Young Earth Creationism

[SmallFarm]

"Scientific facts" are only such until new evidence comes along to disprove them. Once we believed the Earth was flat. Every intellectual and highly regarded individual you might ask would call you crazy for even suggesting that it wasn't flat. Just go outside and look, although bumpy, every visible evidence "proves" it is flat, that is, until new evidence came along and suggested otherwise.
In the story "Jurassic Park" (I know, fiction, but it serves to illustrate in an allegorical way what I am saying), the scientists were convinced they could keep the dinosaurs from breeding because they engineered them to all be female. However, they had overlooked data concerning the amphibian DNA they had used that allowed the dinosaurs to change sex and mate.
We are not like God and in possession of absolute truth, so it pays to be a little skeptical of information coming from people who state quite arrogantly that it is a "Scientific fact". :-B

[drjme]

I will wait for the answers to the questions I have asked.

A.Since, apparently, you did neither the science, nor the math, how is your conclusion in any way, shape, or form, based upon science and math?

B.Do you deny that what you currently believe about the universe is nothing more than logical inferences based on data and philosophical assumptions you are unable to prove?

If you need me to peer review Their position, to verify it as fact, I'm sorry I can't do that.

What! You can't peer review all of science!?! Then I guess you're stuck trusting in the arm of flesh and are dammed. ;)

It sucks that we have to trust somewhat in the arm of flesh to form our beliefs. It sucks that we have to rely on empiricism and not pure logic with no observation to arrive at knowledge or belief.

drjme, I bet the cat in your picture could do all the proofs

Haha! Science be damned. Damned I tell you.

it sucks having to trust in the arm of flesh, ugh...yucky pale fleshy scientist arms..
Yes, I'd rather trust in interstellar space cat. His arms so soft and trustworthy.

[drjme]

If a star is 2 hundred thousand light years away, and it takes 2 hundred thousand years for that light to reach earth, that isn't a "strongly held belief", it's a actual measurement of distances between objects and how it is calculated.

What I do to reconcile that fact with my spiritual beliefs IS my opinion. And I think maybe you were mistaking the statement I was making about my opinion based on those facts with the facts themselves?

I was, as an astute observer would undoubtedly note, pointing out that you do not know them to be facts, but merely believe them to be facts.

Do you not believe that light travels at 300,000km per second and that it takes 500 seconds for sunlight to reach the earth? Well I suppose you can choose to not believe it, that doesn't make it any less of a fact, which appears to be the whole argument you are making?

You do not know it to be a fact, by your own admission.

Do you see the point? "We know for a fact", when you use the phrase, means "I really really believe."

I see the point you are making but it is misdirected. You are addressing my application of the fact , and calling the fact into question, based on my belief of it.

You can't say it is a strongly held belief that light travels at a certain speed, because it is a measureable fact. Whether you or I do or don't believe it, doesn't matter, it just does and just is regardless. It's almost like a Law!

Now how I've chosen to use that info in my philosophical position can be disputed, I never said my POV in reconciling between that aspect of science and belief was fact, it just makes sense to me, that is all.

[log]

If a star is 2 hundred thousand light years away, and it takes 2 hundred thousand years for that light to reach earth, that isn't a "strongly held belief", it's a actual measurement of distances between objects and how it is calculated.

What I do to reconcile that fact with my spiritual beliefs IS my opinion. And I think maybe you were mistaking the statement I was making about my opinion based on those facts with the facts themselves?

I was, as an astute observer would undoubtedly note, pointing out that you do not know them to be facts, but merely believe them to be facts.

Do you not believe that light travels at 300,000km per second and that it takes 500 seconds for sunlight to reach the earth? Well I suppose you can choose to not believe it, that doesn't make it any less of a fact, which appears to be the whole argument you are making?

You do not know it to be a fact, by your own admission.

Do you see the point? "We know for a fact", when you use the phrase, means "I really really believe."

I see the point you are making but it is misdirected. You are addressing my application of the fact , and calling the fact into question, based on my belief of it.

No, I am saying you are calling knowledge (or, alternatively, "fact") that which you do not know, and which may, in fact, be false, for all you actually do know.

You can't say it is a strongly held belief that light travels at a certain speed, because it is a measureable fact. Whether you or I do or don't believe it, doesn't matter, it just does and just is regardless. It's almost like a Law!

