- The facts decides if majority is in favour.
And how are the facts decided, when you have conflicting facts at hand?
- It would still be the word of God, even if the majority voted otherwise.... that is the point im getting across. Truth is independent of votes, or majority, or mob mentality.
And how would I know objectively that it is? What I'm driving home is that there is no way that you can pin God down and say 'there He is!' The kingdom is INSIDE you.
- I didnt understand the last sentence....
I said it's ironic to say that truth is not popular as a defense and then use popularity as a defense for truth.
But anyways, concerning the Nicae Council you mentioned of earlier, it was a consensus to settle once and for all, the issue of the Nature of Christ and His relationship with God the Father. They used the faulty system of majority to decide the truth , but still we can't base truth on majority, because majority is not always right. we base truth on FACTS instead and revelations from God, who never lies and knows all things.
The method was faulty, but we can assume the result was not? We are all the time accusing each other of having the wrong interpretation because of a faulty method of reading. But the selection itself is permitted to be faulty without question?
Evolution is accepted by the major consensus but this doesn't mean they are right, because the FACTS are against evolution and God clearly revealed how the world came to be in Genesis.
So, my faith depends on facts? Facts are going to be really comforting when I'm being persecuted or suffering a terminal disease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
American and European anthropologists suffering from terminal bigotry rushed to endorse
But those who rushed to endorse the Nicenean canon so they can control people, claiming to be king by the authority of God, Spanish Inquisition, and all this... that would thus invalidate that book, by this reasoning.
Everything man says or invents, is a double-edged sword, to be used for good and evil. Even bigoted remarks and slurs serves a purpose in satire, a literary means of slapping stupid people. People will do "good works" for ulterior motives, by manipulating others.
We all need to abandon this appeal to irresponsible use of information, including myself. However, evolution is grounded in observation - "hmm, I wonder if given enough time, these changes could happen." That is science - making a guess, and testing it.
----
And as far as the challenge to show how the earth is older:
I could do that. I could get out all the powerpoints I saved, and summarize it all for you. It is reasonable, and logical. You have many many (supposedly Spirit-indwelled) Christians adhering to it - (and the are the majority within the Church, and since we assume this decides truth in the Church, then what follows?)
How many unbelievers adhere to a young earth? If the evidence is there, why aren't any scientists supporting it outside the Creation scientists? "Because they refuse to believe!" What, refuse to believe what is before their eyes, that which is so obvious? So, you are saying this is a matter of FAITH to believe, because if it was hard, obvious evidence, someone would embrace it. Unbelievers are not without the faculty of reason, AND AS SOON AS YOU SAY "well they need God to open their eyes" you ADMIT this is a faith issue, and not purely observational.
One of the biggest lies spread by the Creation movement is that evolution is a random process - THAT IS NOT what is taught. It happens through natural selection, which AiG separates these two.
-----
So yes, I could do this. Certainly. But you know something? I'm not. You know why I'm not? I am almost entirely certain it would be a waste of time. Why would it be a waste of time?
Your minds are made up. The text says this, so this MUST be true. It doesn't matter what is presented to you... even so to virtually all educated people it makes sense, many Christians changing their minds after a science class in college, and all around the world... but you see Genesis as literal history, and nothing will contradict it - and since that is your bias, and your final decision, why the heck
do you even ask for evidence? You don't need evidence. You already believe! Because you see "there's this book that will tell you." Do you ask for evidence from those who don't agree to mock them, and belittle them, as that is certainly going both ways on this thread? It seems that way to me.
-----
As I remember Ken Ham consistently making the point: "Yes, we are bias, but everyone's bias. Atheists and those who support evolution are
also bias; naturalism is a belief
too. And because of their bias, they can't see the truth." Well, ok... so your bias is correct because "there's this book." What if there wasn't this book? Would it still be so obvious that evolution is a lie? "I wouldn't have the revelation." AH! Revelation, you say? So this is not a purely observational thing?
And he admits that, recognizes that science is about guessing and not supposing, and so he invents "historical science." I could go into why that is NOT science and he makes his whole organization look like utterly uneducated people with that argument (and hey, I believed it at one point... you all understand I LEFT the obvious truth of YEC and I'm still a believer). The argument is "You weren't there." Ok... so, Ham, you invented a time machine we are unaware of and came back to confirm for sure that there was a change in the physical laws? How can you say 'you weren't there' to prove something objectively when you weren't even there yourself?!
However, I do understand there are some very bright, intelligent YEC scientists. No doubt about that, and I bought a couple of AiG compilation CDs, and some of the lectures I heard from a few of them was really light-hearted and good-humored. I'm not trying to paint all YEC as bigoted Christians.
"What would it take for either of you gentleman to change your mind?"
Nye - Evidence
Ham - Nothing, not matter what it is.
Nothing. Not hard evidence, not any line of reasoning, not even God Himself is implied in that statement. Nothing. Those loyal to his ministry excuses it, and yet an unbeliever saying nothing would make them believe in a young earth would be jumped on as arrogant.
----
As I said, you will reject anything I put forth, on the grounds that it doesn't agree, and that's it. The fish in your aquarium could sprout legs and hop out, and you would attribute it to a very unusual deformity... or say, "that can't be evolution, because it happened too quickly!" Or that maybe God is trying to tell you to have faith and get back in the boat. I don't know.
And perhaps I'm misjudging some attitudes here. But there isn't anything being honestly discussed here, from either side. You know, on the forum I used to be on, linking articles without giving a short, informative synopsis of them automatically meant you lost. Because a debate is not to exchange sources, but to discuss them. And that's another reason I'm not getting involved... because there's no discussion.
Now believe me, there is abuse and lies spread on both sides of this issue, and I understand that. But painting the other side as if THEY are the only culprit only makes you look worse. And I understand this is a longwinded way of saying "count me out," but that's my way. I was incorrectly named Jamie when it should've been Wendy. ^_^
---
I am just hitting right at the core, here. The premise of YEC is that the Bible is the literal word of God... the premise of evolutionary theists is that that Bible is inspired, but flawed literally. The premise of unbelievers is that it doesn't matter. What you have here then, is presuppositions, as Ken Ham has said.
He's right about that. And in saying that, he openly admits that the literal interpretation he has will not allow any other thought system in - so, he's closed-minded, and it is absolutely astounding that Nye took him seriously enough to debate with him. The difference is that the presuppositions of secular scientists is founded on PREVIOUSLY established science and theories. You can say that's man's way to making up this and that. But we wouldn't be communicating on computers, if man didn't start thinking this way.
-----
And you see,
conviction is fine, it's all fine and dandy - but to hold stubbornly to your beliefs, while accusing others of the same, refusing to open your ears while condemning others for the same - that's not good. Why is it not good? Because history, AND some of those were Christians who thought beyond what was literally written and posed questions. And good old common sense says it's not:
History has shown science to shed light, time and time again, on things we thought we had figured out because the bible or some other belief. And you're not all-knowing. If you take Christ filling "all things" literally, then common sense says "You know, I'm one person, on an earth with 7 billion people, of many different cultures, beliefs, and political ideas/ideologies, in a huge galaxy, in an even bigger universe, that is expanding. There may be some things I don't know that could affect the conclusions I have already made."
I have no qualms with your beliefs, and I wouldn't mind discussing the beliefs I myself once held... but it doesn't make any sense too.
----------------------------------------------
And Stephan, I was pretty much summing everything that Solomon had said about fools - I'm sorry that I didn't directly quote anything, such as when he says that fools despise wisdom and rebuke. But nice compilation of Scripture there - maybe you can start putting together a reference book.
