Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Karl, while you will NOT get a serious adult debate, remember the damage Dutchunter does to the cause of YEC'ism with each post. That alone is worth it. Think of all the lurkers who come in here (usually outnumbering the members), reading through these threads. They see the arguments made by the YEC's like this one, both in tone and substance, compared to the tone and substance of the non-YEC presentations and there are only a couple of possibilities:
1. If they are not yet sure of which view of origins is correct, they will be quickly steered away from YEC'ism.
2. If they are already YEC's, they will be mightily embarassed by their representative and may even doubt they are on the right side.
Hey Vance,
Any jackass can take pride in souring, or destroying someone's faith. It takes a man of honor and commitment to Christ to build that faith. Where the heck do you fit into this picture? You're the one who should be embarrased, and you will be, sooner or later (preferably sooner).
Either you are for Christ, or you are against Him. There is no middle-ground. There will be a separation of the sheep and the goats on the last day, and while we agree that evolution (or not) is not directly a salvation issue, faith is a salvation issue (Heb 11:6), and while you, Karl, and the arrogant astrophysicist Chi, (who likes to drivel on about the Bible being a guidebook for fools <see verses below>), carry-on about the evils of "YEC", I would say from no uncertain observation that you are all on dangerous ground, not for evolution per se, but for this:
REJECTING THE WORD OF GOD.
I cannot fathom how so many of you seemingly educated men take such pride in your collective, associative assault on what you define as: "YEC". Please allow me to translate YEC for the newbies:
YEC: (n) Bible-believer.
On my search for reason in this supposed Christian forum, I find foreign stances held to by supposed christians on the grounds that "most christians believe this...". I find it curious that the Bible-believing Christians seem to be in the minority. What does that Bible say about that?
Careful Vance, here comes some more of that "dangerous fundamentalism" you keep warning everyone about:
(Mat 7:13) "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. (Mat 7:14) "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
(Mat 7:15) "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
(Mat 7:16) "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?
(Mat 7:17) "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
(Mat 7:18) "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
(Mat 7:19) "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
(Mat 7:20) "So then, you will know them by their fruits.
(Mat 7:21) "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
(Mat 7:22) "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
(Mat 7:23) "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'
(Mat 7:24) "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock.
(Mat 7:25) "And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock.
(Mat 7:26) "Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.
(Mat 7:27) "The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell--and great was its fall."
Now, please correct me if I am wrong, but are not these people Jesus is telling to depart from Him....CHRISTIAN? Look at them! They actually did many good works in His name and accomplished much more that I have in the name of Christ (I've never performed a miracle of any kind). Why then does He tell them to depart?
He never knew them. They produced bad fruit, they never "got it". They never acted according to the word of God, certainly never believed it, they were too busy seeking to justify themselves by other means.
Which is more dangerous to Christianity Vance:
1. The Bible
2. Telling other believers that the Bible is false
Evolution is a paper-thin concept that looks great on the outside, but is built upon notional presuppositions, and much false evidence...it is not worth risking your soul for, and certainly not worth risking the soul of others for.
God is correct. Man is wrong. Earth is fallen. Satan is running amok trying to wreck the faith of as many as he can get to.
The great question is:
What are you doing for God?
(I eagerly await the frenzied accusations and slander that I've come to expect here, I don't mind though, I find myself oddly relating with the architects of the Christian faith who endured similar slander for standing firm in the truth of God against an ungodly world...you see, this isn't about Buck72, it's about Christ.)
"I was honored today with having a few stones, dirt, rotten eggs, and pieces of dead cats thrown at me." - George Whitefield
Theories are either valid or invalid and they cannot be proven, only disproven.
Now we're to bear the burden of proof that something "didn't happen"? That is called: Reversal of Causality. It is a poor method to discriminate - no wonder so many fall for the evolution theory, "...it is obviously true because all of these scientists said it is true, now prove that it isn't."
As one who thinks of evolution as one of the great deceptions of this age, this shifting of the burden of proof strengthens my resolve to resist it even further!
So now, Bible-believers have to PROVE the Creation account as afforded by the inspired word of the Living God (that's not proof enough for unbelievers I realize, that whole 'faith' thing keeps getting in the way)...while evolution hides behind the cardboard bulwark of: "prove that it didn't happen".
I'm in great pain here trying to figure this one out....
I am new to CF and was excited to see this thread but was disappoint when I started reading some of these posts from people that call themselves Christians (I am not judging if one is a Christian or not but evaluating some of these responses that do not seem Christ like).I found a sense of relief when I came to your post(s) not just what you believed in but the way you presented it.
God Bless <><
Last edited by Katmando; 23rd November 2003 at 12:33 AM.
No Bushido, you have proven that there are only alternative perspectives based on choice of world view - THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL (that means total, absolute) PROOF THAT CREATION IS FALSE.
Two men look at the Grand Canyon and see two different possibilities. They are in complete disharmony of how the canyon got there, neither of them can PROVE how it got there because they were not there to witness the event, nor were they privvy to information about how it got there from a witness. The Creationists claims to hold the word of God that describes a worldwide flood about 4,400 or so years ago...that is a possibility that cannot be DISPROVEN, just argued against by an unbeliever that prefers to look at the event in an alternative fashion.
Gen 8:3 and the water receded steadily from the earth, and at the end of one hundred and fifty days the water decreased.
Could the canyon have been formed as a result of a major grologic catastrophe? Of course it could. Why then argue with virulent opposition that it was only the result of a slow, gradual process that requires billions of years (uniformitarianism)? The Colorado River did not erode that canyon unless it flowed up from Eastern Colorado across the Northern edge of Arizona thousands of feet against rising terrain and then back thousands of feet down again all the way to Yuma, AZ. That is not a scientifically feasable argument. I contest the canyon was formed as water ran off from the Flood...can I PROVE that? Well, we can build a model and demonstrate the theory with a greater probability of success than I would say the erosion theory since rivers flow according to gravity, not upwards against rising terrain.
Linear Mode