You don't know that.

[drjme]

Though is the evidence (or facts, even though you don't like that word) I based them on in this instance an untestable philosophical presupposition?

Evidence doesn't interpret itself. For example, uniformitarianism and naturalism are philosophical presuppositions, neither of which are testable, but both of which are deployed along with data you haven't examined to give you what it pleases you to call "facts", neither of which presuppositions are compatible with the scriptures nor the gospel.

That is fine I like to talk about my opinions a lot, they are malleable. Though some of the things I have based them on in this instance, not so much.

As I quoted earlier, it ain't what a man knows that hurts him, but what he knows that just ain't so.

Hmm yes I concur with your last comment log.

[log]

{I}t is a doctrine of the Gospel of Salvation to all the descendants of Adam and Eve, that if you know anything, you obtain that knowledge by experience.

How are you going to get your knowledge if not by your experience? That which you have experienced you know. - Collier, Fred C. The Teachings of President Brigham Young, Vol. 3, pp. 333-336

[drjme]

You don't know that.

hmm ok, pointless conversation is pointless.

There are certain laws and rules that are fact, you can't explain, I cant explain it. gravity is a fact, I cant explain it, but its an actual reality, whether you believe it or not, 100% real and accurate. The moon is 384,000km from earth whether you believe or not. Its just one of those things. have I measured it? no, regardless if I have or not its 100% certain that it is.

fact is not a paradigm of ones perception.

Are you saying you can verify the fact that the earth is 7000 years old, and that creation happened exactly as the creation story says? did you experience it in it's literal description? now I never said that it wasn't, I said that my opinion is otherwise, my studies have led me there. is it set in stone? no, I happy to be convinced otherwise.

The thing is young earth creationism hasn't convinced me, all they have to go off to attempt to reconcile ALL the evidence of an old earth and an even older universe is the literal description in several passages of Genesis, and they HAVE to make it fit. I'm ok with it not fitting. I'm ok with not putting God in a box.

[log]

You don't know that.

hmm ok, pointless conversation is pointless.

There are certain laws and rules that are fact, you can't explain, I cant explain it. gravity is a fact, I cant explain it, but its an actual reality, whether you believe it or not, 100% real and accurate.

Yes, and you know gravity exists solely because you have experienced it.

The moon is 384,000km from earth whether you believe or not. Its just one of those things. have I measured it? no, regardless if I have or not its 100% certain that it is.

You don't know that.

Are you saying you can verify the fact that the earth is 7000 years old, and that creation happened exactly as the creation story says?

Let me be perfectly clear as to what I am saying: you do not have any knowledge contrary to the claim that the earth is on the order of 6000 years old.

I happy to be convinced otherwise.

Luke 16
19 ¶There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:

28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

[drjme]

You don't know that.

hmm ok, pointless conversation is pointless.

There are certain laws and rules that are fact, you can't explain, I cant explain it. gravity is a fact, I cant explain it, but its an actual reality, whether you believe it or not, 100% real and accurate.

Yes, and you know gravity exists solely because you have experienced it.

contradiction log, If I haven't done the maths and the science behind gravity then I don't know it is a fact, surely. I have also experienced that the sun is at a distance from the earth and that light travels from it to earth. therefore I have experienced it, so it must be a fact even though I didn't construct the mathematics and science to support it.

The moon is 384,000km from earth whether you believe or not. Its just one of those things. have I measured it? no, regardless if I have or not its 100% certain that it is.

You don't know that.

It doesnt matter, it just is

Are you saying you can verify the fact that the earth is 7000 years old, and that creation happened exactly as the creation story says?

Let me be perfectly clear as to what I am saying: you do not have any knowledge contrary to the claim that the earth is on the order of 6000 years old.

And you don't otherwise so our opinions are in the same boat aren't they. how do you know days as described are literal days when revelation and prophecy shows days years and time as interchangeable?

I happy to be convinced otherwise.

Luke 16
19 ¶There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:

28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

ah another out of context scripture.

This ones about Jews disregarding and not receiving the mosaic law that was given to them, that would eventually bring them to Christ if they would follow it, not me questioning the literal interpretation of the genesis account.

