Pat Robertson Calls creationist "Ignorant!"

[quantumfaith]

It doesn't matter, I was referencing this post:




Complete stupidity

I understand Rev, I wasn't trying to be "difficult". I hoped to demonstrate that "I" do understand the tenets of YEC.

 

[Revmitchell]

I understand Rev, I wasn't trying to be "difficult". I hoped to demonstrate that "I" do understand the tenets of YEC.

I know what I was saying is that the other poster made a strawman argument with regard to the literal interpretation of scripture.

 

[Yeshua1]

I understand Rev, I wasn't trying to be "difficult". I hoped to demonstrate that "I" do understand the tenets of YEC.

Just curious, do you think the bible teaches and supports Young earth creationism, yet refuse that based upon "scientific facts", or do you hold the bible supports theistic evolution itself?

And I do think you, among all those holding to that view, seem most gracioustowards those of us who don't here!

 

[quantumfaith]

Just curious, do you think the bible teaches and supports Young earth creationism, yet refuse that based upon "scientific facts", or do you hold the bible supports theistic evolution itself?

And I do think you, among all those holding to that view, seem most gracioustowards those of us who don't here!

I think scripture teaches and emphasizes the YHWH created. The cosmos and us are the result of HIS creative work. I do not hold to a "literal" 6 24 hour creation event.

 

[annsni]

I think scripture teaches and emphasizes the YHWH created. The cosmos and us are the result of HIS creative work. I do not hold to a "literal" 6 24 hour creation event.

Even though the Scriptures say that is how it happened?

 

[webdog]

Rev, where is any misunderstanding of the YEC position

1. God created the heavens and the earth (ex nihlio)
2. He created the earth and all life on it in 6 literal 24 hour days
3. He created man on the sixth day, forming him from the dust of the earth
4. He created woman out of man

Corollaries:

1. YEC sees no need and indeed rejects the idea of the universe being 13.7 billion years, earth being 4.5 billion years
2. YEC rejects any notion of the "big bang"
3. YEC rejects any notion of evolution being or having any part in the creation of humanity
4. YEC believes that their position rests squarely and accurately on the "literal" interpretation of scripture, while any other position that deviates involves some other authority and by default rejects the authority of scripture.


I am sure that I am missing some, does this correctly "sum it up"?

I can answer from my vantage point...
1. Any dating methods are expected to be errant. While recorded genealogies leave room for date variances, I believe this to be a better indication of the creation model. While I won't say 6000 years is the correct age, I am fairly certain anything with "billion" is also off.
2. I reject Big Bang only as defined by darwinists, that nothing created it and everything was formed from it. Due to the proof the universe is still expanding, it is obvious everything started at a single origin, that being God. While things adapt according to their kind, humanity is distinct from the rest of creation as we are made in the image of God, spiritually, physically, emotionally, etc. God does not evolve and neither do we. If we evolved from something lesser, it would logically include us still evolving into something greater. This would be equally true of God if we are truly made in His image.
3. I reject humans coming from anything but what Scripture mentions, man being formed from the dust of the earth and having the breath of life breathed into him, and woman coming from him. No room in the creation account from man coming from a primate ancestor.
4. I believe we need to factor in more than just a literal reading of a passage or scientific "proof" that also falls under the curse. Measurements, time, age...everything was affected by the fall. When compared to language used elsewhere in the OT and NT, I believe one week was meant to be interpreted as we (and the ancient readers) would understand a week.

Just my take on it

 

[quantumfaith]

Even though the Scriptures say that is how it happened?

Well, can you point me to where the scriptures address quantum mechanics, and physics? And a whole host of other properties of creation are not addressed by scripture. Scripture (IMHO) is not meant or designed to be a scientific explanation. Thankfully God left that to our inquisitive nature, perhaps to stretch us intellectually.

 

[quantumfaith]

I can answer from my vantage point...
1. Any dating methods are expected to be errant. While recorded genealogies leave room for date variances, I believe this to be a better indication of the creation model. While I won't say 6000 years is the correct age, I am fairly certain anything with "billion" is also off.
2. I reject Big Bang only as defined by darwinists, that nothing created it and everything was formed from it. Due to the proof the universe is still expanding, it is obvious everything started at a single origin, that being God. While things adapt according to their kind, humanity is distinct from the rest of creation as we are made in the image of God, spiritually, physically, emotionally, etc. God does not evolve and neither do we. If we evolved from something lesser, it would logically include us still evolving into something greater. This would be equally true of God if we are truly made in His image.
3. I reject humans coming from anything but what Scripture mentions, man being formed from the dust of the earth and having the breath of life breathed into him, and woman coming from him. No room in the creation account from man coming from a primate ancestor.
4. I believe we need to factor in more than just a literal reading of a passage or scientific "proof" that also falls under the curse. Measurements, time, age...everything was affected by the fall. When compared to language used elsewhere in the OT and NT, I believe one week was meant to be interpreted as we (and the ancient readers) would understand a week.

Just my take on it

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
And I appreciate you and your contributions.

 

[Zaac]

Well, can you point me to where the scriptures address quantum mechanics, and physics? And a whole host of other properties of creation are not addressed by scripture. Scripture (IMHO) is not meant or designed to be a scientific explanation. Thankfully God left that to our inquisitive nature, perhaps to stretch us intellectually.

