Young Earth Creation as opposed to Old Earth Creation (aka evolution lite)

[PartyAnimal]

I went back and read what I posted. My words were "established scientific theories" verses "unsupported ones". In other words science verses science. You changed that to science verses God.

 

[Keachian]

Just a couple of things, first of all, all Christian are creationists:

That may be so, but normally when discussing Christian origins theology the term Creationist refers to those who want to place some form of rigid literalism on Gen 1 and theistic evolutionists refers to most everyone else.

I hope Darwinians realise the harm they are causing. I'm sure they really believe their world view but when you want to substitute established theology with naturalistic assumptions it distracts people from the things of Christ.

Well from my mind theistic evolution doesn't deal with naturalism, in fact I'm probably just as opposed to naturalism as you are.

If we as a group continually show a refusal to accept God as Creator what people supposed to think of the new birth, resurrection and God's creation at the end of the age?

The fact that God created is not in contention in Christian theological circles, as you yourself have said previously the miracle of creation is intertwined with the miracle of the incarnation, death and resurrection of our Lord. The contention and the discussion largely takes the field on whether or not it is valid for Christians to view biological diversion as the way in which God created the diversity of life and to what extent this happened.

 

[samaus12345]

Party animal its unfortunate that people perceive "evolution" as a "established scientific theory" (again that one word "evolution" has 5+ different meanings). Documentaries we see on t.v. are all big bang/evolution based "millions and millions" of years they will say, "thats just the way we evolved" (doctors say this one, i dealt a lot with them, they loveeee this phrase, a consequence of med school indoctrination), watch ONE documentary without a single reference to deep time or evolution. We are SATURATED in this materialistic atheistic God hating GARBAGE. IF you want to know how BRUTAL this creation/genesis battle is read one of Richard Dawkins books (please pray a lot first they are EVIL EVIL books) My experience-you will feel the EVIL as soon as you start reading (maybe ask the holy spirit first because millions are deceived by this one man/satan incarnate)...this topic is the battleground i believe and these quack atheists know it...or read origin of species and compare it to reality....i say this because it *should* when compared to reality destroy/start to destroy anyones faith in "EVOLUTION IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT" (caps for dogmatic commanding overreaching tone)

 

[Keachian]

Party animal its unfortunate that people perceive "evolution" as a "established scientific theory" (again that one word "evolution" has 5+ different meanings).

It is.

Documentaries we see on t.v. are all big bang/evolution based "millions and millions" of years they will say,

There isn't anything theologically wrong with the idea of millions and millions of years.

"thats just the way we evolved" (doctors say this one, i dealt a lot with them, they loveeee this phrase, a consequence of med school indoctrination),

I'm not sure what exactly is wrong with this statement.

We are SATURATED in this materialistic atheistic God hating GARBAGE.

Yes we are saturated in materialism, unfortunately it has also seeped into Christianity and unlike where you'd naturally expect it to find its place in my mind it has squarely gotten into YEC, ever wonder why both the atheists and YEC demand two things, first of all the whole Bible must be literal-historic or you chuck the whole thing out, and secondly that Christianity and science must be at odds, these two ideas are the biggest lies that Satan is peddling at the moment and they are getting lapped up by atheist and YEC alike.

IF you want to know how BRUTAL this creation/genesis battle is read one of Richard Dawkins books (please pray a lot first they are EVIL EVIL books) My experience-you will feel the EVIL as soon as you start reading (maybe ask the holy spirit first because millions are deceived by this one man/satan incarnate)...

While Satan most assuredly does use Dawkins' books I'm a bit tentative of claiming him as Satan incarnate and pray that he would come to have faith in Jesus.

this topic is the battleground i believe and these quack atheists know it...