[log]

contradiction log, If I haven't done the maths and the science behind gravity then I don't know it is a fact, surely. I have also experienced that the sun is at a distance from the earth and that light travels from it to earth. therefore I have experienced it, so it must be a fact even though I didn't construct the mathematics and science to support it.

That is trivially true, no doubt - you have not touched the sun even with it right overhead, so indeed it is at an unspecified distance from the earth greater than arm's length, at least; that much, I'm confident you know.

It doesnt matter, it just is

You don't know that.

And you don't otherwise so our opinions are in the same boat aren't they. how do you know days as described are literal days when revelation and prophecy shows days years and time as interchangeable?

I gave no opinion, neither advanced any claim.

ah another out of context scripture.

This ones about Jews disregarding and not receiving the mosaic law that was given to them, that would eventually bring them to Christ if they would follow it, not me questioning the literal interpretation of the genesis account.

Since you disregard and don't receive Joseph' teachings (as I never once cited Genesis), what could I say that could possibly convince you, who trust in men who are not Joseph against Joseph?

[log]

Wouldn't rejecting Joseph's scriptural teaching be called, literally, "unbelief"? And wouldn't accepting the word of men be, literally, "trusting in men"?

[drjme]

contradiction log, If I haven't done the maths and the science behind gravity then I don't know it is a fact, surely. I have also experienced that the sun is at a distance from the earth and that light travels from it to earth. therefore I have experienced it, so it must be a fact even though I didn't construct the mathematics and science to support it.

That is trivially true, no doubt - you have not touched the sun even with it right overhead, so indeed it is at an unspecified distance from the earth greater than arm's length, at least; that much, I'm confident you know.

thanks log

It doesnt matter, it just is

You don't know that.

like I said it doesn't matter

And you don't otherwise so our opinions are in the same boat aren't they. how do you know days as described are literal days when revelation and prophecy shows days years and time as interchangeable?

I gave no opinion, neither advanced any claim.

you advanced a claim

ah another out of context scripture.

This ones about Jews disregarding and not receiving the mosaic law that was given to them, that would eventually bring them to Christ if they would follow it, not me questioning the literal interpretation of the genesis account.

Since you disregard and don't receive Joseph' teachings (as I never once cited Genesis), what could I say that could possibly convince you, who trust in men who are not Joseph against Joseph?

You quoted those verses because I was questioning moses account of creation, and you erroneoulsy believed it meant all his writings as opposed to the just the mosaic law, which was in preparation of Christ.

you haven't really presented much, instead you questioned the way I analyze mathematic conclusions of thoroughly intelligent people. if you would like to discuss instead of debate I really enjoy considering other peoples POV, as I said my POV is malleable

[drjme]

Wouldn't rejecting Joseph's scriptural teaching be called, literally, "unbelief"? And wouldn't accepting the word of men be, literally, "trusting in men"?

unbelief of what? His belief? The Holy Spirit is the only confirmation of all truth, If I don't rely on that in all instances, then I am relying on Men solely. I simply continuously consider all positions until at some stage the HG reveals, and at that point my understanding (or misunderstandings ) are confirmed.
tell me about what you believe. I will question your POV as well, not to prove you wrong but to see what I can assimilate or comprehend.

[log]

Wouldn't rejecting Joseph's scriptural teaching be called, literally, "unbelief"? And wouldn't accepting the word of men be, literally, "trusting in men"?

unbelief of what? His belief?

I suppose one could take that tact towards everything he ever brought forth as Prophet, acting as such. That does end the conversation.

tell me about what you believe. I will question your POV as well, not to prove you wrong but to see what I can assimilate or comprehend.

I don't talk about my beliefs beyond what the scriptures say.

[drjme]

Wouldn't rejecting Joseph's scriptural teaching be called, literally, "unbelief"? And wouldn't accepting the word of men be, literally, "trusting in men"?

unbelief of what? His belief?

I suppose one could take that tact towards everything he ever brought forth as Prophet, acting as such. That does end the conversation.

tell me about what you believe. I will question your POV as well, not to prove you wrong but to see what I can assimilate or comprehend.

I don't talk about my beliefs beyond what the scriptures say.

well I suppose that ends it, doesn't it. unfortunate as it is.

[log]

Yep. When discussing scriptural doctrine, such as the doctrine that the earth is on the order of 6000 years old, rejection of the scriptural doctrine marks the end of the discussion.

