Why the Gap theory makes sense

[theFijian]

What does God say about "age of the earth", "origin of species", "relative masses of the elements"?

He has already revealed this to us, whose fault is it that Creationists misinterpret this revelation.

 

[holdon]

He has already revealed this to us, whose fault is it that Creationists misinterpret this revelation.

Why do you think Creationists misinterpret this revelation?

 

[theFijian]

Why do you think Creationists misinterpret this revelation?

They haven't grasp Romans 1

 

[USincognito]

If you answer my questions.....

We should look at the Bible for the foundation of our beliefs. This does not exclude looking at answers that might help us to understand the universe around us. We should be well aware that whatever belief system we decide to adhere to, will influence our views and opinions. Even influence our observations to the extend that we may not be able to know what caused our observations to look as they do to us. In other words our subjective mindset will determine our scientific endeavors.

I continue to be shocked at how many Creationists advocate post-modernism.

 

[livingword26]

I continue to be shocked at how many Creationists advocate post-modernism.

Thats almost funny. Evolution, theistic or otherwise, is the root of post modernism, the beginning of the alteration of the truth of the bible.

 

[theFijian]

Thats almost funny. Evolution, theistic or otherwise, is the root of post modernism, the beginning of the alteration of the truth of the bible.

Umm, no. Do you actually know what post-modernism is? Or are you just using it as a catch-all phrase for whatever you see as being unbiblical?

 

[busterdog]

Thats almost funny. Evolution, theistic or otherwise, is the root of post modernism, the beginning of the alteration of the truth of the bible.

Think about it. If man could do such a great job at defining truth, why would you need a revealed Word of God? The only quibble with post=modernism as it is usually presented is that it presumes to put the creations of man on the same footing with the Word of God. Otherwise, the concept works quite well for those who advocate an inerrant word.

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

As for whether you know what post-modernism is, never mind the criticism. Lots of us have plenty of experience with that dismissive attitude.

 

[theFijian]

Otherwise, the concept works quite well for those who advocate an inerrant word.

So post-modernism and biblical innerancy work quite well together? Again, do you know what post-modernism actually is?

 

[busterdog]

So post-modernism and boblical innerancy work quite well together? Again, do you know what post-modernism actually is?

A lot better than you. In fact, I am much smarter and more educated than you.

Sorry for returning explicit insults for your implicit insults. At least I can demonstrate that neither type of insult advances the discusion. Since you weren't getting it otherwise, I wasn't sure what else to do but to continue with overtly gratuitous statements.

 

[holdon]

I continue to be shocked at how many Creationists advocate post-modernism.

I don't care what label you want to stick onto those who you don't agree with. You're absolutely right in your own eyes.

 

[USincognito]

I don't care what label you want to stick onto those who you don't agree with. You're absolutely right in your own eyes.

(bold mine)

My irony meter explodeth.

The Fijian gets it and my jaw drops at the lack of awareness some Creationists exhibit. On the one hand you claim to be the sole posessors of truth, and on the other you claim that one can "interpret" mountains to be 4,000 years old or 400,000,000 years old. Can none of you understand the incongruity between these assertions? How can the very interpretation of reality seen with one's own eyes being up to the individual be considerered anything other than post-modernism taken to the extreme?

I've seen a lot of cogantive dissonance from Creationists over the years but this one just leaves me shaking my head.

 

[USincognito]

A lot better than you. In fact, I am much smarter and more educated than you.

Sorry for returning explicit insults... {snip typical Creationist persecution MO}

How about instead of being so dramatic you just prove him wrong by demonstrating you know what post-modernism is and showing why my equating it with what holdon claimed is fallacious?

Please explain to me how avering that one can "interpret" mountains (aka reality itself) to be 4,000 or 400,000,000 years old is not the ultimate expression of post-modernism.

 

[shernren]

A lot better than you. In fact, I am much smarter and more educated than you.

Sorry for returning explicit insults for your implicit insults. At least I can demonstrate that neither type of insult advances the discusion. Since you weren't getting it otherwise, I wasn't sure what else to do but to continue with overtly gratuitous statements.

Wow.

Never let it be said that we evolutionists are the uncivil ones.

You said postmodernism goes well with Biblical inerrancy.
TheFijian asked if you know what postmodernism actually is?
You blow up and tell him to stop insulting you.

I fail to see how that actually supports your argument that postmodernism goes well with Biblical inerrancy. As it is, I just finished a book called The Revelation of God by Peter Jensen, which lambasts the postmodern perspective on reading Scripture from his conservative viewpoints. In fact, he makes many good points that cause me to be slightly more critical of my own liberal views.

You do realize, for example, that we are talking about Barth, about deconstruction of text (which is practically antithetical to your handling of Scripture), the rejection of overarching, authoritarian meta-narratives (and it doesn't get more overarching or authoritarian than the Christian eschaton), constructivism, etc.?

Or: Do you know what postmodernism is?

