Challenge to Creationists: Ichneumon Wasp

[InChrist]

I believe you, that you do not.
But see,it is insufficient to just think
about something, it is necessary also to study.
Have some information to work with.

Lines one and two are ok..
I do think objectivity is the highest goal, to be precise objective truth.

Biblical faith is based on reasonable evidence

I do believe that God created living things in a matter of days as stated in Genesis


But the last line is one hundred percent incompatible
with those first line. The one about biblical faith, who knows
what that even means. Everyone has a different idea.

You appear to be an entirely earnest person, so there is
no way you could say what you have, if you had actually
studied biology / geology in any meaningful way. You cannot
have actually looked at the evidence.

Objective / reasonable requires that!

So are you are basically saying that you think if I really looked at the evidence of biology/geology I would not be able to objectively or reasonably say that the creation account in Genesis is accurate?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So are you are basically saying that you think if I really looked at the evidence of biology/geology I would not be able to objectively or reasonably say that the creation account in Genesis is accurate?

That is correct. Believing the Genesis account amounts to calling God a liar.

 

[Audie]

So are you are basically saying that you think if I really looked at the evidence of biology/geology I would not be able to objectively or reasonably say that the creation account in Genesis is accurate?

In a word, yes. That, and that you have not looked it it,
despite your apparent indication that you believe you
have done your due diligence.

If by "accurate" you mean a literal historical account of
something that happened as described- 6 days, and
all the animals created as kinds similar to today, then,
yes.

There is no reasonable way to examine the actual
evidence and say that the bible is correct.

 

[Audie]

That is correct. Believing the Genesis account amounts to calling God a liar.

Now now one can believe the account without
getting all technical.

 

[InChrist]

In a word, yes. That, and that you have not looked it it,
despite your apparent indication that you believe you
have done your due diligence.

If by "accurate" you mean a literal historical account of
something that happened as described- 6 days, and
all the animals created as kinds similar to today, then,
yes.

There is no reasonable way to examine the actual
evidence and say that the bible is correct.

Well, realistically I think the same can be said for the secular theory of evolution, abiogenesis, or other theories of origin because since no one was there in the beginning to observe the origin of life then one interprets the same evidence based on the framework of their foundational belief system.

How is it that there are real, educated scientists, who understand the evidence, who have been immersed in the secular evolutionary mindset, but who seeing inconsistencies and inaccuracies have changed their minds and have accepted the Genesis account revealed by God?

 

[InChrist]

That is correct. Believing the Genesis account amounts to calling God a liar.

...let God be true but every man a liar Romans 3:4

 

[Subduction Zone]

...let God be true but every man a liar Romans 3:4

Quoting out of context and inappropriately is also a way of lying. You really should try to understand how you are the one that is calling your God a liar. No one else is here. That is your sin.

 

[InChrist]

Quoting out of context and inappropriately is also a way of lying. You really should try to understand how you are the one that is calling your God a liar. No one else is here. That is your sin.

Here is the context for you below, it doesn't change the fact that here and elsewhere the scriptures are clear that God does not lie. God has revealed how life originated in the Genesis account. It is you who claim it not to be true, you are calling God a liar and claiming to have more knowledge concerning the life on this earth.


What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? 2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. 3 For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? 4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written:

“That You may be justified in Your words,
And may overcome when You are judged.”


5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) 6 Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world?


7 For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? 8 And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just. Romans 4;1-8

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is the context for you below, it doesn't change the fact that here and elsewhere the scriptures are clear that God does not lie. God has revealed how life originated in the Genesis account. It is you who claim it not to be true, you are calling God a liar and claiming to have more knowledge concerning the life on this earth.


What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? 2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. 3 For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? 4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written:

“That You may be justified in Your words,
And may overcome when You are judged.”


5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) 6 Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world?


7 For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? 8 And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just. Romans 4;1-8

Since you are the one that is calling God a liar how does that verse apply to me? Seriously if anything that verse applies to you. As @Audie told you, if you understand geology or biology it is clear that the Genesis stories are not to be taken literally. You should be learning instead of making false accusations against others.

First off the Bible does not even make the error of claiming that it is all to be taken literally. Nor does it claim to be inerrant. That is an error on your part in reading the Bible. And if God does not lie and God was responsible for making the Earth then Genesis is wrong. By calling Genesis literal you are calling God a liar. Think about it. If you do not understand you should be asking questions.

 

[Audie]

Well, realistically I think the same can be said for the secular theory of evolution, abiogenesis, or other theories of origin because since no one was there in the beginning to observe the origin of life then one interprets the same evidence based on the framework of their foundational belief system.

How is it that there are real, educated scientists, who understand the evidence, who have been immersed in the secular evolutionary mindset, but who seeing inconsistencies and inaccuracies have changed their minds and have accepted the Genesis account revealed by God?

That is not remotely realistic, and you are changing the
subject besides. There isnt even such a thing as a
"secular" or any other "theory of abiogenisis". Realistic?

I am not going to debate a youtube video. This is
about you, and honesty, and objectivity not what
some youtube whoever is saying.

Why do they abandon science in favour or creationism?

I dunno. Some may be communists; the rest are morally weak, or simply insane? You tell me.



This, though, is how it is really done:

Dr K Wise, PhD in paleontology:

I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.

