Evidence for God from Science

Canuckster1127 wrote:I freely admit, I confused Hovind with Ham and I apologize for the confusion. I did preface the comment recognizing the fallacy even if the confusion were not there but I can understand and accept the correction and laugh at myself for it along with everyone else.

Mea Culpa. Sorry.

No problem. Apology accepted.

What would you like to talk about? I believe intermingled in that confusion, I did address the key points of this thread.

Bart,

For what it is worth, while there are times I wish you would take a firmer stance on some things, one thing I am forever impressed with is your sense of humility. It's been noted on these boards before, but I think it's worth pointing out again, both in terms of recent discussions as well as in the immediate context of this one.

Would that we all learn to defend our positions passionately with same self-deprication as you so consistently demonstrate.

God bless

edit: Adam, I think Bart is talking about this post, the only part of which I saw you respond to was the Hovind comment.

Adam_777 wrote:

cslewislover wrote:

Adam_777 wrote:Seriously, when did Ken Ham go to jail?

I was just trying to find out if he was out of prison or not - it is not easy to find out about it! He had been convicted a while back for not paying his taxes on employees or something . . .

No you guys are mixing up Ken Ham and Kent Hovind I'm pretty certain. Easy to do but I think canuck may owe us a retraction.

Oh, ok. Lol. It's easy to get them mixed up. Still, I actually tried Hovind in two searches after nothing came up about Ham, and I didn't find any info. I decided to stop after that, but I guess Zoe found something . . .

No problem. I can see how the mistake was made and I know it was an honest mistake. I'm just glad it was fixed. It really shouldn't have been an issue. Zoe might like the idea of shooting the messenger but I'm more interested in the message.

Jac3510 wrote:Bart,

For what it is worth, while there are times I wish you would take a firmer stance on some things, one thing I am forever impressed with is your sense of humility. It's been noted on these boards before, but I think it's worth pointing out again, both in terms of recent discussions as well as in the immediate context of this one.

Would that we all learn to defend our positions passionately with same self-deprication as you so consistently demonstrate.

God bless

edit: Adam, I think Bart is talking about this post, the only part of which I saw you respond to was the Hovind comment.

Thanks Jac, I appreciate the very kind words and I also accept and own that I can very frustratingly for some at times not be as hard line on some things as I once was and as many might like. Chalk some of it up to just being weary in fighting perhaps but also, maybe, I hope, some of it has come with some age and experience and hopefully trying to extend more grace to people.

I've changed a lot even in my time participating on this board and on others, and earlier on, I would fight and defend any position to the death, sometimes even when I already knew I was wrong or needed to modify my position. That for me, was pride. I just try now, as best as I can to try to cut to the chase on issues and recognize the traps and games and avoid them where I can.

Even when we disagree, or when I'm sniping from the sides unfairly on some of your threads and not putting in as much effort as you are, I hope you know that I appreciate, love and respect you and I try to do that with others here too, but I know I often fail.

So, no need to break out the tissues and have a group hug just yet, but I appreciate everyone's patience with me.

bart

Very well said. I don't think this is a Church splitting topic but it's one that raises some interesting issues and proper representation for both sides should be sought actively, even where or especially where there is disagreement.

We have a common enemy and we all see through a glass darkly. Iron sharpening Iron is best when done with accuracy.

Your quick fix and apology has set the stage and we all make mistakes (except maybe Zoegirl )

I haven't been in here for a long time because I felt like too much of my dialogue was focused on repenting for every minor mistake YECs made in the past because I agree with them on large issues and that's why I was getting upset. I thought I could have a discussion about the evidence, for a change, and I was right back to talking about and being expected to defend things that I have no control over.

I'm sad that Hovind is in jail. Afterall He is our brother in Christ. And I hate to see what happened to his ministry but that doesn't make him dishonest. In fact he was open about his tax practice,s to the extreme, that was what got him. He was trying to slay every perceived dragon and probably bit off more than he could chew. I just wish fellow believers would look a little closer before joining the scoffing section. Like I said I don't necessarily agree with what he did but he was honest and I will say I agree with the principles he fought for. Check it out for yourself. He was very open about his tax practices:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6053800&ei

Adam,

Zoegirl has been on this board for a long time and is both a very valued friend as well as someone for whom I have a lot of respect. She doesn't need me to defend her, but I'd encourage you to perhaps consider extending her some understanding and grace and I suspect you'll come to share the high opinion that many on this board have of her, even if you're not in agreement with all she has to say.

bart

Why thanks, Bart, I appreciate that....