 

[holdon]

(bold mine)

My irony meter explodeth.

Time to recalibrate your meter then. But by what standard would you do that anyway?

On the one hand you claim to be the sole posessors of truth, and on the other you claim that one can "interpret" mountains to be 4,000 years old or 400,000,000 years old.

Where did I claim this?

I've seen a lot of cogantive dissonance from Creationists over the years but this one just leaves me shaking my head.

Based on what you're just alleging hereabove, it is you who displays cognitive (check your sp. by the way) dissonance. And "shaking your head" doesn't help.

 

[busterdog]

Wow.

Never let it be said that we evolutionists are the uncivil ones.

You said postmodernism goes well with Biblical inerrancy.
TheFijian asked if you know what postmodernism actually is?
You blow up and tell him to stop insulting you.

I fail to see how that actually supports your argument that postmodernism goes well with Biblical inerrancy. As it is, I just finished a book called The Revelation of God by Peter Jensen, which lambasts the postmodern perspective on reading Scripture from his conservative viewpoints. In fact, he makes many good points that cause me to be slightly more critical of my own liberal views.

You do realize, for example, that we are talking about Barth, about deconstruction of text (which is practically antithetical to your handling of Scripture), the rejection of overarching, authoritarian meta-narratives (and it doesn't get more overarching or authoritarian than the Christian eschaton), constructivism, etc.?

Or: Do you know what postmodernism is?

My comment was as gratuitous as that by fijian, except that my comment on its face was intended to demonstrate what a gratuitous comment is. If my comment is taken as a real assessment of his intelligence, well maybe that ironically makes the point that was unintended.

Anyone who knows what postmodernism is would also gather that I understand it from the very clear post on that point.

 

[busterdog]

Thats almost funny. Evolution, theistic or otherwise, is the root of post modernism, the beginning of the alteration of the truth of the bible.

The irony is that the post-modernist attack must "die by the sword, having lived by it." Its rationale is useful to debunk those creeds that the postmodernists advocate. The post modernist problem is a Genesis 3 problem, thus the need for God to give us a pure word by revelation.

 

[theFijian]

A lot better than you. In fact, I am much smarter and more educated than you.

Oh come one stop joking about.

Sorry for returning explicit insults for your implicit insults. At least I can demonstrate that neither type of insult advances the discussion. Since you weren't getting it otherwise, I wasn't sure what else to do but to continue with overtly gratuitous statements.

Ah so you were using the term 'post-modernism' in a post-modernist fashion?

 

[busterdog]

]Oh come one stop joking about.

I am glad I am not the only one laughing.

Ah so you were using the term 'post-modernism' in a post-modernist fashion?

Yes. I would agree with their philosophy to a point. The correctly questioned a great many institutions that deserved it. How about the Church? Some of that was deserved. How about evolution, a la AIG's caution to "flee the temples"? I would apply the argument there. (No evolutionist need concede AIG's point, it is simply an illustration.) Implied in the post-modernist philosophy is the question of whether real knowledge is possible. That is a very good question. The Bible says it is, but on its terms.

 

[livingword26]

Umm, no. Do you actually know what post-modernism is? Or are you just using it as a catch-all phrase for whatever you see as being unbiblical?

There are lots of opinions as to what exactly post-modernism is. For the sake of this discussion, I am not really interested in the definition's of the term, as it relates to modernism. What the real point of post-modernism is is well reflected in the following statement that I found on the internet.

"A general and wide-ranging term which is applied to literature, art, philosophy, architecture, fiction, and cultural and literary criticism, among others. Postmodernism is largely a reaction to the assumed certainty of scientific, or objective, efforts to explain reality. In essence, it stems from a recognition that reality is not simply mirrored in human understanding of it, but rather, is constructed as the mind tries to understand its own particular and personal reality. For this reason, postmodernism is highly skeptical of explanations which claim to be valid for all groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead focuses on the relative truths of each person. In the postmodern understanding, interpretation is everything; reality only comes into being through our interpretations of what the world means to us individually. Postmodernism relies on concrete experience over abstract principles, knowing always that the outcome of one's own experience will necessarily be fallible and relative, rather than certain and universal."

The post modernist ideas of reality change with the tide of science, political correctness, worldly wisdom, and what he perceives to be logical. It has little to do with what the bible plainly says. In fact, the post modern perception of the bible is that it must fit into what he believes to be true. Instead of the obvious truth of Gods words.

 

[Mallon]

Martin Luther once said the following in response to the idea that the earth revolves around the sun:

So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth [Jos. 10:12]

I wonder what he would think of YECs today? Perhaps we would have thought they, too, were taking a "post-modern" view of the Bible; accepting what the Bible has to say about the creation of the earth, but rejecting what it says about geocentrism (or relegating such references to 'metaphor').

Of course, if we tried understanding the Scriptures as their original audience did, we wouldn't be so concerned about pulling science from a book written about spirituality, thereby avoiding a post-Englightenment mindset altogether.