GSA Today: The Evolution of Creationism

[AV1611VET]

So, if anyone points to Jesus and says "Lo, he is there", we are not to believe him. And well we might not, for Jesus was not annointed king, and never rescued the Jews from the Romans.

Jesus, in His first advent, fulfilled 109 of 333 prophecies concerning Himself; in His second advent, the Millennial Kingdom, He will fulfill the remaining 224 prophecies.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

This verse is an excellent example. Jesus was never called those things in His first advent; but He will fulfill that Scripture in His second advent.

 

[KimberlyAA]

I just read the abstract of the article. "But some Christians—those we now call creationists— rejected this perspective and chose to see geology as a threat to their faith. In so doing, they abandoned faith in reason and cast off a long-standing theological tradition that rocks don’t lie."


I have never seen any credible creationist scientist say that geology is a threat to their faith. Time and time again they use geology as firm evidence of certain theological points. And it is quite reasonable. They have not abandoned faith in reason. Unless you consider following God's word as unreasonable.

 

[JustMeSee]

Ya ... that's why they're correcting you guys all the time on such subjects as slavery, witch hunting, the Inquisition, and the Crusades, isn't it? not to mention such issues as what was meant by "this generation" in Jesus' speech on the end times.

You actually copped out on the passages on slavery. You wouldn't even address them.

 

[JustMeSee]

Posts Per Day: 1.65

Should I wonder why?

Other people read instead of spending hours on counting threads. Post count has nothing to do with reading.

 

[AV1611VET]

I just read the abstract of the article. "But some Christians—those we now call creationists— rejected this perspective and chose to see geology as a threat to their faith. In so doing, they abandoned faith in reason and cast off a long-standing theological tradition that rocks don’t lie."


I have never seen any credible creationist scientist say that geology is a threat to their faith. Time and time again they use geology as firm evidence of certain theological points. And it is quite reasonable. They have not abandoned faith in reason. Unless you consider following God's word as unreasonable.

God seems to favor geology in the Bible, preferring to typecast Jesus in geological terms:

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Jesus, Himself, made one doosey of a statement about geology:

Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

Geologists today say the stones cry out something else.

 

[AV1611VET]

Other people read instead of spending hours on counting threads. Post count has nothing to do with reading.

If he can keep up with me on this site, and knows everything I've ever said, I would have to commend him on his patience.

No offense to him though, but I took his point with a grain of salt.

You're certainly welcome to disagree with me though, but I think you would be kidding yourself.

 

[SkyWriting]

Good read. I wonder if any Creationists will check it out and comment.

The writer makes the usual false assumption that The Flood was a natural event that would have a natural effect on the world and leave natural results that would all point to a totally natural event having happened.

If that were the case, it would hardly be attributed to God's efforts, now would it? Such people have not thought it through, YE Creationist or critic alike.

 

[SkyWriting]

Most creationists are as ignorant of the Bible as they are of science, which is to say, "Very!"

I look forward to seeing that researched data.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yeah, best option when you don't like someone's opinion: don't read it.

So, why do you read these threads? It is abundantly clear from polls here that pro-evolution atheists outnumber creationists by about 5-1, may be more.

So that kind of data and polling is what passes for facts? A forum poll? Gee I wonder what the margin-of-error would be on that? You know what? I'm going to research that.

"Margin of error" "Online polling" Enter

Well, no definitive answer. But I found this:

“Internet polling is like the Far West, with no rules, no sheriff and no reference points.”

So "abundantly clear" is really much more like scant patches of fog.

 

[SkyWriting]

God seems to favor geology in the Bible, preferring to typecast Jesus in geological terms:

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Jesus, Himself, made one doosey of a statement about geology:

Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

Geologists today say the stones cry out something else.

Jesus walked on water. It's really, really hard to get good data on that water.
And then there's that rock that water comes out of.

 

[AV1611VET]

Jesus walked on water. It's really, really hard to get good data on that water.
And then there's that rock that water comes out of.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I have never seen any credible creationist scientist say that geology is a threat to their faith. Time and time again they use geology as firm evidence of certain theological points. And it is quite reasonable. They have not abandoned faith in reason. Unless you consider following God's word as unreasonable.

I've never seen anyone correctly use geology as evidence for a theological point. If you could point me to some of these instances you're talking about, I would appreciate it (genuinely curious).