Why would Scripture need to address quantum mechanics and physics? Science is an attempt to explain Scripture. Scripture as you said is not an attempt to explain science.

 

[OldRegular]

As he says that we deny the geological records of layering, aging, and we deny dinosaurs even existed!

he states that only biblcal position to hold is theistic, that Godcreated and use evolutionary process for life!

Well?

Old Pat is beyond his prime and that is a fact; but many of us are!

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, can you point me to where the scriptures address quantum mechanics, and physics? And a whole host of other properties of creation are not addressed by scripture. Scripture (IMHO) is not meant or designed to be a scientific explanation. Thankfully God left that to our inquisitive nature, perhaps to stretch us intellectually.

perhaps because the ord knows that NONE of us would be capable of fully understanding what he knows in those areas?

Like having an aborigine try to understand how modern computers work?

Also, God created Universe from scratch, so just how would science handle a supernatural event?

And how can they handle atonement.rebirth/resurrection, as NONE of that has a "scientific basis?"

 

[just-want-peace]

Well, can you point me to where the scriptures address quantum mechanics, and physics? And a whole host of other properties of creation are not addressed by scripture. Scripture (IMHO) is not meant or designed to be a scientific explanation. Thankfully God left that to our inquisitive nature, perhaps to stretch us intellectually.

You just nailed it! This other is not (as far as I know??) addressed in scripture, ergo there is no conflict with E=MC2 etc., but the creation story IS addressed. Therefore if science says different, then one must choose whether to believe God or science; your choice.

 

[Yeshua1]

You just nailed it! This other is not (as far as I know??) addressed in scripture, ergo there is no conflict with E=MC2 etc., but the creation story IS addressed. Therefore if science says different, then one must choose whether to believe God or science; your choice.

Yes, for what must take the bible as the truth in regarding whatever it deals with, and wherescience conflicts with it, the scientist either misunderstood the facts, or have bogus science happening!

True science agrees with the bible...

 

[Zaac]

Yes, for what must take the bible as the truth in regarding whatever it deals with, and wherescience conflicts with it, the scientist either misunderstood the facts, or have bogus science happening!

True science agrees with the bible...

TRUTH agrees with the Bible. True science isn't necessarily the truth.

 

[annsni]

Well, can you point me to where the scriptures address quantum mechanics, and physics? And a whole host of other properties of creation are not addressed by scripture. Scripture (IMHO) is not meant or designed to be a scientific explanation. Thankfully God left that to our inquisitive nature, perhaps to stretch us intellectually.

What does this have to do with the fact that God said that He created the world in 6 days? Or that Jesus confirmed this? That Adam was the first man, created from the dust of the earth - not from the genes of an ape?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Scripture (IMHO) is not meant or designed to be a scientific explanation.

While Jesus spoke the following words in response to Nicodemus' failure to understandinb being "born again," He could have just as easily said them following your comment.

John 3, NASB
1 "Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony.
12 "If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?"​

Who understand the language of quantum mechanics and physics well, other than someone schooled deeply in those fields? Yet we have texts that attempt to simplify some of those concepts to be understood by the layman. Did you want God to command Moses to get a Ph.D in quantum mechanics so he could understand God's words in describing a technically detailed manual laying out the creation? Or should we be glad and feel blessed that God chose not to go into great detail for the sake of 1) brevity, and 2) focus.

Hint: His focus wasn't to teach us quantum mechanics. It was to teach us about Him. Nonetheless, He had Moses choose very deliberately from the words he could write to describe the creation, to point us in the right direction. Scientists who reject the Genesis creation have chosen to look in the wrong direction.

 

[quantumfaith]

perhaps because the ord knows that NONE of us would be capable of fully understanding what he knows in those areas?

Like having an aborigine try to understand how modern computers work?

Also, God created Universe from scratch, so just how would science handle a supernatural event?

And how can they handle atonement.rebirth/resurrection, as NONE of that has a "scientific basis?"

1. Yes I agree, we will ALWAYS be lacking in knowledge
2. Yes I agree, God created the universe ex nihlio
3. Personally, not being a naturalist, I easily accept the reality of miracles. So the resurrection etc. are not problematic for me.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Yesh

perhaps because the ord knows that NONE of us would be capable of fully understanding what he knows in those areas?

Like having an aborigine try to understand how modern computers work?

But you think the Lord should have used the Genesis account to explain 13.7 billion years of Cosmic expansion and such to a late stone age, early bronze age person?

Do you understand you are contradicting yourself? Or will you just ignore this as you ignore everything else you cannot understand or fear to consider?

 

[quantumfaith]

You just nailed it! This other is not (as far as I know??) addressed in scripture, ergo there is no conflict with E=MC2 etc., but the creation story IS addressed. Therefore if science says different, then one must choose whether to believe God or science; your choice.

Thanks so much just want peace. Nice to have a little validation every once and a while. Appreciate the endorsement.

 

[webdog]

But you think the Lord should have used the Genesis account to explain 13.7 billion years of Cosmic expansion and such to a late stone age, early bronze age person?

Do you understand you are contradicting yourself? Or will you just ignore this as you ignore everything else you cannot understand or fear to consider?

Question begging fallacy.