The first Creationst Club essay is in!

[Dannager]

Donkeytron's response to your post was to put you in your place.

"Still at it eh shernren, and still peddling the usual nonsense. Panspermia, LOL!" sure sounds like mockery to me. If that's what you're here for, I'm sure you can find a more suitable place to indulge yourself at. We appreciate constructive content here.

 

[Crusadar]

Donkeytron's response to your post was to put you in your place.

Ah, the bit about panspermia, now is that what this is all about? Now it is becoming clear!

But just our of curiosity what place would that be that you would like to put me? Not in the dark I hope!

 

[shernren]

And no I am not mocking anyone (never have) only the wishful thinking in that of sacred cow of evolution - now is that what your concern is?

Let's do a word study. All definitions taken from Google's define: command.

mock: treat with contempt;
contempt: lack of respect accompanied by a feeling of intense dislike.
respect: the objective, unbiased consideration and regard for the rights, values, beliefs and property of all people.

I believe that as a poster here on ChristianForums I have the right to have my ideas engaged and evaluated rationally. Many people here have helped me to exercise that right here, creationist and evolutionist alike. I have been proven right at times, which is obviously gratifying, and I have also been proven wrong on numerous occasions, which although humiliating to some degree is also invaluable as a source of correction and intellectual edification. I have also similarly helped many others exercise such rights, you included.

To call what I say nonsense without proving it so is therefore in violation of my rights to have my ideas engaged and evaluated rationally. And to do so without any valid or even logical extenuating reason (other than "a feeling of intense dislike", which is explicit in the definition of contempt and therefore implicit in the definition of mockery) is disrespect. Therefore by any reasonable definition you have indeed mocked me by refusing to engage my ideas without any reasonable reason. If you had nothing better to contribute than an unjustified insult then you might as well have not posted at all, an option which was clearly open to you, respectful to me, and would have avoided unnecessary wastage of keyboard taps, mouse clicks, network bandwidth and screen time.

But that will not justify my doing so to you, which is why I have held forth on how you have mocked me and will hold forth on anything else you have to say logically and rationally providing you permit my humble assistance in exercising your rights. I do not wish to return evil for evil.

So then. Are you mocking me? Or are you going to show just why what I have posted is nonsense, if it is within your capability? Do you even understand what I have posted? I believe it is the first time I have mentioned panspermia here at ChristianForums and therefore does not qualify as the "usual" nonsense.

My point was not to promote panspermia. I said explicitly (though perhaps not clearly, hence your misunderstanding) that I honestly do not know whether God created the first life-forms through naturally explicable processes, or through His own supernatural ways which are inaccessible to scientific study i.e. special creation. I personally lean more towards the latter but would not be shaken much if it proved to be the former. However, the atheistic evolutionist still has recourse to alternative theories that provide the necessary basic material upon which evolution can operate, one of which is panspermia. That is the context within which I mentioned panspermia and I do not support it in any sense other than that organic compounds (though perhaps not living organisms) may have first arrived on Earth through meteor bombardment, a fact which is easily demonstrable given our knowledge of cometary constituents and which implies far too little to merit the loaded name of "panspermia".

Refute or desist.

 

[Crusadar]

Whoaa brother, back up the truck! If it seems I have mocked you personally then I would be the first one to apologize - but I have not therfore no apology is required. On second thought maybe I should have been more specific in my response - now what was it that you were after in your nonsense post about the barely thriving theory of panspermia promoted heavily by Hoyle?

 

[shernren]

But I have never seen your very first post to be "gee, what nonsense!" without even the decency to say why. I might not have been surprised by this from others, but I was on seeing it coming from you. Anyway. Not nonsense until proven nonsense. I was taking issue, as were the others, with this particular idea in Pats' essay on creationism found here: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=22233928&postcount=3

Using this same scale, what value would we assign an evolutionist theory such as spontaneous generation. In the evolutionist view that all life on earth originated from a single cell organism, spontaneous generation must have taken place. Life came from the inanimate. However, what scientific value does the theory of spontaneous generation hold? How many times has that theory been proven? The only value to assign to the theory of spontaneous generation is zero.

There is a serious confuzzling (my invention ) between abiogenesis, atheistic evolutionism, and biological evolution in this essay, which contains no other indictments of evolution besides this and a half-hearted hominid miscategorization which others have dealt with. This part of the essay seems to be saying that:

since (atheistic) evolutionism requires abiogenesis,
and abiogenesis is not proven,
therefore (biological) evolution is not proven.

