- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,463
- 515
- 37
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
I'm sick of creationists considering me a second-class Christian, assuming that I accept evolution because I know my Bible less or bring to it some foreign agenda instead of studying it honestly; and I'm sick of the kind of unlistening arrogance that can brand me "unbiblical" two posts after I've quoted six or seven verses in context demonstrating a particular point just because it rankles with creationists. The fruit many creationists display here seems to me to be incommensurate with the grace of Christ, and while I dare not comment on the efficacy of Christ's grace I think I am qualified to point out the rottenness of their fruit.
So hey mark, how about a nice good formal debate? Give me a week or two and I'll be free enough to get down in the Scriptures with you. I'm sick of you not listening and then claiming to know everything about what we believe. I doubt you'll listen even during this debate - but at least this will make it clear to everyone.
Motion: that accepting evolution as the best scientific explanation for the biological makeup of humans does not constitute a rejection of orthodox Christian belief.
My points are:
- that accepting evolution as the best scientific explanation for the biological makeup of humans ("accepting human evolution") is compatible with the infallibility and divine authority of Scripture.
- that accepting human evolution is compatible with the universal sinfulness of humanity and the necessity of justification by faith.
- that accepting human evolution is compatible with the biblical and classical doctrines of God, and thus that it is not logically tantamount to atheism.
Feel free to ask for clarification and rewording of any of the wordings or phrases used in the motion. I'll need to take two or three weeks to work through my current academic assignments but after that I should be free enough.
Something that mark should note before starting this debate is that I tend to use the style of talking to the galleries, especially in the context of a debate. When I debated orally this was the methodology taught me: that one debates not to convince one's opponents being asked to reject one's position for another, but rather to convince an impartial audience being asked to choose between two positions. As such, mark should probably make sure he can be comfortable with this style of dialogue.
So hey mark, how about a nice good formal debate? Give me a week or two and I'll be free enough to get down in the Scriptures with you. I'm sick of you not listening and then claiming to know everything about what we believe. I doubt you'll listen even during this debate - but at least this will make it clear to everyone.
Motion: that accepting evolution as the best scientific explanation for the biological makeup of humans does not constitute a rejection of orthodox Christian belief.
My points are:
- that accepting evolution as the best scientific explanation for the biological makeup of humans ("accepting human evolution") is compatible with the infallibility and divine authority of Scripture.
- that accepting human evolution is compatible with the universal sinfulness of humanity and the necessity of justification by faith.
- that accepting human evolution is compatible with the biblical and classical doctrines of God, and thus that it is not logically tantamount to atheism.
Feel free to ask for clarification and rewording of any of the wordings or phrases used in the motion. I'll need to take two or three weeks to work through my current academic assignments but after that I should be free enough.
Something that mark should note before starting this debate is that I tend to use the style of talking to the galleries, especially in the context of a debate. When I debated orally this was the methodology taught me: that one debates not to convince one's opponents being asked to reject one's position for another, but rather to convince an impartial audience being asked to choose between two positions. As such, mark should probably make sure he can be comfortable with this style of dialogue.