At any rate, I suspect the author was referring more to the findings of geology - the age of the earth, lack of evidence for a global flood, etc - rather than the subject as a whole. If one insists on a young-earth, literal interpretation of the Bible, these findings can be seen as nothing other than a threat to one's faith.

The writer makes the usual false assumption that The Flood was a natural event that would have a natural effect on the world and leave natural results that would all point to a totally natural event having happened.

If that were the case, it would hardly be attributed to God's efforts, now would it? Such people have not thought it through, YE Creationist or critic alike.

Natural or supernatural, a global flood will leave evidence. Unless you're suggesting that God cleaned it all up? If that's seriously what you think, then I fail to see the point. It's akin to last-Thursdayism.

Jesus walked on water. It's really, really hard to get good data on that water.

Jesus walking on water was a single event that would have left no evidence whatsoever. It could have been a miracle, a sandbar, a floating log, or the Loch Ness monster for all we empirically know or could be expected to know. It is in no way comparable to a global flood.

And then there's that rock that water comes out of.

These are a thing, you know? We call them "springs."

 

[RickG]

No, sir, I'm not.

Thank you! I'll check it out!

You many not find what I'm talking about just through a google search. You will either have to read the book Genius of Christianity (1802), or just look on page 5 of the OP's link to the article on the history of creationism. I won't spoil it now, please look. Really, you will like it.

 

[RickG]

I have never seen any credible creationist scientist say that geology is a threat to their faith. Time and time again they use geology as firm evidence of certain theological points. And it is quite reasonable. They have not abandoned faith in reason. Unless you consider following God's word as unreasonable.

Geology is a serious threat to creationism. Why is it that the creationist literature concerning geology is full of misrepresentations and just plain false claims? The list of false claims is enormous.

 

[RickG]

Jesus walked on water. It's really, really hard to get good data on that water.

Maybe it is just a matter of perspective from the observer. Submerged sandbar perhaps?

And then there's that rock that water comes out of.

How about an artesian spring?

 

[AV1611VET]

You many not find what I'm talking about just through a google search. You will either have to read the book Genius of Christianity (1802), or just look on page 5 of the OP's link to the article on the history of creationism. I won't spoil it now, please look. Really, you will like it.

Okay ... I'll check it out later and get back to you!

 

[juvenissun]

I've never seen anyone correctly use geology as evidence for a theological point. If you could point me to some of these instances you're talking about, I would appreciate it (genuinely curious).

I think you probably know there is a group called the Association of Christian Geologists (ACG). They meet annually in the GSA annual meeting. However they are mostly Theistic Evolutionists (like you?). Unfortunately, their focus is on the geology and faith, but not on the geology and Bible verses.

If you are interested, I can give you some (or many) Bible verses that bear significant geological meaning. However, before I show them to you, there is a philosophical (theological) concept which needs to be cleared up. Otherwise, no matter what I pointed to you, it would be in vain.

 

[juvenissun]

This post really speaks for itself. Don't ever again tell anyone else here that they are not trying to learn.

Good argument.

Not I don't want learn what the article said. I don't really know much about what he said. Simply I don't have time to learn it. If you care to explain some of his argument to me (I doubt you are capable), I am willing to listen.

I don't read it simply because it does not address the basic key question, which is the content of creationism. There are trillion pieces of knowledge to learn. One has to learn them strategically.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Good argument.

Not I don't want learn what the article said. I don't really know much about what he said. Simply I don't have time to learn it. If you care to explain some of his argument to me (I doubt you are capable), I am willing to listen.

I don't read it simply because it does not address the basic key question, which is the content of creationism. There are trillion pieces of knowledge to learn. One has to learn them strategically.

What is your native language?

 

[Split Rock]

The writer makes the usual false assumption that The Flood was a natural event that would have a natural effect on the world and leave natural results that would all point to a totally natural event having happened.

If that were the case, it would hardly be attributed to God's efforts, now would it? Such people have not thought it through, YE Creationist or critic alike.

No. The writer makes the assumption that a global flood would leave a record in the geological column. Whether it is a natural event or not is irrelevant. Many "flood geologists" in fact make all kinds of claims about the flood leaving a record, such as the grand canyon. Unfortunately, their explanations don't work.