah’s Flood), or all participation of nature may be excluded (as in the Resurrection). Often the miraculous effect lies in the providential timing of natural events (as in God’s partition of the Red Sea by a strong wind that blew all night—Exodus 14:21).

Miracles rest on testimony, not on scientific analyses. While it is interesting to speculate on how God might have performed any particular Biblical miracle, including Joshua’s long day, ultimately those claiming to be disciples of Jesus Christ (who authenticated the divine record of the Bible) must accept them, by faith.9 There is not one logical, scientific reason to claim that, given a God powerful enough to create a universe in six days, Joshua’s long day ‘could not have happened’. Those who balk at this account are almost invariably those who have already rejected 6-day creation through compromise with evolution ‘s fictitious long ages, and have thus rejected the authority of the Bible.

 

[Simple Simon]

So, ch, you are basically saying that Christianity in un-scientific - how can it then claim to be an authority of any sort on science? How dare Christians then tell others what to believe about scientific matters based on a book that (so says your quote) is un-scientific?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Those who balk at this account are almost invariably those who have already rejected 6-day creation through compromise with evolution ‘s fictitious long ages, and have thus rejected the authority of the Bible.

Here, try this one on for size:

"Those who balk at [some account] are almost invariably those who have already rejected geocentrism through compromise with astronomy's fictitious central sun, and have thus rejected the authority of the Bible."

Hmmm... how much of an evidence-contradicting materialist-literalist interpretation do you want to push?

http://www.pibburns.com/augustin.htm

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

 

[CheScott]

Those who balk at this account are almost invariably those who have already rejected 6-day creation through compromise with evolution ‘s fictitious long ages, and have thus rejected the authority of the Bible.

Personally, I reject anything that says supremely illogical things on a regular basis with no better explanation than 'God says so!'

The great Theologians never copped out with such flimsy answers. Calvin and Thomas Aqunanties (whatever, too tired to look up the spelling), I am willing to bet, would both scold such efforts to relegate logic to a mere sideshow.

Christians were, at one time, some of the greatest thinkers and philosophers in the western world. It is a shame that so many potentially useful minds cling to the ancient rantings of goat herders.

 

[Perfection]

Why do the vast majority of Christian scientists believe in evolution?

 

[El_Machinae]

Do you know any YEC medical doctors? I've realised that one could get an MD and still remain a YEC.

 

[CheScott]

x_X =D ^^^^

 

[El_Machinae]

 

[Ali Zaybak]

Golly, I guess believing in evolution is just as bad as playing Dungeons and Dragons or listening to Rock n' Roll music!

Look, if a YEC argues that miracles must be believed on the basis of faith, not empirical scientific evidence, then he must also accept that faith-based belief cannot be offered up as an explanation for scientific postulates and discoveries. If we drive a wedge between the two systems for determining truth, then we must keep them truly separate. Determining the better truth-seeking method is an individual, personal choice, but we must not blur the line between methods.

If you mistake faith for science or science for a religion, that will be your worst mistake ever! You'll be in the lake of fire with billions of others who believe we can use faith as evidence in a scientific venue. Wake up!

...

OK, so maybe not the whole lake of fire bit. But you get the point.

 

[kulade]

That Chick comic was priceless.

 

[Phlegmak]

Erik Mesoy and classical_hero, you may be interested in this:

http://www.kent-hovind.com/aig_debunk.htm

 

[AngryZealot]

If the universe is 6000 years old, how can we see other galaxies?

 

[CheScott]

If the universe is 6000 years old, how can we see other galaxies?

Don't be ridiculous. Any fool knows that the stars and other heavenly bodies are painted on a perfect, invisible sphere at the outer most layer of the solar system.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

If the earth is but 6000 years old, why do we have proof of hominids 7 million years ago?

If the earth is but 6000 years old, why do we have proof of galaxies 13 billion years ago?

If the earth is but 6000 years old, why do we have proof that agriculture in the Fertile Crescent is 10500 years old?

If the earth is but 6000 years old, why do we have proof of humans in Australia 40000 years ago?

 

[BrendanM]

I came to this thread looking for a good laugh instead I got a lecture.