The RNC Survey

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

If not a practical joke, then why lead us to believe just the opposite by well studied and PROVEN discoveries of science? Tell me how you can accept the reality of the computer, internet connection, and keyboard you are using and not accept the rigorous science behind that technology, that also points to a developing Universe and constantly changing earth?

First off, your premise is wrong. God is not deceiving us. He not misleading us. The Genesis account isn't inconsistent with God creating with the appearance of age. The problem is clearly on your end and on the end of "science" because it misinterprets its findings. Science doesn't even attempt to interpret them within the creationist paradigm. To many evolutionists, if indeed not most, God is considered an unnecessary obstruction to "scientific progress". Therefore, the fault, sir, lies with you interpreters not with God's special revelation (the bible) or natural revelation (his creation) because both are in perfect harmony.

Further, computer technology does not point to a constantly changing earth. It simply points to man's growing knowledge, which in turn leads to ever changing and developing technologies. Technology has clearly been evolving as man's knowledge increases. This we can see. But when was the last time anyone saw macro evolution in action?. Which team of scientists were there at the beginning to see it all unfold? (Although given all the scientifically factual statements in the bible, one could wonder if some predecessors to Einstein helped write the bible since supposedly backwards, uneducated, undereducated, mentally challenged religious sheepherders, nomads, religious zealots, etc. wrote the various books in the canon!)

Plate tectonics shows the earth very changed from its' initial coalescence.

Maybe due to the Flood? Human life changed drastically, too, after the flood. People suddenly started living a lot shorter lives, according to scripture. (Devolution at work? ) The flood was catastrophic in scope and everything upon the earth -- organic and inorganic alike -- was profoundly impacted! So, what's your point?

But seriously, 'cap, I'm not going to debate this issue with you. We will never agree -- unless God graciously regenerates you and converts you. Short of this, however, you will continue to push God away because you prefer submitting to the authority of fallible and untrustworthy human beings.
This is where your comfort zone is. Fine. Live with it. Be content with your choice. But don't hound me or any other Evangelical for that matter because you can't understand how we can't see things your way. (And "can't" is the proper term here because God preserves his people and will not allow any in his family to be deceived into believing the lie. He will not allow any Christian to perish.)

Boxcar

[hcap]

Originally Posted by me

I am not debating the existence of God. Although the sophomoric pablum posted by Tom is certainly way way simplistic philosophically.

Originally Posted by Tom

My,my. And after I even posted something nice about you this week.
Be that way. I don't give a good "Something" Damn!

Duh! Did I say "pablun"?
I meant--tremendous super duper professorial Socratic insights.

[hcap]

Box,

It is not one scientific discipline alone that points conclusively to a time scale of billions and billions of years, but many.
All are based on evidence, and can be tested repeatedly by peer groups. Many who I might add may quite religious and believe in some sort of God. A very large time line for the existence of the universe does not necessarily disprove God.
It is you that is limiting the scope of things.

I brought up many examples of technologies affecting our lives on a day to day basis. Usable, practical technologies that are based on scientific discoveries and scientific principles. Of course man is constantly increasing his knowledge. Much of that knowledge is based on testable phenomena that we all use every day. So all around us are demonstrable proofs of the tenets of scientific disciplines. Computers work because we understand the underlying physics, and chemistry. And those very same principles point to an extremely large universe and long existing universe.

Simply typing and seeing the results on your monitor , involve 200 years of basic scientific discoveries, and the application of those discoveries and principles, and therefore FACTS. And all those underlying scientific principles say billions not thousands.

[exactaplayer]

Boxcar,
A simple yes or no would have been much easier and used much less bandwidth. Any chance you can come back with a simple yes or no ?

[Tom]

Originally Posted by hcap

Duh! Did I say "pablun"?
I meant--tremendous super duper professorial Socratic insights.

I thought so.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by exactaplayer

Boxcar,
A simple yes or no would have been much easier and used much less bandwidth. Any chance you can come back with a simple yes or no ?

Is there any chance you can stay on point (on-topic) and not hijack a thread by asking irrelevant questions?

Boxcar

[skate]

Originally Posted by boxcar

If one professing Christian's allegiance is not truly with Christ, it's inevitable that he will betray his hypocrisy with his words or actions. (BO is a stellar example of this!) One need not grill another professing Evangelical about the content of his faith.

Boxcar

For myself, i do not profess any Christian or Evangelical beliefs or actions.
My actions (no big deal, i understand) may and most often do coincide with
beliefs of others, but that does not mean that i find fault, when i disagree.

You would not be a hypocritic, for example (me), if i knew Nothing about
Christianity or the bible etc. No mater what... unless i did not agree with The Skate.

