Which came first: the young earth, or the inerrant scripture?

You on drugs?

answers to you off topic post here (new coffeehouse topic)This is off-topic for this thread, which has to do with conversion from secular to faith and what steps that takes. If you are not a person who has "converted" you comments are innapropriate here.I would be happy to continue this conversation in the coffeehouse.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Also off topic. To say nothing of logical fallacies.see here for response

Heretical OEC nonsense.
God created the Earth 15 seconds ago. Everyone who truely knows Him knows that. You have been deceeeeeeived by Satan!

Has anyone had a sensible conversation at all with Tal, if so, I'd like to see it! Tal is as ignorant of science as he is of every other subject he attempts to 'discuss', I say 'discuss' with a very loose meaning as he invariably ignores any post that proves he is wrong about something.The guy is a troll, we should stop feeding it.Brian.

I was a firm believer in YEC up to the time I was an undergraduate sophomore. On a seventh grade history quiz I prefaced every sentence answering questions about prehistoric man with "According to my history book...". I argued with my high school biology teacher for the biblical creation account and against evolution. As a college freshman I wrote a paragraph in a psychology paper trying to convince my professor that he should believe in God (he was an agnostic). I got annoyed with an upperclassman who pointed out to me all of the practical problems associated with the biblical flood. It was my understanding of the ToE and the evidence for an OE as an adult that changed my mind. I hung on to the creation and flood story (brief flirtation with OE creationism and "kinds" hyperevolution after the flood) a little longer but finally I let that go also.Paul in I Corinthians 13 Verse 11 writes:
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

My offer for a 1 on 1 debate with Tal has been up for the last week or so. Considering the subject I am fluent in, which isn't even biology, it should be easy for him to kill me in such a debate, that is if he really wants to follow through with supporting his "evo has 0 evidence..." statement, which he has repeated throughout the faith based forums.Is he even a soldier or is he just some angry teen like Chris? His behavior of state an assertion --> declare victory --> ignore all responses seems to be that of a rebellious angry teenager, not someone that is a soldier and is married.

GAW, I am not a moderator but I think you should retract this. It is an "ad hominum" attack and doesn't advance the debate imo. We have no way of knowing if people are who they claim to be and until they violate the rules we should assume good faith. When that happens the moderators can deal with it. Tal is not obliged to debate you 1 on 1 and it is wrong to needle him about it.

1) Evolution is not about the age of the earth - one detractor.
I thought that this was to be an intelligent, scientific discussion.
Why these wild fictitious statements?
A) Had Helmhotz - 18 million years.
B) Charles Lyell - hundreds of millions of years.
C) Isaac Asimov - 4.7 billion years; pp. 106 & 109; The Universe, by Asimov.2) The Bible is false - another detractor.
No examples. Come on fellows, let's talk sense.3) The planet started out as a molten mass - another detractor.
What happened to the Big Bang Theory?
Did you grow tired of it?Please, fellows: Do a little research.
Let us present studies, and facts (whether true or allusional).4) One man denied that the "3 Rs" are science.
The university professors would not like people talking about their fields of experise in such a disrespectful manner.
This same fellow argued that Evolution is science while Mathematics is not.
Without the science of mathematics we would have no computers or Internet.5) Sciences are defined to be:
A) Observation Science.
B) Testing Sciences.
C) Logical Conclusions are a science.
But theories are only theories, and not fact.
The Bible must be read with these sciences in mind, plus --
the Holy Spirit.
"But the natural man [unsaved] does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know, because they are spiritually discerned" - 1Cor 2.14.hoaryhead

I'm not going to retract what I said.(1) It was not an assertion that I made. It was a question.
(2) No, he is not obliged to go 1 on 1 with me, but he is obliged, by the forum rules, to support his bare assertions. Many others and myself have asked him many times to support his assertions. So far, he hasn't replied to a single one of us with a coherent and evidence based answer supportive of his assertions. What he always does, however, is just ignore virtually all posts replied to him. After a while when people realize that he's not going to respond, they just forget and forgive.
(3) He's been acting that way for as long as he's been here. Isn't it time someone call his bluff?Why don't you try to have a coherent conversation with him? He is a troll at best.

Just a question for you. Do you really think that acting like you know something about science would actually work in a place like this?

Is this Isaac Asimov the science fiction writer?Brian.

I dont even know where to begin. Your post shows an utter lack of comprehension of the issue. I guess I wont repond till I hear your answere for my question on the other thread. The one about how the bible made predictions.Just one point before I blow up.
His name is Hermann Von Helmholtz. I can only assume you or someone elsa has been passing info around and someone cut and pasted an article that had the word had in front of Helmholtz.
He came up with 100 million years. He lived from 1821-1894
Charles Lyell lived from 1797-1875 from what I understand he never stated an age of earth, but he did date the Ordovician period at 240,000,000 years ago.
Isaac Aimov - 1920-1992YOu dont even understand science. Science changes, becausethere is new evidence. To say something is false because 160 years ago people thought something different is ludicrous. In your reasoning germs dont exist. Germs, bacteria and virii can't exist because in 1830 people didnt believe in them. You dont believe there is no new evidence. Therefore, I must assume you live in a cave nd heat with wood on an open flame and use animals to do all of you heavy labour.

I am not disputing that Tal is difficult to have a conversation with but that we should let the moderators deal with it. If it seems that they are not then go to the suggestions thread and make a complaint. I have resolved my issue with Tal's offensive signature line by just not responding to any posts where he uses the line. An administrator is working on it and I am sure he will be banned eventually if he continues to use it. It really doesn't help to respond to uncivility with uncivility.edited out extraneous word.This message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-26-2005 12:23 PM

---

"I cannot control what you choose to say or do to me, but I can control how I respond."

He has written sci-fi, yes. Dr. Michael Crichton has also written sci-fi. He's still a doctor.