Posted on 02/05/2014 7:12:10 AM PST by edcoil
But it does help the Biblical literalists though who read Genesis 1 from the perspective of the different "frame of reference" of the author.
Those are two points on which we can agree. On the places that we cannot, then we can agree to disagree.
I still hope you will examine your original assertion that Ken Ham and fellow young earth creationists believe that scientific laws were not in affect hundreds of years ago. I have heard a lot of people assert that creationists believe things that they do not. Your particular assertion is a new one to me.
Many blessings!
bump
So, you're appealing to General Relativity, but your example is that you're travelling at 10 times the speed of light?
Are you saying that humans can’t travel 10 times the speed of light? You weren’t there to measure it, now were you?
Gotta Love Beck
Yet the scientists … a hundred years ago were saying that we should breed out certain races because they were inferior. I don’t know if you guys know this — you guys don’t have the best record of getting everything right and knowing everything and every particular time.”
Burguiere added: “How long did it take you guys to figure out you were supposed to wash your hands in between surgeries? It took almost all of humanity.”
Yep,
I am not of the group that calls Evolution a fact.
I think that just arrogant, deceptive and contradictory.
But given that condition I can understand evolution being taught in science class and not creation.
I have read a few books on both subjects written by their respective authors,
I don’t believe one sides characterization of the other in almost any subject, this included.
Go to the source.
Warp 10 is instantaneous travel, so are subspace communications.
Dammit Gun. I can’t change the laws of physics!
You're right.
And to think, some people still believe all those old 19th Century superstitious fairy tales about evolution!
AHHH, I see what you are up to.
Nye (the science guy) brought up the rather obvious point that light from distant stars (that we see) takes millions of years (or more) to reach earth.
I read a creation book years ago who argued that God created the star-light on route in space so we could see it,
But if you can believe that then its perfectly logical to assume that he created everything on Earth to look old as he did the star light.
That would also means the star light really doesn't come from stars.
And if they/we believe that (which is an interesting thought experiment once you think about it) then Creation Science makes absolutely no sense at all, there is no point looking for physical evidence to support your faith if God created the Universe so it looks the opposite.
In summary it says: Both the Book of Genesis is right and evolutionists are right at the same time: That the Universe was created 5000 years ago and all life was created at the same time in the same form as now and its still the evolutionist job to explain the physical evidence of evolution.
That was a generalization based on two specific examples.
I cant seriously claim to know what people believe, especially with Creationist's arguments, I can state what I heard them claim.
Here's one : I been going on thread after thread here and the freepers who post that Creation is backed up on all these facts and evidence refuse to present any of them here themselves, instead they just tell others to read some book for themselves as if the number of characters typed in it ~ the sanity of the arguments.
Its like they don't care what the arguments are, they just want to be able to say that there are some.
Not just them either, my own sister pulled that exact same trick years ago. She said to me in siding with them 'Here's a link to some Creationist arguments so go read them', but she wouldn't herself. That was enough for her to claim there were some.
I think the Earth is obviously a flat disc. This “gravity” stuff is nonsense. Ships and planes that travel “around the world” must be teleported to the other side somehow.
And the universe was created in 1983. To those of you who claim to have “memories” of a time before this, you’ll forgive me if I don’t take your word for it.
There are actually many types of old Earth Creationists. One problem that happens is that the term “Creationist” is generally used and thrown around and has become attached to Young-Earthers. Overall there are several Creationist Theologies of differing types:
Day Age (Old Earth Creationism) (unique creation, old earth)
Progressive Creationism (kind type creation, microevolution, old earth)
Theistic Evolution (God initiated, non-involved, scientific ecolution, old earth)
Evolutionary Creationism (God initiated, God-guided, scientific evolution, old earth).
I list the last two seperate, though sometimes they are combined due to them using the same general evolutionary model, but differing only in their theological rather than observational aspects.
This debate between evolution vs. creationism gets painted as a debate between Atheism and Christianity, and that is far from the case. All the “evolutionists” are not “Atheists”, many of us are Christians.
Anyone who thinks the Earth is only 6000 years old and that humans coexisted with dinosaurs. Is a blathering loon.
RE “ There are actually many types of old Earth Creationists. One problem that happens is that the term “Creationist” is generally used and thrown around and has become attached to Young-Earthers. “
Creationist Ham himself in this debate made the case that you have to believe in Young Earth to believe the Bible,
by logical extension that all real Creationists are Young Earthers.
RE :” This debate between evolution vs. creationism gets painted as a debate between Atheism and Christianity, and that is far from the case. All the “evolutionists” are not “Atheists”, many of us are Christians.”
I share the same opinion on that with you.
Atheists are very similar to Creationists like Ham in that they argue that any evidence of evolution (includes old age Earth) is also evidence of God's non- existence.
That is not much different than what Ham was preaching.
If distant past evolution is labelled an absolute fact, then by extension it is dogma like Creationism is. That is a problem that some evolutionists create.
I understand how you feel. I used to feel the same way before I decided to take a really close look at it and do it with an open mind.
I'm not unwavering on the "6000 years" time frame, but I think it is within the realm of possibility. Certainly a "young Earth" scenario is, and IMHO much more so than the "eons and eons" and "Big Bang" positions.
But, think what you wish. You are going to do so anyhow. However, name-calling is generally a sign of a weak position. It is what Liberals usually resort to when they know they have lost the intellectual argument.
As I say, suit yourself.
I will. And I apologize for the name calling. The more accurate description would have been mentally ill.
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.