Of which only the middle link is accurate to any degree. I had intended to point out that biological evolution does not require abiogenesis but I seem to have come up with an example too strong for the issue at hand and realized that not even atheistic evolutionism requires abiogenesis. The reason I raised panspermia was not because I believe in it personally, but I do feel that it might possibly be a viable theory - as far as I know there is no violation of physical laws involved in the LUCA having landed on Earth from a meteor, in which case we could have biological evolution, and even atheistic evolutionism, without terrestrial abiogenesis as desired.

There are of course details in the argument which I am not bothering to fill in right now, such as how I arrived at the bracketed words in my summary of the quote's argument, and my care in using the qualifier "terrestrial" before abiogenesis. But I have a gut feeling that these details would do nothing to soothe your derision, and that anything I say is instantly labeled as "nonsense" simply because it's coming from a dirty evolutionist mouth, unless it's a statement of recapitulation and renunciation of conventional science.

 

[mark kennedy]

Play nice guys, I like the fact that I get very few reports here, I would like to keep it that way. Now, back to the regularly scheduled discussion.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Pats]

Hi

Thanks for the feedback. At this time, I'm in more of a studying mode of creationism and evolution than a debate mode, so I'm not really going to try to argue your points at this time.

However, I might have some questions meant more in a fellowship sort of spirit.

When I search within myself for my basis for being a Biblical literalist and creationist, one verse that always comes to mind is where God tells us not lean on our own understanding, but acknowledge Him in all our ways and He will direct our paths. To me, this means that I can trust His word first, above and beyond the understanding of men.

Since we are all Christians in this forum, why do so many of you who have responded to this thread accept evolution, personally. I'm truly interested.

 

[Willtor]

Hi

Thanks for the feedback. At this time, I'm in more of a studying mode of creationism and evolution than a debate mode, so I'm not really going to try to argue your points at this time.

However, I might have some questions meant more in a fellowship sort of spirit.

When I search within myself for my basis for being a Biblical literalist and creationist, one verse that always comes to mind is where God tells us not lean on our own understanding, but acknowledge Him in all our ways and He will direct our paths. To me, this means that I can trust His word first, above and beyond the understanding of men.

Since we are all Christians in this forum, why do so many of you who have responded to this thread accept evolution, personally. I'm truly interested.

I think most of us TE's think that evolution is a solid interpretation of the evidence at hand. I, for one, have worked with a sort of engineering that has come about because of evolution.

As for God's word, the interpretations of Genesis that I have read, from people I respect, tend not to rely on it as a history in the 21st century sense. That doesn't mean it's not. But, it makes me rethink the 21st century lens I used to apply.

I think the first thing to realize is that no matter what I say about anything I read (Bible or otherwise), my interpretation is still my interpretation. I can only hope to make my interpretation correspond to what the author intended as closely as is possible in order to understand what is being said.

 

[Dannager]

Since we are all Christians in this forum, why do so many of you who have responded to this thread accept evolution, personally. I'm truly interested.

It's not often that a creationist asks this question honestly. That speaks a healthy measure for your moral character right there.

There are two primary reasons why I accept the theory of evolution. One is secular in nature, and is the same reason I accept that the earth orbits the sun, and one is faith-based. I accept evolution because, after the long years of looking into the theory I have done it appears to be pretty much impenetrable to criticism. It is one of the strongest scientific theories we know of, and it looks like we've got a very good idea of how evolution functions. In summary, I accept evolution because the evidence is there.

Evolution does not conflict with my faith because I accept the Genesis account as allegorical. I have long-known that in biblical times absolutely no one cared for the intracacies of physical history. Accuracy in the past held little meaning to men of old. They were concerned with two things when it comes to their accounts of the past: an understandable story and a message. If you haven't done so and ever have the opportunity, take a biblical history course taught at a secular university. It's really interesting to get an unbiased look at what biblical times were like and how people reacted to certain things.

If God inspired the Genesis account, he did so with the following purposes in mind: to show that God is the origin of all things, to show that temptation exists and is to be avoided, to show that punishment will be exacted if God's will is not followed, and to shoulder man with the responsibility of stewardship of the earth. I can see no reason why God would, from a moral standpoint, actually want to describe to the world the details of the creation process. I know it's not the most awe-inspiring of analogies, but when someone is selling you a car, you aren't given a run-down of how long it took them to construct the frame, or the number of gallons of paint they applied. You are told the features, the safety ratings, the mileage-per-gallon - things that you as a buyer care about. God wrote for his audience, and gave them an account that would move them and cause them to absorb the moral message.