I be, the skate, not Evangelical. So, no hypocrisy here, just factuality as best i can. I've been wrong...to me, Christianity is a crutch, which people do need. They grow from "it".

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Box,

It is not one scientific discipline alone that points conclusively to a time scale of billions and billions of years, but many.
All are based on evidence, and can be tested repeatedly by peer groups. Many who I might add may quite religious and believe in some sort of God. A very large time line for the existence of the universe does not necessarily disprove God.
It is you that is limiting the scope of things.

I brought up many examples of technologies affecting our lives on a day to day basis. Usable, practical technologies that are based on scientific discoveries and scientific principles. Of course man is constantly increasing his knowledge. Much of that knowledge is based on testable phenomena that we all use every day. So all around us are demonstrable proofs of the tenets of scientific disciplines. Computers work because we understand the underlying physics, and chemistry. And those very same principles point to an extremely large universe and long existing universe.

Simply typing and seeing the results on your monitor , involve 200 years of basic scientific discoveries, and the application of those discoveries and principles, and therefore FACTS. And all those underlying scientific principles say billions not thousands.

Humor me, 'cap:Let's say that God, when he created Adam, created him to be in the prime of his life -- maybe about 30 years of age -- mature, fully developed. And he placed Adam in the Garden on an equally fully developed, mature planet. And in that Garden, it is written, God placed every green plant to be food for Adam and for the created animals, who were also mature and fully developed. If God is really omnipotent and he can do all this, why couldn't he have created the entire Universe with the appearance of age -- a universe as mature and developed as Adam and Eve, the animals and the plant life on earth?

You see, 'cap, there's nothing inconsistent or contradictory with at once believing in a "young" universe that has the appearance of age. Again, here is how the Law of Non-Contradiction reads:

A thing cannot exist and not exist in the same place and at the same time and in the same sense -- Or...A thing cannot be or not be in the same place and at the same time and in the same sense.

When you ponder this incontrovertible, air-tight, "three-in-one, triune" law of logic and truth, we find no inconsistencies with a "young-old" universe. In the absence of inconsistency, then, we have to conclude (whether we want to or not) that God's creation and mode of creation are consistent with his holy character; for God cannot lie. He cannot deceive. He cannot mislead. (Tit 1:2). God cannot do anything that is inconsistent with who he is -- with this holy, righteous character. (Therefore, if anyone ever asks you if God can do all things, the answer should be an emphatic "NO"!)

The huge problem with Science is that much of it is anti-God and, therefore, anti-creationism. Science has left God out of virtually all its lofty, complex mathematical equations. Science has opted, instead, to construct this exceedingly complex, elaborate system or "origins" through a theory called Evolution. In Evolutionary Theory, God, ultimately, isn't necessary. It isn't necessary to postulate "God". In fact, to many if not most scientists, God just gets in the way of things. He's the fly in the ointment. He's useless baggage. After all, there's a natural answer for everything under the sun.

But God has given us a lot more than just his creation. He has given us his Written Word. He has given Mankind his Special Revelation. And since God must be true to his holy character, then it stands to reason that Natural Revelation (his creation) and Special Revelation (his word) must also harmonize. There can be no inconsistencies between any of God's works. All must be in perfect harmony.

God has actually given the world three Witnesses of himself -- but let's just limit this discussion to two of them -- the two mentioned above. The apostle Paul tells us that God's "invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been CLEARLY SEEN, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." But what does Man do with this information? The natural man (unregenerated sinner) "suppresses the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom 1:18-20). So, you see, 'cap, God doesn't have to deceive man or mislead him; for man excels at self-deception! Man rejects the things he sees in nature about the Creator by suppressing the truth. In fact, according to this didactic passage, God doesn't even have to test man. Man, in his natural, fallen, depraved, sinful condition naturally rejects truth. (Scary, huh?) It appears that man's sin nature wont' allow him to accept the truth. Man is repelled by the truth.

However, having said, we cannot escape the fact that careful study of all the genealogies in scripture (which, again, I personally have never undertaken) would, according to conservative scholars, certainly seem to indicate a pretty young universe. So, here we have Special Revelation apparently teaching "young", while Natural Revelation teaches "old". Did I hear someone say, "Paradox"? (For your info, the bible is replete with these little thingies. )

The thing about paradoxes is that they can trip careless people up. They can cause people to stumble -- very badly even. Perhaps a purpose behind all paradoxes in the bible is to test one's faith. Perhaps they do act as a moral test -- most especially for those who profess to be believers. As stated previously, there is certainly precedence in the bible for such tests. Let us briefly look at one -- probably the best known to most bible students.