The battleground is whether Christ rose from the grave after three days, anything else is a distraction, creation theology whatever side you end up on can only make sense in light of the Cross. We are even told by the Apostle Paul that if there is no hope in the resurrection of Christ then we are pitiful creatures, still in sin and still unsaved.

or read origin of species and compare it to reality....i say this because it *should* when compared to reality destroy/start to destroy anyones faith in "EVOLUTION IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT" (caps for dogmatic commanding overreaching tone)

Darwin probably does overstep the bounds and delves into philosophy in the book and thereby goes outside of science but his science when taken away from the philosophy, that is there is variation over time in gene pools as influenced by the environment around is solid verifiable scientific fact.

 

[Smidlee]

I went back and read what I posted. My words were "established scientific theories" verses "unsupported ones". In other words science verses science. You changed that to science verses God.

Actually your post reads like you are referring to truth.

If we as a group continually show a refusal to accept what is true in one area, how are we supposed to get others to see the most important truth of all?

That's what is being debated... what is true. Now if you can show me jaw bones got dislocated to become ear bones which just happen works well for air-water impedance matching. What about the "little eyeball that could" story. A lot of what scientist thought was true a hundred years ago not long believe to be true. (often because the theory was too simplistic.)

added: Then we have someone like Kenneth Miller (a TE) has made statements like God didn't know man would arrive as if man was a complete accident. (a complete contradiction of scripture no matter how you try to interpret it) So you don't think what Mark wrote fit when we have known TE who protects Darwinism at all cost no more what is says about God?

 

[PartyAnimal]

Party animal its unfortunate that people perceive "evolution" as a "established scientific theory"

That's what it is. I am unsure what you mean here.

(again that one word "evolution" has 5+ different meanings)

I only know one. The process that led to the diversification of life.

Documentaries we see on t.v. are all big bang/evolution based "millions and millions" of years they will say, "thats just the way we evolved" (doctors say this one, i dealt a lot with them, they loveeee this phrase, a consequence of med school indoctrination), watch ONE documentary without a single reference to deep time or evolution.

That's probably because of the whole established scientific theory thing.

We are SATURATED in this materialistic atheistic God hating GARBAGE

There are so many problems with this sentence I do not even know where to begin. The fact that you are speaking to a Christian is not telling you something? Science is hardly atheistic. Just because science cannot be reconciled with your[/] interpretation of the bible does not mean science is God hating.

IF you want to know how BRUTAL this creation/genesis battle is read one of Richard Dawkins books (please pray a lot first they are EVIL EVIL books) My experience-you will feel the EVIL as soon as you start reading (maybe ask the holy spirit first because millions are deceived by this one man/satan incarnate)

Well I did read his book and I did not find it brutal or evil. I did find it misguided and closed to larger possibilities but that's another subject. I don't really care what Dawkins says, he does not represent me.

.this topic is the battleground i believe and these quack atheists know it...or read origin of species and compare it to reality....i say this because it *should* when compared to reality destroy/start to destroy anyones faith in "EVOLUTION IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT" (caps for dogmatic commanding overreaching tone)

Except that the battle is not theists verses atheists is it? You are ignoring the fact that there are many Christians on this very forum that have no problem reconciling science and their faith.

 

[samaus12345]

Genesis=foundation, do away with the first chapter of a book and why place any utility in the rest of it?. You "win". Thanks for your time

 

[PartyAnimal]

Actually your post reads like you are referring to truth.

Well I think I subsequently cleared up what I meant.

That's what is being debated... what is true. Now if you can show me jaw bones got dislocated to become ear bones which just happen works well for air-water impedance matching. What about the "little eyeball that could" story. A lot of what scientist thought was true a hundred years ago not long believe to be true. (often because the theory was too simplistic.)

It seems to me you are saying that if you can find a question which cannot be answered sufficiently then the whole theory of evolution should be thrown out?

 

[PartyAnimal]

Genesis=foundation, do away with the first chapter of a book and why place any utility in the rest of it?. You "win". Thanks for your time

Who is doing away with the first chapter of Genesis?

 

[Smidlee]

Well I think I subsequently cleared up what I meant.