Since you like to think, lets see how well you understand
that what he is describing is the refined essence of intellectual
dishonesty.

And this...one interprets the same evidence based on the framework of their foundational belief system.

Is of course rather vague-what is a "foundational belief system" but-that too will do fine in a discussion of
intellectual dishonesty.

It is what researchers strive their long life through to
avoid, and you ' these others dive in headfirst.

Dont claim we are all the same. We are not.

The ACTUAL method is to interpret in a way
that is fully consistent with all data. It really is quite
simple. No creationist idea can remotely approach doing that.

As K Wise obliquely indicated, it is impossible to reconcile
the data in geology with creationism, so, he does not
even try. He just takes a stand. What t he bible
SEEMS to HIM to indicate. Crazy, no?

Now getting back to you-you it appears, have not
actually thought about, studied, nor learned a
blessed thing about the actual subject here,
which is not "secular abiogenesis theory or any such irrelevant nonsense.

Lets limit it to a study of the fossil record, which you
certainly have not done.

IF you did, you would have two and a half choices.

1.- understand it and realize your reading of genesis is
simply mistaken, it is not a true account. Would that
be a disaster? Lots of good Christians life with it just
fine.

2- go the route of those others, like your youtubeis
and Dr Wise, and accept intellectual
dishonesty as your lot in life (note that K Wise knows
far far more geology / palenotology than you ever will,
and he does not attempt to show data for a six day
poof because he knows it is not there.)

2.5- avoid the topic by playing this false equivalency game
of "Same evidence, different interpretation / paradigm", "you were not there", and, "whatabout this youtube."

I see the appeal, if not the rigour and honesty of 2.5,
because it is easy, cheap, requires no effort at all.
The game is not even original, you did not even
have to think of that little.

AND, it avoids the risk of what will happen if you do
study. What will inevitably happen. Epiphany.
Or dishonesty.

Just, if you go the 2 or 2.5 route, dont please insult
our intelligence and further your own by saying you
put objectivity and truth as top values.

 

[Audie]

...let God be true but every man a liar Romans 3:4

Do you always let a youtube or a book speak for you?
Why?

 

[Audie]

Here is the context for you below, it doesn't change the fact that here and elsewhere the scriptures are clear that God does not lie. God has revealed how life originated in the Genesis account. It is you who claim it not to be true, you are calling God a liar and claiming to have more knowledge concerning the life on this earth.


What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? 2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. 3 For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? 4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written:

“That You may be justified in Your words,
And may overcome when You are judged.”


5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) 6 Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world?


7 For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? 8 And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just. Romans 4;1-8

God lying is not the problem. It is people lying for him
and about him. (keeping in mind that to an atheist,
"god" is just a character in a book)

 

[ecco]

How is it that there are real, educated scientists, who understand the evidence, who have been immersed in the secular evolutionary mindset, but who seeing inconsistencies and inaccuracies have changed their minds and have accepted the Genesis account revealed by God?

First question: Who is this?

 

[ecco]

This, though, is how it is really done:

Dr K Wise, PhD in paleontology:

I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.

No one can hold two diametrically opposed concepts to be true.
People believe in science up to the point that it conflicts with their religious views.
Our fellow Creationists on these boards are examples of that. Childhood indoctrination is a hard thing to overcome. It's like trying to talk without your ingrained Southern accent. For some it is impossible.



At least Dr. Wise is being honest (with the exception of "I would be the first to admit it,").

 

[Subduction Zone]

First question: Who is this?

Rick Oliver, supposed a PhD, but I have yet to find anything. I don't think he is Richard Peter Oliver since that man is a professor at an Australian college and his accent is pure American Midwest Standard.

 

[Audie]

No one can hold two diametrically opposed concepts to be true.
People believe in science up to the point that it conflicts with their religious views.
Our fellow Creationists on these boards are examples of that. Childhood indoctrination is a hard thing to overcome. It's like trying to talk without your ingrained Southern accent. For some it is impossible.



At least Dr. Wise is being honest (with the exception of "I would be the first to admit it,").

Honest in the sense of someone admitting to
being dishonest.5u

 

[Audie]

Rick Oliver, supposed a PhD, but I have yet to find anything. I don't think he is Richard Peter Oliver since that man is a professor at an Australian college and his accent is pure American Midwest Standard.

I probably will not watch it. Why dont you
do so, see if he makes sense. I dont care who
he is if he makes sense.

 

[Astrophile]

First question: Who is this?

It's a person named Rick Oliver. He says that he became a Christian at the age of 40, and the Hartlandcamp website - Dr. Rick Oliver - Hartland Christian Camp - says that he became a Christian in 1987, so he is presumably about 70 years old. He seems to have covered his tracks fairly well; I haven't found anything about his career or his scientific publications before he became a creationist.

 

[ecco]

Honest in the sense of someone admitting to
being dishonest.5u

Honest in the sense of admitting he is a very conflicted person.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I probably will not watch it. Why dont you
do so, see if he makes sense. I dont care who
he is if he makes sense.

I watched it long enough to get his name and heard him claim to be a school teacher, not a professor at a college or university and a few minutes more waiting for him to get into the science. He did not do so. So I skipped ahead, and skipped ahead, and skipped ahead ....

If there was any science presented at all it was buried in a long sermon. There is nothing to see there.