Mainly I was surpirsed at the strength of the offense taken at a 1) minor zinger (which I knew to be minor because I know you enough on this board, although even assuming the worst seemed hardly warranting the level of disgust) 2) a minor mix-up, between two very popular people who do interact with each other...the mix-up was certainly not meant maliciously (even if the zinger....hit its target) and certainly corrected rapidly.

Especially in light of the mistakes that have been committed, mathematical calculations which were obviously wrong and yet, becuase of their willingess to hold on the erroneuous conclusion of a young-earth, were kept on web-sites and published in books far longer than they should have. COnsidering this, it seems bizarre to get so wrought up over, again, a minor zinger and minor mix up...one which was corrected very rapidly...

And if I came off as having too much fun...well, I must confess, I was sitting there at my keyboard not taking it seriously....yup...I will confess...I don't think and still don't thinka minor mix-up like this warranted that level of offense.

But yes, I do think holding on to bad science (science that the two in question hold to), especially when they do post videos on youtube that essentially claim that we are splitting the church up and eroding the foundation of scripture, is bad. I have posted at length on this before and so will refrain from continuing on my favorite soap box....I know, I know....it will be tough (but I htink that most who have been invovled in this particular thread know my views...probably ad nauseum....you don't have to confirm that )

I know, Adam, that *you* don't think that his is a church splitting offense...and if, in my language, I gave that impression, then I do apologize...I know you don't...
YOu don't....they do, and they were who I was meaning my strong language for.

(PLus I was a bit offended at you casting slurs upon my investigative and reasoning skills....but...I can cast that aside...*sniff* I can let that go....I think....)

Peace....TGIF!!

I personally like this thread's topic but the question is can there be some initial agreement regarding the limitations of dating the earth? This isn't about a popularity vote or about how well math works on models. The bottom line is this; Is the science solid enough to eliminate other options and are the results being hand picked and manipulated based on preconceived notions.

I posed this question to one of your members, and my friend, on another forum once and I believe it is worth pondering:

What's a bigger problem for who? Are evidences that correlate with an old earth more destructive to the young earth model or are evidences that correlate with a young earth more destructive to the old earth model?

Without any outside information this little fellow could easily be mistaken as older based on the physical data:



Is God doing a sneaky trick because evidences could misconstrue old ages falsely? Should we reject the evidence for a young age here because they are mostly based off of nonphysical evidences like hospital records and parent/friend testimony or should we look for potential reasons for the potential false appearance of age in spite of the apparent physical appearance of age?

If we just had the Body, a birth certificate, and one person's testimony would the physical data drive how we interpret the birth certificate and testimony. Which one has more merit? Maybe a number is off on the birth certificate. Maybe the person testifying is not being literal since the body obviously looks older then what the certificate and person's testimony declare.

Should we look strictly at how we interpret the non-physical testimonies to line up with the obvious appearance of age or should we also question to see; if the obvious appearance of age... is indeed so conclusive as to merit how we view all other data?

Adam_777 wrote:Without any outside information this little fellow could easily be mistaken as older based on the physical data:

No...by simple picture alone, the age is seen in the eyes and face. Wrinkles just point to Progeria or Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome (HGPS) or similar disease.

Not so easy to make that mistake in science unless God is playing tricks on His created.
.
.

You do agree that there can often be what seem to be conflicting observations and often things are misunderstood because of an incorrect perspective, right?

Adam_777 wrote:You do agree that there can often be what seem to be conflicting observations and often things are misunderstood because of an incorrect perspective, right?

Not when the "incorrect" perspective is a chosen perspective over the obvious correct perspective. OEC, at it's basic levels proves YEC wrong.
.
.

Ah, good to be back from a long ski vacation. Not.

Adam_777 wrote: The reason I feel the way I do is because I see absolutely no disconnect between God's Word as proclaiming a young earth and the science as confirming this. Yes, my primary axiom is that God's special revelation, as contained in scripture, gives us the right universals to interpret the particulars around us. I hope you consider watching that video I posted. It seems dated but there is a very cool experiment about half way through that dismantles current ideas about how geological layers form.

Don't let me misrepresent you, but as a YEC, do you use (or have you used) science to support your position? (e.g., the video links you provided) And is the Bible your final authority even on matters relating to the natural world? But from your perspective, could science basically agree with the Bible regarding the Earth's age?

Yes? If not, where have I unfairly represented your position above? Thank you.

BavarianWheels wrote:Not when the "incorrect" perspective is a chosen perspective over the obvious correct perspective. OEC, at it's basic levels proves YEC wrong.

Well, I'm convinced....or maybe not. The only way this statement is believed is if someone buys into the ad hoc explanations as definitive. This is the evolutionists number one playing card as well. I hope this isn't the case with my fellow believers here. I can admit and ponder the limitations of the scientific method, can you?