Evolution vs Creation

[Gwenyfur]

You're not taking God's word as truth, though. You're taking a literal interpretation of God's word, that happens to be glaringly incorrect, as truth.

Oh, and Mr. Hovind is a crock. Don't listen to him. He is a liar, a cheat, and a criminal.

ohhhh the old Hovind bashing is up and at 'em again

 

[artybloke]

By their fruits ye shall know them dear.

 

[Dannager]

ohhhh the old Hovind bashing is up and at 'em again

Hovind makes it easier than just about any dirty public figure I'm aware of.

 

[Gwenyfur]

allbeit, he should have been paying his taxes....but geeze...he's not the first to be a "tax protestor" not to mention....the "Income Tax" as we have it today, is not in the constitution of the United States....
Yup...it's *completely* unconstitutional...and yet it's the "law"

btw...I do pay my taxes like a good little slave...heh go figure

 

[chaoschristian]

President Abraham Lincoln instituted the first income tax as a means of funding the Federal government efforts to bring the rebellious forces of the illegimate 'Confederate' states back into the Union and thereby preserve the Constitution of which you speak.

And regardless, such an argument is a red herring. The income tax has been upheld through judicial review and the point is moot.

Hovind is responsible for breaking the law IN THE NAME OF CHRIST and additionally and most despicably didn't want to face the consequences of his actions.

Unlike the civil rights leaders of the 50's and 60's who new they would go to jail for breaking laws through civil disobediance and willingly accepted their punishment, Hovind cowardly tried to cloak himself in self-righteousness and walk away untouched.

Hovind, while certainly deserving our compassion and forgiveness to the extend that any one of us can offer it, is no hero.

allbeit, he should have been paying his taxes....but geeze...he's not the first to be a "tax protestor" not to mention....the "Income Tax" as we have it today, is not in the constitution of the United States....
Yup...it's *completely* unconstitutional...and yet it's the "law"

btw...I do pay my taxes like a good little slave...heh go figure

 

[Servant222]

I am saddened that the debate here has become so acriomonius and somewhat frivolous. As a newcomer to CF, I was expecting to see honest, but more polite debate. Shouldn't Christians always take the moral high road and leave personal attacks, etc. out of the equation?

Can I try and focus the debate once more on the topic originally proposed? Some claim that God made all life in an instant of creation, taking the description in Genesis as the literal truth. Others say that evolution- and specifically macro evolution- is very well proven science and that any apparent conflicts between what evolutionary biologists tell us, and what the Bible apparently says, is due to our interpretation of the Genesis account. Since we are all Christians on this forum, there is no questioning the role of God as being the ultimate Creator of life.

I am very interested in hearing about some of the evidence that supports either viewpoint, but specifically, evidence or arguments that use scientific principles- I don't think we ever have to assume that God isn't "scientific", and that religion and science are incompatible.

Part of my inquiry included the question of how theistic evolutionists reconcile their scientific knowledge with their beliefs- assuming such reconciliation is necessary. I personally have great problems with the concept of a young (<6000 year old) earth- it is inconsistent with a lot of the science of which I have knowledge of. In no way does this apparent conflict affect my Christian beliefs- I believe the differences are in fact due to interpretation, and do not affect my faith, or the relationship that I have with God. Specifically, this kind of question does not affect the most fundamental part of my faith- the acknowledgement that I am, and always will be, a sinner, and that only by believing in and accepting the sacrifice that Jesus made for me on the Cross, can I possibly hope to be with God, in his Kingdom, after I die.

 

[Deamiter]

Can I try and focus the debate once more on the topic originally proposed? Some claim that God made all life in an instant of creation, taking the description in Genesis as the literal truth. Others say that evolution- and specifically macro evolution- is very well proven science and that any apparent conflicts between what evolutionary biologists tell us, and what the Bible apparently says, is due to our interpretation of the Genesis account. Since we are all Christians on this forum, there is no questioning the role of God as being the ultimate Creator of life.

I am very interested in hearing about some of the evidence that supports either viewpoint, but specifically, evidence or arguments that use scientific principles- I don't think we ever have to assume that God isn't "scientific", and that religion and science are incompatible.

Part of my inquiry included the question of how theistic evolutionists reconcile their scientific knowledge with their beliefs- assuming such reconciliation is necessary. I personally have great problems with the concept of a young (<6000 year old) earth- it is inconsistent with a lot of the science of which I have knowledge of. In no way does this apparent conflict affect my Christian beliefs- I believe the differences are in fact due to interpretation, and do not affect my faith, or the relationship that I have with God. Specifically, this kind of question does not affect the most fundamental part of my faith- the acknowledgement that I am, and always will be, a sinner, and that only by believing in and accepting the sacrifice that Jesus made for me on the Cross, can I possibly hope to be with God, in his Kingdom, after I die.

It's not true of all young earth creationists, but the majority I've interacted with simply do not accept that their understanding of Genesis is an interpretation. If you've grown up being taught YEC, or you've never been exposed to other interpretations (except perhaps through straw men or short argumentative exchanges) it WILL make a lot of sense. What bothers me as a guy who would have called himself a YEC for a good couple years, is that YECs do NOT have a consistant mode of interpretation. They look at a passage that talks about pillars holding up the heavens or of Jesus seeing the whole world from the top of a mountain, and it never occurs to them to interpret this "literally" like they claim Genesis must be.

If you've grown up (or just been taught for a long time) around people who "know" what's metaphor and what's literally accurate, it might not even occur to you that these interpretations are not consistant with each other.

