information I always go to
CREATION MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL!
Posted on 11/05/2009 10:29:44 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
The ideal of the coolly rational scientific observer, completely independent, free of all preconceived theories, prior philosophical, ethical and religious commitments, doing investigations and coming to dispassionate, unbiased conclusions that constitute truth, is nowadays regarded by serious philosophers of science (and, indeed, most scientists) as a simplistic myth...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
After clicking on my posted link then click on the articles’ link entitled ‘creation.com.’
Crazy aunts huh? Every groundbreaking piece of science throughout history was first regarded as crazy too.
You and your ilk are so sure that science has every major piece of the jigsaw figured out and that the peer-review by consensus will correct each and every ‘minor’ error that you are blind to doing any research of your own. Even with something as powerful as the worldwideweb at your fingertips.
“101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe” ~ BrandtMichaels
Kurt Wise: “Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant. “
Towers Online - The News Service of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary http://www.towersonline.net/story.php?grp=news&id=344
April 13, 2006 By Jeff Robinson
Excerpts:
Seminary President R. Albert Mohler Jr. said the new study centers aim at equipping pastors and church leaders to think biblically about pivotal issues which dominate contemporary culture.
“One of the ways we want to lead Southern Baptists is through helping evangelicals and Southern Baptists in particular to engage some of the most critical issues of our day,” Mohler said.-
“This is not a time for Christians to be out-thought by the world, but in general that is what happens. We find the church behind the times in thinking about some of the most crucial issues of our day.”
Mohler also announced the appointment of two new faculty members to lead the centers. [snip] ...
...Mohler also named Kurt Wise as the new director for Southern’s Center for Theology and Science, and professor of theology and science. Wise currently serves on the faculty of Bryan College in Dayton, Tenn., where he is also director of the Center for Origins Research.
Wise earned both a doctor of philosophy and master of arts in paleontology from Harvard University. He and his wife Marie have two daughters.
Wise replaces William Dembski, who is leaving Southern Seminary to join the faculty at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary so he can be closer to his family.
“With the addition of Kurt Wise, we are recognizing that creation is a ground zero theological crisis point right now in American culture and even in our churches,” Moore said. [snip] ..
*
A couple of interesting items on the web regarding Kurt Wise:
[1] 7/3/2003 http://www.christianforums.com/t43741&page=12 “Ok, I just got a email from Dr. Wise. This is what he said:
“I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young. Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant. Thus I would suggest that the challenge you are trying to meet is unmeetable.” ~ Kurt Wise
[2] December 19th 2004 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=44017 Theologyweb.com
Post # 7:
“...there is new breed of YEC out there, of which Kurt Wise is an example, who recognize that there are scientific problems with their Weltanschauung. I knew Kurt was exceptional, but there are more of his stripe. Affectionately, I’d like to refer to them as neo-YECs, as opposed to the Wieland-Ham-Morris-Safarti-Jorge YECs for which I would propose the oxymoronic moniker paleo-YECs.”
bttt HERE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1839540/posts?page=24#24
“As man can produce and certainly has produced a great result by his methodical and unconscious means of selection, what may not nature effect? Man can act only on external and visible characters: nature cares nothing for appearances, except in so far as they may be useful to any being. She can act on every internal organ, on every shade of constitutional difference, on the whole machinery of life. Man selects only for his own good; Nature only for that of the being which she tends. Every selected character is fully exercised by her; and the being is placed under well-suited conditions of life. Man keeps the natives of many climates in the same country; he seldom exercises each selected character in some peculiar and fitting manner; he feeds a long and a short beaked pigeon on the same food; he does not exercise a long-backed or long-legged quadruped in any peculiar manner; he exposes sheep with long and short wool to the same climate. He does not allow the most vigorous males to struggle for the females. He does not rigidly destroy all inferior animals, but protects during each varying season, as far as lies in his power, all his productions. He often begins his selection by some half-monstrous form; or at least by some modification prominent enough to catch his eye, or to be plainly useful to him. Under nature, the slightest difference of structure or constitution may well turn the nicely-balanced scale in the
struggle for life, and so be preserved. How fleeting are the wishes and efforts of man! how short his time! and consequently how poor will his products be, compared with those accumulated by nature during whole geological periods. Can we wonder, then, that nature's productions should be far “truer” in character than man's productions; that they should be infinitely better adapted to the most complex conditions of life, and should plainly bear the stamp of far higher workmanship?
It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.” (Chapter 4)
Darwin didn't lose his faith, he simply transferred it to another deity of his own making.
Interesting that once again we are told the ‘majority’ of evidence favors older creation without:
1) citing what the majority old earth evidence is
2) addressing any of the natural clocks that completely contradict the notion of millions or billions of years.
Incidentally Russell Humphreys in “Starlight and Time” describes a very keen hypothesis for reconciling the apparent age of starlight against a YEC big bang scenario.
Why don’t you post them here, or do creationists have a copyright on their “facts?”