It seems to me you are saying that if you can find a question which cannot be answered sufficiently then the whole theory of evolution should be thrown out?

I see Darwinism in a lot more trouble than just a question or two. Even genetic evidence does not fit Darwin's tree of life. How many failed predictions does it require before evolutionist would start to doubt their theory? As I've wrote in another thread Paley's design argument has got stronger with time while Darwin was wrong in every area.

 

[Papias]

Partyanimal - Oh, and welcome to the forums! Enjoy your time here.


Partyanimal wrote:

I went back and read what I posted. My words were "established scientific theories" verses "unsupported ones". In other words science verses science. You changed that to science verses God.

mark does that kind of thing. You can see the whole formal debate I had with him here (http://www.christianforums.com/t7554304/). Especially see my last post, which has examples.

***********************************

Smidlee wrote:

I see Darwinism in a lot more trouble than just a question or two.

.......because you are listening to creationist sources. The idea that there is any significant doubt over common descent or the theory of evolution by natural selection is one of the longest running falsehoods peddled by creationists. Just like the perpetual claims of Elvis sightings, the perpetual claims of "growing doubt in evolution" by creationists are wishful thinking at best, and often use the same deceptive tactics like quote mining that they use otherwise.

Common descent and the theory of evolution by natural selection are better established than most scientific theories, to the point of being "facts" in everyday language. We've got more and better evidence for them than we do for the idea that the Roman Empire existed, and more confirming data is being published literally every month. Dozens of specific predictions have been (and continue to be) confirmed, and contrary evidence is non-existant.

Regardless of whether or not Smidlee, who is unfamiliar with the evidence, finds "Darwinism in a lot more trouble than a question or two", is pretty irrelvant to anything. If, on the other hand, anyone really does have solid evidence against common descent or the theory of evolution by natural selection, all they have to do is present it to get fame, fortune, tenure, and their own Nobel prize.

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

That was really smart. The way you turned what I said around. Making it look like they were of equal value. Only I never said that creation and science were at odds. You implied it in your reversal of my words making my point correct. You said "refusal to accept God as Creator". I said refusal to accept established scientific theories which I explained come from god. Thanks for proving my point.

Actually, God as Creator is of far greater importance then what you are loosely calling science. It's not science, it's supposition and predicated on an a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes going all the way back to the Big Bang. As far as 'proving my point', you were begging the question of proof on your hands and knees so that can be dismissed as superficial rhetoric.

Science cannot be at odds with Scripture, nothing in the methodology or epistemology of modern science is in counter distinction to the witness of Scripture regarding redemptive history. Like all of the skeptics that haunt these forums you have failed to make a single substantive point and then you do a victory dance. You deprecate God as Creator by your silence regarding the things of God except to make highly emotive personal attacks on essential doctrine.

No self respecting Theistic Evolutionist would dare disparage God as Creator and still pretend to make a Christian profession. If you had bothered to learn the meaning of the words you throw around so carelessly you would already know that.

 

[mark kennedy]

There is a reason that the Nicene Creed starts with an affirmation of God as Creator

I went back and read what I posted. My words were "established scientific theories" verses "unsupported ones". In other words science verses science. You changed that to science verses God.

This is what you said:

If we as a group continually show a refusal to accept what is true in one area, how are we supposed to get others to see the most important truth of all?

How indeed! How are you supposed to get others to see 'the most important truth of all' when you deny God as Creator and heap constant scorn on those who affirm it?

mark does that kind of thing. You can see the whole formal debate I had with him here (http://www.christianforums.com/t7554304/). Especially see my last post, which has examples.

What you will find in that debate is the the RCC (Roman Catholic Church) has maintained a view that can only be described as an intelligent design philosophy:

"To omit the creation would be to misunderstand the very history of God with men, to diminish it, to lose sight of its true order of greatness..."The sweep of history established by God reaches back to the origins, back to creation...If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature," he said. "But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason." (VATICAN CITY, APRIL 23, 2011, Zenit.org)​

The reason it must be affirmed by Christians is because everything in redemptive history is predicated on it:

Faith in God and in the events of salvation history must necessarily begin with a belief in God's role as Creator, says Benedict XVI​

Papias knows this, he just ignores it.