In response to this reasoning, I have heard one or two creationists ask why Jesus died for us if the original sin Adam committed was not literal in nature. Jesus did not die for Adam. Jesus died for us. God's explanation of Adam's disobedience is designed to show that man has in his nature the capacity to be good and the capacity to do evil, and that temptation can bring out the latter. Jesus' death, while a literal event, was likely a symbolic sacrifice to demonstrate that through God salvation could be attained.

This is how I am able to accept evolutionary theory without damaging my faith. As I know the evidence to be correct, and I know the Bible to be a book of truth, I must strive to find a common ground between the two - and it follows that in that common ground will be the best understanding of the world I can attain.

 

[Pats]

I respect you both for your testimonies, thanks a lot.

Dannager, I am much more interested in learning and sharing my faith than I am in always being right.

Of course, I still have questions. But not meant to debate, just honest questions...

If the creation account in Genesis is wholy allegorical, what of the geneolagies? (sp... sorry) I don't see any reason for allegorical geneolagies?

How about the NT references to how one man brought sin into the world, and one man, Jesus, brought salvation?

 

[Dannager]

If the creation account in Genesis is wholy allegorical, what of the geneolagies? (sp... sorry) I don't see any reason for allegorical geneolagies?

Believability, perhaps? It is likely that these people existed to some degree or another and an Adam may have indeed been among the list of ancestors, but as the Bible is inspired by God it may be that Adam's line was chosen to represent the "original" biblical man. But think of how many stories you have read where seemingly tangential references are made for the sake of believability. Furthermore, it was important to follow the line of ancestry to Noah in order to continue the biblical account.

How about the NT references to how one man brought sin into the world, and one man, Jesus, brought salvation?

Again, the references to a single man bringing sin into the world are allegorical. In the time that the NT was written people followed the story of the Genesis account. Jesus' sacrifice was for a symbolic purpose.

 

[shernren]

Since we are all Christians in this forum, why do so many of you who have responded to this thread accept evolution, personally. I'm truly interested.

That's strange, I thought I answered this already, but then I came back online and found my answer missing. Ho-hum. Retype I shall, to satisfy your curiosity.

I came to accept evolution on these very forums about a year ago. At that time I had just discovered these forums and was a staunch creationist. So naturally the first place I went to was the Creation / Evolution boards on the Open forums. Soon enough I was getting clobbered by facts, especially after quoting that silly fallacious bombardier beetle example, which really got me thinking about just what I had got myself into believing.

So I got thinking, and I think I did pray about it (can't remember if I did just then, but I still do, and it doesn't seem like God is taking a big issue with my beliefs when there are other areas of my life far more in need of His dominion). What it looked like to me back then was that the YECs had pretty concrete theology, but they were losing in the science department to the TEs. This was of concern to me because I am scientifically inclined (a God-given inclination, I believe) and because I am actually studying to be a scientist. I knew that I had to get this "fixed" soon.

So I asked the YECs one set of questions, scientific, and the TEs another set of questions, theological. My reasoning was to ask them about their "weaknesses", and ask both at once to be fair. And guess what? I don't recall a single set of coherent answers from the YECs about science, but I did learn a lot of theology from the TEs, whom I'm still learning a lot from even up till now (not to say I don't learn from YECs). Those really got me thinking and I deepened my faith, in particular learning how science and God are to co-exist in a worldview (my favourite topic, which is why "God-of-the-gaps" arguments - "gee, evolution explains this, it must be man trying to push God out of the picture!" really irritate me!)

The really important point that convinced me about evolution is that ... ironically, that I wasn't much different. Sure I had one more secret to hide from my churchmates but that was about it. I was still singing the same songs (even "Ah Lord God / Thou hast made the heavens and the earth / By Thy great power" ), tithing, playing bass for church, going to college, praying, etc. And since TEism didn't seem to produce any "bad fruit", that was what really convinced me that it wasn't "bad seed".

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Hi

Thanks for the feedback. At this time, I'm in more of a studying mode of creationism and evolution than a debate mode, so I'm not really going to try to argue your points at this time.

However, I might have some questions meant more in a fellowship sort of spirit.

When I search within myself for my basis for being a Biblical literalist and creationist, one verse that always comes to mind is where God tells us not lean on our own understanding, but acknowledge Him in all our ways and He will direct our paths. To me, this means that I can trust His word first, above and beyond the understanding of men.

Since we are all Christians in this forum, why do so many of you who have responded to this thread accept evolution, personally. I'm truly interested.

i think that the best book to answer your question is:
Evolution from Creation to New Creation: Conflict, Conversation, and Convergence
by Ted Peters, Martinez Hewlett
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/06...2438-2478522?_encoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155