Young Earth Creation theory put to rest!

[tat tvam asi]

I'm impressed, not only are you a clever intellectual giant but you are an ironman too.

BTW, your geography is a bit off. NASA is not due east of PSJ.

I doubt we ever met, I would remember you.

Finally, I can give you credit for something Stahrwe. Nasa is more correctly to the NE of Port St. John and due east of Titusville. I worded that incorrectly.

As a matter of fact I'll be doing some work in Brevard County over the next few months off and on. I'll tell you what, I'll buy you a beer (or soda) if you'd like for getting the geography back on track. I don't mind hanging out with fundies, we can agree to disagree or whatever. I'm just letting this Genesis thing play out. In the past it's gotten nasty with certain people but you do an excellent job of being a good Christian about it all. Most people don't. I do respect you for standing up for your beliefs against many an atheistic attack all over the forum. You're just doing what you have to do to hang in there and not allow yourself to go down to any atheists or non-believers. But you don't completely loose it like some apologists I've posed similar questions to in the past. I'm just seeking out truth here. If you offer some absolute truth I will recognize it as such. But I have yet to recognize a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 as absolute truth, I currently recognize it as a deceptive form of interpretating mythological stories which claims to be the true way of interpreting but evidently is not.

[stahrwe]

I'm impressed, not only are you a clever intellectual giant but you are an ironman too.

BTW, your geography is a bit off. NASA is not due east of PSJ.

I doubt we ever met, I would remember you.

Finally, I can give you credit for something Stahrwe. Nasa is more correctly to the NE of Port St. John and due east of Titusville. I worded that incorrectly.

As a matter of fact I'll be doing some work in Brevard County over the next few months off and on. I'll tell you what, I'll buy you a beer (or soda) if you'd like for getting the geography back on track. I don't mind hanging out with fundies, we can agree to disagree or whatever. I'm just letting this Genesis thing play out. In the past it's gotten nasty with certain people but you do an excellent job of being a good Christian about it all. Most people don't. I do respect you for standing up for your beliefs against many an atheistic attack all over the forum. You're just doing what you have to do to hang in there and not allow yourself to go down to any atheists or non-believers. But you don't completely loose it like some apologists I've posed similar questions to in the past. I'm just seeking out truth here. If you offer some absolute truth I will recognize it as such. But I have yet to recognize a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 as absolute truth, I currently recognize it as a deceptive form of interpretating mythological stories which claims to be the true way of interpreting but evidently is not.

I would love to get together with you, we can knock heads, yell and shout at each other. Frankly, talking to Christians is boring. I'll send you a PM.

BTW, I doubt you'll be able to bench press me.

[tat tvam asi]

My bench pressing days aren't over just yet, but they certainly aren't what they used to be at that age. lol

I just meant the story to relate to you some of the BS I've been up against in the past over arguing about the validity of literal interpretation and Christian fundamentalism in general. The guy was one of my best friends father-in-law and it was a really nasty situation. His wife was so upset that she pretty much forbid my buddy from hanging with me any more. It was a good learning experience though. I learned not to let things get that out of control. It isn't worth it at all.

I guess I should post our current position in the Genesis 1 thread here. You've had to suggest that perhaps the sun, moon, and stars, were created on the first day, not the fourth, but that on the fourth day God ordained them. My take on it is that it requires you changing around the literal written order of the bible and also assuming something that the bible doesn't even say. It says nothing about the sun, moon, and stars being created on the first day and in fact brings into the storyline on the fourth day. So you've left the literal interpretation of the bible with this suggestion which doesn't do any good for proving that Genesis 1 is to be taken literally. This only hurts YEC, it doesn't help from what I'm seeing here. This is a factor in my truth seeking process. I don't see interpreting Genesis 1 literally as a truth, not yet any ways.

What's next?

[stahrwe]

My bench pressing days aren't over just yet, but they certainly aren't what they used to be at that age. lol

I just meant the story to relate to you some of the BS I've been up against in the past over arguing about the validity of literal interpretation and Christian fundamentalism in general. The guy was one of my best friends father-in-law and it was a really nasty situation. His wife was so upset that she pretty much forbid my buddy from hanging with me any more. It was a good learning experience though. I learned not to let things get that out of control. It isn't worth it at all.

I guess I should post our current position in the Genesis 1 thread here. You've had to suggest that perhaps the sun, moon, and stars, were created on the first day, not the fourth, but that on the fourth day God ordained them. My take on it is that it requires you changing around the literal written order of the bible and also assuming something that the bible doesn't even say. It says nothing about the sun, moon, and stars being created on the first day and in fact brings into the storyline on the fourth day. So you've left the literal interpretation of the bible with this suggestion which doesn't do any good for proving that Genesis 1 is to be taken literally. This only hurts YEC, it doesn't help from what I'm seeing here. This is a factor in my truth seeking process. I don't see interpreting Genesis 1 literally as a truth, not yet any ways.

What's next?

See Genesis 1 post.

[bleachededen]

I think this debate should remain here, in the thread created for it, instead of being drawn into the Genesis reading, because I sense that others who were once active in that thread are remaining silent now because the discussion has moved from simply discussion of the topic (Genesis) to this argument to defend or attack the YEC literal interpretation position. I don't think this discussion needs to happen in two threads, and I think this one is more suitable because it isn't interfering with other members' discussion of the Bible.

Just my humble speculation.

[Interbane]

I like how discussion of the age of the universe was dropped. What about the age of the Earth? Light from distant stars? The Grand Canyon? Evolution?

Of course, none of that matters, god could have created the Earth and made it 'appear' to be millions of years old. He could have made distant stars with the rays of light partway to Earth. He could have made the Grand Canyon 'as if' it had been eroded over long periods of time. He could have created organisms 'as if' they had evolved. Reasoning and logic mean absolutely nothing, goddidit is the ultimate fallback point.

[Kayta]

I've been following this discussion with interest and some amazement. I have friends who are devout Christians who believe genesis is a "teaching story" but I don't think I've ever met anyone who took it "literally". I've seen alot of the attitude on American TV shows and in the news etc. but thought they were playing it up to be funny.

I've heard about the Bible Belt but in Australia we have nothing similar. How do these people gratuate high school with that belief? Are there really schools that teach creationism? or whatever they label it now?

[johnson1010]

There are private schools, many of them established to promote religious belief while providing a high school degree, as well as home schooling, and .... texas as well.

booktalk.org/the-problems-in-texas-scho ... t7634.html

[bleachededen]

Sadly, Kayta, yes there are, and there are movements in pretty much every state to have "Intelligent Design" (creationism) taught in school along with evolution, which they also wish to add a disclaimer to, saying that it is only a theory and no part of it is actually fact and that students can choose which "theory" they wish to study and believe. These are public schools we're talking about here, as well, which are clearly covered by "separation of church and state." But since many Christians want the "state" to be religious, that line is beginning to blur more and more as a frightening number of Americans want to consider the U.S. a "Christian" nation, the exact thing the founding fathers wanted to eliminate. It's sad, it really is.

[stahrwe]

I think this debate should remain here, in the thread created for it, instead of being drawn into the Genesis reading, because I sense that others who were once active in that thread are remaining silent now because the discussion has moved from simply discussion of the topic (Genesis) to this argument to defend or attack the YEC literal interpretation position. I don't think this discussion needs to happen in two threads, and I think this one is more suitable because it isn't interfering with other members' discussion of the Bible.

Just my humble speculation.

I agree that it should not be in two different threads, and, logically, since it is intimately connected with Genesis, that is where it beongs.