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

Faith in God and in the events of salvation history must necessarily begin with a belief in God's role as Creator, says Benedict XVI​

Papias knows this, he just ignores it.

mark, I don't ignore that God is the creator - I trumpet it over and over. In fact, you know I often point out that God is the creator. Is it honest of you to claim that I ignore that fact?
​

If you'd like to review the debate, then go ahead and look it over. I even gave the link to it. The fact that the RCC clearly allows theistic evolution stands, regardless of how much you change the words people say.

Hmmmm... observation: mark sure does refer to people being on their hands and knees a lot.



http://www.christianforums.com/search.php?searchid=5095278

 

[PartyAnimal]

How are you supposed to get others to see 'the most important truth of all' when you deny God as Creator and heap constant scorn on those who affirm it?

I'm slightly offended. I thought I came to Christian Forums. How can I poosibly be scorning people who affirm God as creator? That's my position!

Anyway, to say that you left me speechless is an understatement. I will respond to your post later when I have more time.

 

[Smidlee]

Regardless of whether or not Smidlee, who is unfamiliar with the evidence, finds "Darwinism in a lot more trouble than a question or two", is pretty irrelvant to anything. If, on the other hand, anyone really does have solid evidence against common descent or the theory of evolution by natural selection, all they have to do is present it to get fame, fortune, tenure, and their own Nobel prize.

Papias

No necessary true. The Big Bang Never Happened Part 1 - YouTube
I doubt these guys are creationist nor even theist but they made a point that others have made that scientist often hold on to their theories dogmatically.

Smidlee wrote:


.......because you are listening to creationist sources. The idea that there is any significant doubt over common descent or the theory of evolution by natural selection is one of the longest running falsehoods peddled by creationists.

Papias

I assume none of these guys in this video are creationist. Venter seems to surprises others with his comment ""The tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren't really holding up...So there is not a tree of life."
I watch both of these videos a while back so I don't just listen to creationist (I have no problem listen to them) but the evolutionist as well.

 

[Keachian]

No necessary true. The Big Bang Never Happened Part 1 - YouTube
I doubt these guys are not creationist nor even theist but they made a point that others have made that scientist often hold on to their theories dogmatically.

I assume none of these guys in this video are creationist. Venter seems to surprises others with his comment ""The tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren't really holding up...So there is not a tree of life."
I watch both of these videos a while back so I don't just listen to creationist (I have no problem listen to them) but the evolutionist as well.

You seem to not understand what they are proposing instead, steady state theory denies the biblical affirmation that there is a beginning to creation. So you're really fine with that denial?

 

[Smidlee]

You seem to not understand what they are proposing instead, steady state theory denies the biblical affirmation that there is a beginning to creation. So you're really fine with that denial?

I didn't say I agree with them on their steady state theory yet I did watch that video. I added " I doubt" and forgot to remove "not". I corrected it above. I wasn't sure but I thought these were atheist.
Are they right about these red shifts?

 

[Keachian]

I didn't say I agree with them on their steady state theory yet I did watch that video. I added " I doubt" and forgot to remove "not". I corrected it above. I wasn't sure but I thought these were atheist.
Are they right about these red shifts?

If you look at the history of theories which were posed against Big Bang cosmology, you will find one thing, they are proposed because the idea of a beginning to the universe is too Christian, too theistic.

They are atheists, I don't actually know what they say about red shifts (haven't watched the video) and I'm hardly in a position to say one way or the other as to whether they are correct.

 

[Metal Minister]

I wonder if its possible that God created the universe with these contrary "evidences" as a way to show He is the Creator. That for all their theories, they still cannot nail it down to one or the other because He left evidence of both...just a bit of philosophic pondering...

May God Richly Bless You! MM