[drjme]

Yep. When discussing scriptural doctrine, such as the doctrine that the earth is on the order of 6000 years old, rejection of the scriptural doctrine marks the end of the discussion.

The rest of my comment was deleted for some reason. oh well. you still haven't presented your position for discussion. share log.

[log]

I don't talk about my beliefs beyond what the scriptures say.

“Be careful that you teach not for the word of God the commandments of men, nor the doctrines of men, nor the ordinances of men, inasmuch as you are God’s messengers. Study the word of God, and preach it and not your opinions, for no man’s opinion is worth a straw. Advance no principle but what you can prove, for one scriptural proof is worth ten thousand opinions."

The position I take, publicly, is what the scriptures say. There's no discussion - you rejected them outright.

[log]

It doesnt matter, it just is

You don't know that.

like I said it doesn't matter

It does matter - you are pretending to knowledge which you do not posses.

Since you disregard and don't receive Joseph' teachings (as I never once cited Genesis), what could I say that could possibly convince you, who trust in men who are not Joseph against Joseph?


You quoted those verses because I was questioning moses account of creation, and you erroneoulsy believed it meant all his writings as opposed to the just the mosaic law, which was in preparation of Christ.

You erroneously thought that was why I quoted that scripture. In fact, I was pointing out that since you reject the scriptures and the teachings of the Prophet, nothing I could possibly say would sway you - just like the rich man and his relatives who rejected the scriptures and the teachings of the prophets and would not be persuaded though one rose from the grave.

you haven't really presented much, instead you questioned the way I analyze mathematic conclusions of thoroughly intelligent people. if you would like to discuss instead of debate I really enjoy considering other peoples POV, as I said my POV is malleable

You admitted you didn't analyze mathematical conclusions. You have merely accepted the claims of those who claimed to have.

As I said, it is my opinion. I believe the mathematics used by very, very intelligent people to determine distances across vast areas of space are a fact.

Your opinion is not malleable; you even said as much.

That is fine I like to talk about my opinions a lot, they are malleable. Though some of the things I have based them on in this instance, not so much.

The things you are basing them on are what you erroneously call "facts," which are in reality merely opinions you hold based on your faith in men; those opinions are not malleable. At least, "not so much." I read that as "those are my untouchable foundational claims."

[log]

I'm going to repeat this here. I think it may have been missed, or the significance not fully grokked.

{I}t is a doctrine of the Gospel of Salvation to all the descendants of Adam and Eve, that if you know anything, you obtain that knowledge by experience.

How are you going to get your knowledge if not by your experience? That which you have experienced you know. - Collier, Fred C. The Teachings of President Brigham Young, Vol. 3, pp. 333-336

You know something if and only if you have experienced it.

Anything else is merely prejudice, opinion, belief, or faith.

This is a doctrinal definition.

Claiming knowledge without experience is lying.

[drjme]

It does matter - you are pretending to knowledge which you do not posses.

Since you disregard and don't receive Joseph' teachings (as I never once cited Genesis), what could I say that could possibly convince you, who trust in men who are not Joseph against Joseph?


You quoted those verses because I was questioning moses account of creation, and you erroneoulsy believed it meant all his writings as opposed to the just the mosaic law, which was in preparation of Christ.

You erroneously thought that was why I quoted that scripture. In fact, I was pointing out that since you reject the scriptures and the teachings of the Prophet, nothing I could possibly say would sway you - just like the rich man and his relatives who rejected the scriptures and the teachings of the prophets and would not be persuaded though one rose from the grave.

you haven't really presented much, instead you questioned the way I analyze mathematic conclusions of thoroughly intelligent people. if you would like to discuss instead of debate I really enjoy considering other peoples POV, as I said my POV is malleable

You admitted you didn't analyze mathematical conclusions. You have merely accepted the claims of those who claimed to have.

Your opinion is not malleable; you even said as much.

"
That is fine I like to talk about my opinions a lot, they are malleable. Though some of the things I have based them on in this instance, not so much.

The things you are basing them on are what you erroneously call "facts," which are in reality merely opinions you hold based on your faith in men; those opinions are not malleable. At least, "not so much." I read that as "those are my untouchable foundational claims."