Gen 22:1-3
22:1 Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." 2 And He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you." 3 So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him and Isaac his son; and he split wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him.
NASB

To really appreciate this "paradox", one needs to understand that many years earlier God had sworn to Abraham that it would be through his son, who Sarah would bear (in her very old age, I might add) all of God's promises to Abraham would be fulfilled. Issac would be the heir of all the covenant promises. So, what's up with this moral/spiritual test, huh? On the one hand we have the promises God made to Abraham concerning Issac, while on the other God is now commanding Abraham to deliver up his only son -- his only heir -- to be sacrificed! How in the world is God going to make good on all his promises!? Is God going to be unfaithful? (Oh, no...God is bi-polar or worse yet...a schizo! )

As we read further down in this narrative, we know what Abraham was thinking during this trial:

Gen 22:5-8
6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son, and he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So the two of them walked on together. 7 And Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and said, "My father!" And he said, "Here I am, my son." And he said, "Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" 8 And Abraham said, "God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." So the two of them walked on together.
NASB

Abraham KNEW that God would somehow make good on his promises. He KNEW God would be faithful. He KNEW that God could not and would not lie. Paul undoubtedly was alluding back to this incident in Genesis when he wrote:

Rom 4:3
3 For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God , and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."
NASB

This all goes back to what I said some weeks ago that the standard for pleasing God is a lot higher than merely being "good". The standard is Righteousness and righteousness needs to be proven -- needs to be tested. This is because God wants man to freely choose to believe and love him.
Virtually the whole world, generally, believes that when "good" people die, they go to be with God in heaven; and when bad people die, they go to hell, separated from God. This, too, is a big lie -- but a very palatable one because it's a half truth! To be sure, there are no "bad" people in heaven, only the righteous; but hell is filled with "good" ones!

So, then...if God is using this paradox, too, with which to test mankind, is there unrighteousness with him? Was he unrighteous when he tested Abraham? He has given men his Special and Natural Revelation by and through which we can believe -- if we only choose to. And for those of us who choose to, we find that all man's marvelous scientific discoveries are actually in perfect harmony with God's creation. In fact, we find a lot more of the pieces falling nicely together in the creation model than they do in the scheme of naturalism, which accounts for why the Theory itself must always be in a state of flux, always be evolving, always be changing, always be standing on shifting sands.

In closing, then, I ask: If the Divine Artist decided to take artistic liberties and "antique" the Universe when creating his masterpiece, why does this upset you so? There can only be one reason, 'cap: The moral implications.

Boxcar

[hcap]

You spin elaborate rationalizations to fit the facts to already drawn conclusions.

We can have a philosophical discussion about science and therefore man's ability to be rational, without drawing upon rather convoluted interpretations of the bible. Yours' or mine. We will never agree on biblical interpretation. You must realize by now, my take is spiritual and psychological. And includes in the mix how much most scripture-from any culture-resembles the game of "telephone". I do not deny that there are great truths to be discovered, but we are on the end of the 'telephone" line separated by 2000 years of distorted translations and misinterpretation. So instead of arguing how specific stories and excepts from the bible support your view or mine, why don't we for a change stick to rationality, and laws of the "natural revelation" as you call it? I think we have to start at the beginning. How do we know things at all?

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that addresses questions such as: "What is knowledge?", "How is knowledge acquired?", and "How do we know what we know?" In addressing this subject the first issue to note is that the terms "knowledge" and "belief" are often used interchangeably by religious believers, but technically these are very distinct terms.

Often, statements of "belief" mean that the speaker holds a religious belief to be true, although firm proof is lacking. Examples would be the belief that God created the universe, or that God sent a message to the biblical prophet Isaiah. Some religious believers hold that they actually have proof that such beliefs are true, but these proofs are not agreed upon by people within any one religion; they are certainly not agreed upon by people outside of their religion, and they are rejected as proof by both philosophers, logicians and scientists. It is precisely the belief in things which cannot be proved that forced philosophers to ask "What is the difference between belief and knowledge?" This had led philosophers to discover that knowledge differs from belief, in that knowledge is a justified, true belief.

So knowledge not belief is required to discuss the actual workings of the natural revelation. You may choose to believe in a creator of the natural world, but its' laws and principles may be discussed, tested and measured without belief. This does not invalidate what your believe in any way. I do not disagree that "natural revelation" may lead us philosophically perhaps to a creator, but for purposes of discussion let's just dwell on the age of the universe, not the age or existence of God, and use rationality and knowledge as epistemology asserts, to try to fathom its' age. If God reveals himself through his Creation, perhaps some truths about God can be learned by studying nature, physics, cosmology, etc. such as "The heavens declare the glory of God" (Psalm 19:1-4) Great!
But why not stick to testable knowledge for now? If you suspect that some scientific disciplines are biased by their "Godless" practitioners, why not stick to settled laws and principles.