I’m not so inclinded to hijack the thread, esp. when they are only 2 clicks away.
What’s wrong are 2 clicks too many?
I like the fact that you are one of a growing number of creationists on FR who have learned not to the evos’ clicking for them :o)
can’t believe I’m doing this, but here goes . . .
“And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: FOR HE IS HIS MONEY.” (emphasis mine) Ex.21:20-21
yea, yea there are at least 6 types of slavery in the bible . . .blah, blah, blah
here is “god’s” law- it’s o.k. to beat & kill your slave if the slave last a few days after the beating because why? because he’s your money/PROPERTY! “god” condones slavery defined as a person being another person’s ‘money,’ and it’s O.K. to beat that property to death if they last a few days after the beating.
that’s mate to you.
side note- so wonderful for the ‘almighty’ to let the nomadic sheepherders know that things like slavery and other ridiculous practices of the time (do rabbis still take the infant’s penis in their mouth during the circumcision ritual?) were wrong although common practice at the time-how revelatory! how inspired! please let the mental gymnastics begin . . .
re: the 100 “reasons” nomadic goatherders from 2000 years ago know more than every single legitimate geologist...
It’s an exhaustive list, I’ll give it that. All lies and obfuscations, of course, but someone put some effort into it. I like this one:
“Living fossils—jellyfish, graptolites, coelacanth, stromatolites, Wollemi pine and hundreds more. That many hundreds of species could remain so unchanged, for even up to billions of years in the case of stromatolites, speaks against the millions and billions of years being real.”
There is so much wrong with whatever point this statement is trying to make, I won’t bother with it. There are even a bunch of “astronomical” reasons, but I failed to see anything explaining away how light has reached us from beyond 10,000 (or whatever) light years away.
Brandt - curious, what’s their strongest of the 100?
didn’t slide by anything. your original question/statement was: “I do not believe that God, thru the Bible, advocated the practice, but merely acknowledged it AND forbade mistreatment.”
The first 20 verses do not change the unavoidable conclusion that ‘god’ endorses slavery as defined as a person being anothers property (money)and declares that it is not punishable if you beat your slave to death if the beating takes a few days to kill the slave. why?
not because the slave is deserving.
not because the slave is disobedient.
not because the slave is a heretic.
BECAUSE THE SLAVE IS YOUR MONEY!(or property, I’ve seen both translations)A human being is owned as a property by another human being endorsed by ‘god’
“didn’t slide by anything. your original question/statement was: “I do not believe that God, thru the Bible, advocated the practice, but merely acknowledged it AND forbade mistreatment.”
That wasn't my question/statement. But to regulate is not to endorse.
DO tell...how about those natural clocks. Make an argument for ‘em.
Ah yes...ignorance is showing again. The theory of evolution has no stance on the validity of reliable dating methods, unless it has to do with mating and beneficial traits getting an individual more dates, thereby increasing genetic fitness...think you’re looking for a different scientific discipline.
...and no, YEC is not science, has not been science and so long as it has Man living with T rex...will never BE science.
Thanks for the ping!
“I do not believe that God, thru the Bible, advocated the practice, but merely acknowledged it AND forbade mistreatment.”
That is your question/statement. I c/p from your post.
Regulate is not endorsement, but endorsement is endorsement! Regardless of what regulations ‘god’ is laying down, the reason he’s laying down different rules for slaves rather than free men is explicit-”FOR HE IS HIS MONEY” That is acknowledgment and endorsing not only separate rules for slaves but the reason for setting different rules for slaves. ‘god’ is o.k. with people owning other people and is o.k. with people owning other people and killing them-there’s just a different penalty depending on how long the slaves takes to die.There are different rules for free men, so ‘god’ acknowledges and endorses the system of slavery (defined as a person owning another person-HE IS HIS MONEY.”) regardless of the regulations applied.
once again-match, toyou.
If this line came from the koran, I’d bet dollars to donuts that we would be shouting in unison-”wait a minute, Mr. muslim. There’s no way you’re going to twist out of the obvious-that your ‘god’ endorses slavery and beating slaves to death.”
But it comes from the j-c tradition so as much as all other beliefs must be false, you must twist logic and bend over backwards to defend obvious atrocities within your own.
It is intellectually dishonest and diminishes your argument and yourself.
hence: religion’s dogma is the conclusions. everything must be done, even in the face of simple logical evidence, to keep the conclusions in tact.
hence: intellectual dishonesty and mental gymnastics and differing rules of logic and evidence.
hence: “I can’t believe I’m about to do this . . . “
The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.
The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. In the United States, many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings. The Bible most definitely does condemn race-based slavery. Consider the slavery the Hebrews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Hebrew were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Hebrews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery (Exodus 7-11). So, yes, the Bible does condemn some forms of slavery. At the same time, the Bible does seem to allow for other forms. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.
In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8-10).
Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God by receiving His salvation, God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.
Hope this helps
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.