Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Today at 09:45 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #1
lucaspa:
"Second, the fact is there is no way for a 6 day creationist to have a valid position. "
[color=red]
FOC:
And there it is in a nutshell.
And this is why it is sometimes difficult to have respect for creationists. This is a classic out-of-context quote. The entire paragraph read:
"Second, the fact is there is no way for a 6 day creationist to have a valid position. The data in God's Creation is overwhelming that God simply didn't create that way. This was seen by Christian scientists (most of whom were ministers) by 1820. By then, virtually no Christian thought that creation had taken 6 days or that the earth was young. "
Notice that I am not ruling out YEC by "default", but because the data says it can't be true.
FOC, if the data had been different, we would have had no trouble accepting YEC. Examples of data that would have falsified an old earth and supported YEC:
1. No stars visible beyond 6,000 light years and new visible stars recorded thru history as their light first reached earth.
2. No fossils
3. All bones of all animals mixed together in the sediments, since they were all contemporaries.
4. Very little sedimentary rock since erosion would not have had time to make any.
5. No metamorphic rock because there is no time to have made it.
6. Short half-life isotopes in the earth's crust.
FOC, if all this had been found, then YEC would be the accepted theory today. BUT, the data instead is exactly opposite of what we would find if YEC were true. Since true statements can't have false consequences, YEC is false. Being false, it simply can't be a valid position to take.
Although I disagree with Lucaspa's Judeo/Christian Deistism, he certainly uses his brain when evauting and interpreting the Bible and applying that theology to what he observers in the real world.
And unlike 90% of the Christian posters on this board, his knowledge and understanding of the Bible is way above those who just spew out the unthoughtful rheotric they hear from their ministers and biased web sites.
I honestly enjoy debating with him and enjoy his posts more then many of the atheists who post here.
__________________ "The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion."
- Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
The Age of Reason
Although I disagree with Lucaspa's Judeo/Christian Deistism, he certainly uses his brain when evauting and interpreting the Bible and applying that theology to what he observers in the real world.
And unlike 90% of the Christian posters on this board, his knowledge and understanding of the Bible is way above those who just spew out the unthoughtful rheotric they hear from their ministers and biased web sites.
I honestly enjoy debating with him and enjoy his posts more then many of the atheists who post here.
Why, thank you, sir!
There is no compulsion to agree with Judeo/Christianity. That a deity exists or not is independent of any arguments of the matter.
One thing, Melchior, don't mistake discussion of specific claims as indicative of a belief. If you look carefully, you will see that I am almost always (can't think of an exception right now, but there may be one) discussing a specific claim about the Bible or Judeo/Christianity. IOW, is this interpretation the only interpretation? Is this argument for the non-existence of deity valid? Does a particular verse say what you say it does?
That is not the same as saying: "deity exists" "deity doesn't exist" "Judeo/Christianity is the truth".
Yesterday at 04:39 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #8
Today at 11:31 AM wblastyn said this in Post I]#7 [/i]
When did the Creationist movement start again, and by who? I found some information that it may have been started by a 7th day adevntist?
My understanding is that it was revived in the '60's by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb after they published The Genesis Flood .
You might want to find a copy of Ronald Numbers The Creationists which covers the history of creationism in detail. It has excellent reviews from mainstream science sources as well as creationist sources.
Morris and Whitcomb were heavily influenced by a prior YEC/Flood "geologist" by the name of George McCready Price. Price is almost certainly the 7th Day Adventist that wblastyn is thinking of. Price was influenced the doctrines of the prophetess who founded that particular sect, Ellen White. A good number of pre-Genesis Flood creation "scientists" were influenced by White.
It should also point out that while YECism did die out for educated mainstream clergy, scientists, etc. there has always been YECs around.
Linear Mode