Simple laws and principles in physics and chemistry, are not biased in themselves.

[exactaplayer]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Is there any chance you can stay on point (on-topic) and not hijack a thread by asking irrelevant questions?

Boxcar

Boxcar,
You used a religious analogy in your opening statement. I was just trying to get a better understanding of your religious beliefs. I asked a simple question expecting a yes or no answer. For some reason you have squirmed all over this thread trying to avoid answering the simple question. If you think a clarification of one's religious beliefs is irrelevant, then it stands to reason one's beliefs are also irrelevant.
Also, I did not get any questioner from the RNC.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by exactaplayer

Boxcar,
You used a religious analogy in your opening statement. I was just trying to get a better understanding of your religious beliefs. I asked a simple question expecting a yes or no answer. For some reason you have squirmed all over this thread trying to avoid answering the simple question. If you think a clarification of one's religious beliefs is irrelevant, then it stands to reason one's beliefs are also irrelevant.
Also, I did not get any questioner from the RNC.

The analogy was only for demonstration purposes -- to make a specific point about a specific topic. You wanted to spin that off into an entirely different direction. Therefore, your question was irrelevant to the discussion.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

So knowledge not belief is required to discuss the actual workings of the natural revelation.

Shirley U. Jest! One needs more faith in the Theory the Ultra Convoluted Theory of Evolution than could fill the known universe. No one has real knowledge of the "origins". No one. Because no one was there to witness or measure. The theory is based on ASSUMPTIONS -- a bunch of them, to boot. One building upon the other.

You may choose to believe in a creator of the natural world, but its' laws and principles may be discussed, tested and measured without belief.

Thank you for making my point. Science says that God doesn't belong. Faith in any supernatural being doesn't fit into any of their models. Therefore, it stands to reason that with this kind of marked bias against a Creator, the "facts" of evolution are going to be squeezed into the Naturalism mode, no matter what. Man will invent ingenious ways to make those square pegs fit into round holes --- no matter what it takes. And then "scientists" will call that biased presuppositional rubbish "science"! Science starts of with assumption and works strictly within the confines of a Naturalistic Model.

This does not invalidate what your believe in any way. I do not disagree that "natural revelation" may lead us philosophically perhaps to a creator, but for purposes of discussion let's just dwell on the age of the universe, not the age or existence of God, and use rationality and knowledge as epistemology asserts, to try to fathom its' age. If God reveals himself through his Creation, perhaps some truths about God can be learned by studying nature, physics, cosmology, etc. such as "The heavens declare the glory of God" (Psalm 19:1-4) Great!
But why not stick to testable knowledge for now? If you suspect that some scientific disciplines are biased by their "Godless" practitioners, why not stick to settled laws and principles.

Simple laws and principles in physics and chemistry, are not biased in themselves.

And all I'm saying is that all that "testable knowledge" does not contradict the bible. Because of the built-in-bias against the supernatural, scientists can only reach the incorrect conclusions. Because people like yourself refuse to take the plain meaning of words in the bible and, instead, want to twist and distort them to mean something entirely alien to what the writers intended, you cannot accept that God, in all probability, created the entire universe with the appearance of age. This is really the only reasonable and logical conclusion we can deduce from a natural, unbiased reading the Genesis account. But you cannot and will not read that account and interpret it the way Evangelicals do because it would be catastrophic to your world view of Naturalism. You require a gazillion ages to make your Naturalism work. You need that superhero of your plot -- Father Time! And lots of it! Kill the hero Time and the whole plot crumbles to the dust, doesn't it?

Boxcar

[hcap]

You simply refuse to debate honestly.
Simply stick to scientific givens that we all learned in high school.
No high falutin' theology, divinity, or biblical studies are required to understand carbon dating.
Scientists do not have "faith' in carbon dating nor in radioactive 1/2 lives. They have knowledge.
Forget evolution or the question of the existence of God. Let's simply talk basic science.
Or don't you believe there is such a thing?
What about radioactivity, and therefore nuclear power and weopens?
Was Hiroshima a biased scientific fantasy, or did it really happen?
Nuclear fission exists without biblical references.

[exactaplayer]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The analogy was only for demonstration purposes -- to make a specific point about a specific topic. You wanted to spin that off into an entirely different direction. Therefore, your question was irrelevant to the discussion.

Boxcar

You use a religious analogy to make a specific point and then refuse to answer a question regarding religion. Your replies are irrelevant to further discussion.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by exactaplayer

You use a religious analogy to make a specific point and then refuse to answer a question regarding religion. Your replies are irrelevant to further discussion.

I realize you can't cope with the impeccable logic behind those replies. I'm far more than you're capable of handling. Stick that in your "irrelevant" hash pipe and puff on it.

Boxcar