As long as you're preaching to the choir -- talking to people whoh "know" (usually by example) what's literal and what's not everything makes perfect sense. But when you question HOW you make such a distinction -- why anything suggesting geocentrism (the sun being held still in the sky) or a flat earth (references to "corners" which our culture routinely uses as metaphor) is automatically metaphor while young earth is not... It becomes quite inconsistant.

It's easy to be YEC if you believe your interpretation is always right by default and that it's OBVIOUS which bits are historical and which bits are not. If you try to come up with a consistant set of rules that would identify the passages, however (like it's literal unless labeled otherwise) you quickly find that there is no set of rules that rules out geocentrism and a flat earth but verifies a young earth.

It's this inconsistancy that's truly difficult to see for somebody who's been taught that there's only one way to interpret the Bible and no point in trying to understand why others disagree. It's this inconsistancy that drives scientists away from YEC -- as they are generally TRAINED to question their assumptions and to find consistant sets in everything they do.

 

[Servant222]

All of the discussions on various threads regarding this topic can, and should be, made without resorting to personal attacks, put-downs- even subtle ones- or similar tactics. I think that is what turns both scientists and creationists off and stifles good discussion.

An Internet forum is a very impersonal venue- it is easy to hide behind anonymity and make inflammatory remarks. Before posting, imagine that the person you're addressing is a good friend, sitting right across from you, and then make your post accordingly.

Drivers face a similar problem with anonymity- which explains why road rage is a problem- we usually can't directly communicate and interact with the person hiding in the car beside us, which makes it easy to be unkind. Pedestrians are different- as we walk along a crowded street, we are face to face with other pedestrians and normally wouldn't think of swearing or otherwise being rude.

Maybe all drivers should have instant, short range radios so we can better communicate with each other.

But I digress......

 

[Gwenyfur]

President Abraham Lincoln instituted the first income tax as a means of funding the Federal government efforts to bring the rebellious forces of the illegimate 'Confederate' states back into the Union and thereby preserve the Constitution of which you speak.

And regardless, such an argument is a red herring. The income tax has been upheld through judicial review and the point is moot.

Hovind is responsible for breaking the law IN THE NAME OF CHRIST and additionally and most despicably didn't want to face the consequences of his actions.

Unlike the civil rights leaders of the 50's and 60's who new they would go to jail for breaking laws through civil disobediance and willingly accepted their punishment, Hovind cowardly tried to cloak himself in self-righteousness and walk away untouched.

Hovind, while certainly deserving our compassion and forgiveness to the extend that any one of us can offer it, is no hero.

Not Red Herring....Executive Order

And yes...those too are unconstitutional...go figure...

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

no. to be accurate you take your interpretation of what Scripture says to be authoritative and absolute Truth. unless you are God Himself, your interpretation is not the same thing as what the Scriptures say, but rather a human attempt to understand them, and therefore as frail and erring as all human thought is.

What are talking about rmwilliams?

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

You're not taking God's word as truth, though. You're taking a literal interpretation of God's word, that happens to be glaringly incorrect, as truth.

Oh, and Mr. Hovind is a crock. Don't listen to him. He is a liar, a cheat, and a criminal.

Sup, I haven't been on this forum for a few days. I have seen a lot of posts in here too.

Now Dannager, I have this question. When people say that Dr. Hovind is a liar, they don't say why he is a liar. They usually don't bring up why they think that. Why is that?

 

[artybloke]

http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/index.html

There's about 300 of them listed here.

 

[vossler]

http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/index.html

There's about 300 of them listed here.

So your answer is to provide a link that itself is full of lies.

Here's one of the 'supposed' lies Hovind pushes:

"People always ask, Where did Cain get his wife? He married his sister. Calm down! In the first place, there was no other choice."
There are countless others of similar magnitude.

 

[Mallon]

Here's one of the 'supposed' lies Hovind pushes:

"People always ask, Where did Cain get his wife? He married his sister. Calm down! In the first place, there was no other choice."
There are countless others of similar magnitude.

Are you saying Hovind didn't say that? I've certainly heard him say similar things in his videos.

Hovind's a liar simply because he continues to cling to fallacious arguments despite continuous correction. Even AiG -- err, CMI -- will tell you that.

 

[vossler]

Are you saying Hovind didn't say that? I've certainly heard him say similar things in his videos.

No, he did say that. The point was there's no way you or anyone else can prove that to be a lie, as a matter of fact it's most likely true.

Hovind's a liar simply because he continues to cling to fallacious arguments despite continuous correction. Even AiG -- err, CMI -- will tell you that.

This may or may not be true, my point was solely that if you're going to provide 'evidence' that he's a liar and that 'evidence' isn't true then you don't have a very compelling case.

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

I agree.

 

[Servant222]

Whether the issue is right or wrong, I don't think it is ever necessary to refer to a Christian brother using some of the strong words that were used.

If you agree, then I would gently suggest using the Edit button to make some adjustments.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Whether the issue is right or wrong, I don't think it is ever necessary to refer to a Christian brother using some of the strong words that were used.

If you agree, then I would gently suggest using the Edit button to make some adjustments.

an interesting question.
should i treat Hovind as a Christian?
he is a liar and a theft, unrepentant and almost proud of his stand. that seems to put him in the category of those whom his church ought to discipline and excomunicate. at which point he is not to be considered a brother in any way.

 

[Servant222]

We have all been liars, thieves and even worse. As Christians, we all seek to repetent- and then we sin again. How many times did Jesus say that we should forgive a sinner? If there is one thing that most humbles me, it is God's continuous patience with me, a sinner- where would I be without His grace?

But that is not really my point- I just think that it is more uplifting if comments are made without using some of the personal references or language that is occasionally used; it isn't needed to further the discussion, so why include it?

 

[Gwenyfur]

well about 1/2 - 2/3 of the NT was written by a murderer....if ya think about it