How many creationists practise what they preach?

dad · Mar 9, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
I don't follow you ScottA, when you say those hell-bent on evolution won't evolve beyond the physical sciences. For example, I and many other theologians believe that God works in and through evolutions. However, we also recognize that the whole question of God is not a scientific question to begin with. Science as science is neutral on the existence of God. It takes much different intellectual and metaphysical equipment to be brought in to address the question of God. That's why I believe science classes would be about the worst place to get into questions of God, as this would take the class way off its intended subject and require extensive review of material outside the realm of scientific studies. For example, it is not a simple matter of proving or disproving God. It is also a matter of determining what kind of God you are speaking about. That in itself is a very complex issue. That's why academia has a division of labor, with questions of God assigned to the theology and philosophy departments.

Once man rejects Christ as creator, they look to their own thoughts and science to redefine truth. Naturally their thoughts on God's word, or theology, is relegated to some corner down the hall. Such is unbelief and delusion.

PsychoSarah · Mar 9, 2016

dad said:
Actually forget the fancy nonsense and remember this, lies are no good. Truth is good. It is not only fine, but our duty to fight the evil lies, and reject them. When some supposed 'saint' in the past goes against scripture and creation, yes we may demolish the lie.

But again, you assume that the bible depicts the truth, just because it claims that it does.

Hoghead1 · Mar 9, 2016

That being the general case, Dad, you have conveniently overlooked that this also applies to you. All you have done here is present your own homespun thoughts, nothing more. I'm not about to accept anything face value. I'm not about about to accept any of your claims, as they are based on no more authority that your own say-so.

Hoghead1 · Mar 9, 2016

Well, AV1611, when your pastor exceeds all the accomplishments and achievements of St. Augustine, I'll be first in line to congratulate him. However, I am not holding my breath. Also, since you obviously are not interested at all in any sort of serious theological discussion, I simply take what you say, with a grain of salt.

JonFromMinnesota · Mar 9, 2016

ScottA said:
Creationists, indeed do teach science, for its great value in many areas.

Starting at an assumed conclusion and working backwards is not science. It's why creationists lose in the court room time and time again. It's been demonstrated to be complete nonsense.

Creation is, however, a known fact.

Facts are demonstrable. This is an extraordinary claim that will require extraordinary evidence. So....what verifiable and testable evidence do you have?

it is not "known" by all, and is limited to those who have access and capacity for such knowledge.

Claiming to have knowledge that others do not have the capacity to understand is arrogance.

One thing is for certain: It is not reasonable to continue to teach an old theory when it is dispelled by a new truth.

Do you know the definition of a scientific theory?

dad · Mar 9, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
That being the general case, Dad, you have conveniently overlooked that this also applies to you. All you have done here is present your own homespun thoughts, nothing more. I'm not about to accept anything face value. I'm not about about to accept any of your claims, as they are based on no more authority that your own say-so.

One must accept that Jesus created all things, and that the scripture, including Moses is true blue. Not to do so is unbelief.

Joshua260 · Mar 9, 2016

OzSpen said:
Archbishop Ussher's genealogies did not take into account the gaps in the genealogical record that scholars have found. I find it to be dishonest with the evidence to place a date on the time of creation when the OT provides no complete list of genealogies from the time of creation.

Are these gaps supposed to account for *millions* of years? To me, this explanation doesn't seem credible.

dad · Mar 9, 2016

PsychoSarah said:
But again, you assume that the bible depicts the truth, just because it claims that it does.

Remember that I put a distinction on posters that fly a Christian flsg, but disrespect the bible as actually true. Last time I checked, you were hanging out in the non believers corner. They must face the heat.

Joshua260 · Mar 9, 2016

OzSpen said:
It is 'sketchy' because of the gaps in the genealogical record. William Henry Green's assessment, 'Are There Gaps in the Biblical Genealogies?' is not as optimistic as yours. He demonstrates some of the significant gaps in the genealogical record.

Add to this the assessment that the length of the days of creation are not as definitive as young earth creationists want them to be. Long before the theory of evolution, St Augustine of Hippo (died 430) doubted the length of creation days when he stated, '

There are other conservative evangelical scholars who argue for longer days of creation than 24 hours. These scholars include: Gleason Archer, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler and Hugh Ross.