Unfortunate, my SDA friends have a superior argument for young earth creationism to what you have and are happy to share it. You can reduce my assumption to being mere 'faith in men'' yet it seems you are content in attempting to destroy my assimilation of them into my paradigm rather than attempt to address the facts themselves. That is weak. You seem content to belittle anther POV rather than present a more convincing one, that is fine. If you choose to call actual facts, "beliefs", then It is to you own detriment and closed mindedness. Good day to you.

[log]

You can reduce my assumption to being mere 'faith in men'' yet it seems you are content in attempting to destroy my assimilation of them into my paradigm rather than attempt to address the facts themselves.

It is more accurate to say I am demonstrating that what you erroneously call "facts" are not known by you as facts - you are pretending to knowledge you do not possess, lacking experience, and doing so because you have faith in men.

That is weak. You seem content to belittle anther POV rather than present a more convincing one, that is fine.

The only POV I am belittling, if I can be said to be belittling anything, is the POV that you can truthfully claim to know things you do not, in reality, know.

If you choose to call actual facts, "beliefs", then It is to you own detriment and closed mindedness.

I wonder if it is not obviously detrimental and transparently closeminded to choose to call opinions and beliefs "facts" based upon one's faith in men?

[drjme]

I'm going to repeat this here. I think it may have been missed, or the significance not fully grokked.

{I}t is a doctrine of the Gospel of Salvation to all the descendants of Adam and Eve, that if you know anything, you obtain that knowledge by experience.

How are you going to get your knowledge if not by your experience? That which you have experienced you know. - Collier, Fred C. The Teachings of President Brigham Young, Vol. 3, pp. 333-336

You know something if and only if you have experienced it.

Anything else is merely prejudice, opinion, belief, or faith.

This is a doctrinal definition.

Claiming knowledge without experience is lying.

Ah and here we begin the accusations.
When one has nothing left then Falsely accuse and presume. Good job log, you are a class act.
Share log, I've asked you several times now. Share the truth that I may be enlightened?
You will not share so you must be lying also, because you do not possess the truth.
You have presented nothing. Yet you will start down the path of accusation.

15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Let it out log. Let the light shine before men. I'm not mocking, let's talk about this instead of reducing it to ad hominem.
No more circular pointless argument. Let's just share :ymhug:

[drjme]

You can reduce my assumption to being mere 'faith in men'' yet it seems you are content in attempting to destroy my assimilation of them into my paradigm rather than attempt to address the facts themselves.

It is more accurate to say I am demonstrating that what you erroneously call "facts" are not known by you as facts - you are pretending to knowledge you do not possess, lacking experience, and doing so because you have faith in men.

That is weak. You seem content to belittle anther POV rather than present a more convincing one, that is fine.

The only POV I am belittling, if I can be said to be belittling anything, is the POV that you can truthfully claim to know things you do not, in reality, know.

If you choose to call actual facts, "beliefs", then It is to you own detriment and closed mindedness.

I wonder if it is not obviously detrimental and transparently closeminded to choose to call opinions and beliefs "facts" based upon one's faith in men?

Ah so weak, c'mon log lets hear all about it. Yeah science is stupid. Mathematics is dumb. Who needs that crap, they don't know what they are talking about eh?

C'mon log get over my error and present the truth. I'm Still waiting, or are you just going to keep on dodging? Even better log the onus is now on you to prove them wrong. How far is that star log and how do we measure the distance? You got it worked out bro? Or is just that it doesn't fit in you little box, hence it's not true.

C'mon log you gotta do better.

[Epistemology]

"A priori knowledge is knowledge that rests on a priori justification. A priori justification is a type of epistemic justification that is, in some sense, independent of experience."

a fun read

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/apriori/

I wonder since the Earth in the future will have a new heaven (new stars etc) when the Earth becomes a Terrestrial state, if the Earth during the creation and / or whilst in the Garden of Eden had a different "heaven" (stars, etc)?

I mean if the Earth moved in space after the Fall, maybe these stars we see that are 300,000 years old were created at another time?

log wrote

Wouldn't rejecting Joseph's scriptural teaching be called, literally, "unbelief"? And wouldn't accepting the word of men be, literally, "trusting in men"?

Is quoting or referencing a statement NOT in scripture "trusting in men"?