Oz

My comments below are given with respect...
Although I like and admire many of those you mentioned above, this is an appeal to authority and doesn't really prove anything. In fact, there are quite a few other notable Christians and scientists who are YEC.

TLK Valentine · Mar 9, 2016

dad said:
Remember that I put a distinction on posters that fly a Christian flsg, but disrespect the bible as actually true. Last time I checked, you were hanging out in the non believers corner. They must face the heat.

What heat?

dad · Mar 10, 2016

TLK Valentine said:
What heat?

Stay tuned.

Jay Follett · Mar 10, 2016

ScottA said:
Creation is, however, a known fact. Granted, it is not "known" by all, and is limited to those who have access and capacity for such knowledge.

Facts are not a matter of opinion they are facts, do you know what a fact is? 2+2=4 and the earth revolves around the sun are both facts are not open to interpretation.
"limited to those who have access and capacity for such knowledge"? does that mean only available to people who have been indoctrinated into believing? it would seem to me that your thinking has been turned back to front, for you what's right is wrong and what's wrong is right, you have dumped reality and knowledge in favour of a belief.

OzSpen · Mar 10, 2016

Papias said:
I guess I just don't see any benefit to claiming "gaps".

The benefit is that it is telling the truth about the OT evidence.

OzSpen · Mar 10, 2016

Joshua260 said:
Are these gaps supposed to account for *millions* of years? To me, this explanation doesn't seem credible.

I've already covered that in that we don't know how long the creation days were. Why don't you read some of the evidence for an Old Earth interpretation that includes scholars such as Gleason Archer, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Walter Kaiser, William Dembski, J I Packer, J P Moreland, Philip E Johnson, Francis Schaeffer, etc.

Here are examples of views of:

Francis Schaeffer: http://geochristian.com/2008/12/05/francis-schaeffer-on-the-age-of-the-earth/
A list of 'Notable Christians open to an Old-universe, Old-earth perspective' (with links to information about their views).

Blessings,
Oz

OzSpen · Mar 10, 2016

Joshua260 said:
My comments below are given with respect...
Although I like and admire many of those you mentioned above, this is an appeal to authority and doesn't really prove anything. In fact, there are quite a few other notable Christians and scientists who are YEC.

We need to compare the evidence. I assure you that those I've mentioned have a high view of Scripture. Are you aware that an 'appeal to authority' is also the name given to a logical fallacy, which demonstrates fallacious reasoning. See: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Jay Follett · Mar 10, 2016

OzSpen said:
We need to compare the evidence.

Yes let's compare the evidence, does the Christian creationism story have any more evidence to support it than the Muslim or the hundreds of other creation stories? if so where is that evidence?

OzSpen · Mar 10, 2016

Jay Follett said:
Yes let's compare the evidence, does the Christian creationism story have any more evidence to support it than the Muslim or the hundreds of other creation stories? if so where is that evidence?

Why don't you provide the evidence instead of asking a question?

Jay Follett · Mar 10, 2016

OzSpen said:
Why don't you provide the evidence instead of asking a question?

I can't because there is no evidence for any religions creation stories, as such they are not designed to be taken literally.

AV1611VET · Mar 10, 2016

Jay Follett said:
I can't because there is no evidence for any religions creation stories,

Theistic evolutionists use the same evidence as atheistic evolutionists.

Jay Follett · Mar 10, 2016

AV1611VET said:
Theistic evolutionists use the same evidence as atheistic evolutionists.

We know, that's why they accept evolution, I don't know why or how if they want to be theists they could possibly also think that creationism is just a story, if you ask me the theists who accept evolution want to have their cake and eat it, you either accept the Christian stories or you don't, there are no half measures, one can't work without the other, you are either a Christian or you're not, you either believe all of it or none of it.
Theistic evolutionists want to mix reality with belief in the supernatural and it can't be done with honesty.

How many creationists practise what they preach?

Undefeated!

Chaotic Neutral

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Undefeated!

Well-Known Member

Undefeated!

Well-Known Member

I've already read the books you want burned.

Undefeated!

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Similar threads