Creation: Perfect Timing and Chance

[Curt]

Quote:
Notice how THEIR interpretation is to be held onto no matter what the facts. Also these folks don't have the least clue about the science they are railing against. You will seldom see more falsehoods and misstatements about the Big Bang than on this board here.
Anyone who directs someone to www.answersingenesis.org should be .... well you know.
By the way which Genesis ordering of creation do people want to follow - there are two.

Quote:
I believe the false worship of a literal Bible is a bigger problem for Christianity than whether you accept the theory of evolution or literal Creationism.

These two quotes show the foolishness of worldly wisdom. They claim they have facts, and have never been able to come up with anything other than manufactured facts. They claim science prooves their falsehoods, and don't have the foggiest about the origens of science, nor the latest findings, and they also totaly ignore the fact that scientists are abandoning the evolution camp by the numbers. Don't let the words of men lead you astray on this issue. If one studies all the Scriptures in The Bible they will find more than enough evidence that God is telling us He created it all in 6 days. There are two choices given us as to whom we will serve: God Or satan. Anything that does not agree with what God wrote in His Bible is from satan, and those who write it are serving him, and they will need to repent or they will be in hell for eternity. Thats The Gospel. God is gracious and anxious to forgive, and will not tolerate compromise of any kind. There are so many scientists now in the world who are proclaiming creation by God that anyone who can set aside their preconcieved theories, can know that there is actual scientific proof for Biblical creation, and that there is absolutely no actual facts that support evolution that has not been manufactered by man. There are programs that proclaim these facts, that include the history of science, and the real truth about it.

 

[G_Spot_Tornado]

ignore the fact that scientists are abandoning the evolution camp by the numbers

Isn't this creationist lie # 26 in a series of 10,000. This little nugget is trotted out again and again but never with any proof. I believe the fact is that out the hundreds of thousands of scientists working in the hard sciences you can find basically zero of them who have left evolution for creationism.

 

[Curt]

[/font]

Isn't this creationist lie # 26 in a series of 10,000. This little nugget is trotted out again and again but never with any proof. I believe the fact is that out the hundreds of thousands of scientists working in the hard sciences you can find basically zero of them who have left evolution for creationism.

This is the truth for anyone who realy wants to know the truth, but of course there have always been, always are, and always will be those who place there own truths above God's truth. Too bad!!

Can you tell us what the men who created science believed? Can you tell us who they were?

 

[G_Spot_Tornado]

I don't think Archimedes was a Christian!

 

[sedulous_samantha]

Curt, thank you for your opinions, but I find one thing you say conflicts. You say not to trust science because it has been "manufactered by man". I assume you would conclude that argument by saying that since human beings are imperfect, science is logically also imperfect. Fair enough, I understand this mode of thinking.

But then, you go on to say that the bible has been proved by science:

anyone who can set aside their preconcieved theories, can know that there is actual scientific proof for Biblical creation

How can science not provide sufficient proof for evolution, but be good enough to prove the bible? It seems that you are allowing science to work for some theories and not others. How can it be an "actual scientific proof" if all science is "manufactered by man", and thus cannot be trusted?

Perhaps I misread wrong - please inform me if I did!

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

No, you've got Curt figured out, Samantha.

Read back through some of his posts. He insults his brothers in Christ, insisting that only YECs like himself are really "true Christians", the rest of us are following Satan, and backs it up with accusations of scientists using falsehoods, at the same time coming out with outright lies like the "scientists in great numbers abandoning evolution for creationism".

Take no notice.

 

[IHaveQuestions]

and they also totaly ignore the fact that scientists are abandoning the evolution camp by the numbers.

That is just not true. I am a Scientist and a Christian as are many of my colleagues and acquaintances, and they are all theistic evolutionists.

Don't let the words of men lead you astray on this issue. If one studies all the Scriptures in The Bible they will find more than enough evidence that God is telling us He created it all in 6 days.

The stories were written in olden times when we did not have as much scientific knowledge as we have now. The stories support theistic evolution

There are two choices given us as to whom we will serve: God Or satan. Anything that does not agree with what God wrote in His Bible is from satan, and those who write it are serving him, and they will need to repent or they will be in hell for eternity. Thats The Gospel. God is gracious and anxious to forgive, and will not tolerate compromise of any kind.

Utter rubbish

Anyway science does agree with the Bible, and so does thestic evolution.

There are so many scientists now in the world who are proclaiming creation by God that anyone who can set aside their preconcieved theories, can know that there is actual scientific proof for Biblical creation, and that there is absolutely no actual facts that support evolution that has not been manufactered by man. There are programs that proclaim these facts, that include the history of science, and the real truth about it.

Again utter rubbish

 

[jazzbird]

There are so many scientists now in the world who are proclaiming creation by God that anyone who can set aside their preconcieved theories, can know that there is actual scientific proof for Biblical creation, and that there is absolutely no actual facts that support evolution that has not been manufactered by man.

Yes, there are many Christian scientist's who believe God created the world, and most of them believe the earth is very old.

Don't let the words of men lead you astray on this issue. If one studies all the Scriptures in The Bible they will find more than enough evidence that God is telling us He created it all in 6 days. There are two choices given us as to whom we will serve: God Or satan.

This is not a salvation issue.

As for manufactured facts, do you realize that the young earth movement was not a prominent view until the 20th century? Are young earthers not putting themselves into the hands of men who have the possibility to lead them astray, by relying so heavily on AIG and the like without searching out the Scriptures and what God reveals to us in the natural world, for themselves?

Forgive all the cut and paste, but here is a brief history of where the YEC movement came from in my understanding:

Leaders of the fundamentalist movement tended to promote either the day-age theory, endorsed by William Jennings Bryan and William Bell Riley, or the gap (or ruin-and-restoration) interpretation, taught in the popular Scofield Reference Bible and preached by the evangelist Harry Rimmer. About the only Christians to insist on the recent appearance of life and on a fossil burying flood were the Seventh-Day Adventist disciples of Ellen G. White, who claimed to have witnessed the creation of the world in a vision. Shortly after the turn of the century the self-instructed Adventist geologist George McCready Price began advocating a scientific version of White's views that he called "the new catastrophism," "the new geology," or simply "flood geology." According to Price, a correct reading of Genesis 1 ruled out any notion of "creation on the installment plan," that is, creative acts interspersed over millions of years, which he regarded as a "burlesque" of creation. The gap theory required too much verbal "dodging and twisting" to conform to his standards of biblical literalism, and the day-age theory seemed even more egregious. This "libel on Moses" struck at the very basis of the Sabbath-and thus the identity of Seventh-Day Adventists-by suggesting that the seventh day of the creation week had not been a literal twenty-four-hour period. The Bible, as Price saw it, allowed for only "one act of creation, which he said may easily be supposed to have included all of those ancestral types from which our modern varieties of plants and animals have been derived.

Young-earth creationism (which later became "scientific creationism") can essentially be traced back to one man, George McCready Price, a fundamentalist Seventh Day Adventist who accepted the literal truth of the Bible as a matter of course. In 1923, Price published a book called The New Geology, in which he argued that all of the geological features we see today were the result of Noah's Flood, and not the slow geological processes described by scientists. The "geological column", Price asserted, was nothing more than the deep sediments deposited by the Flood, while all of the various fossils were merely the dead bodies of organisms that had drowned in the Deluge. Conventional geology, Price asserted, was a fraud, fostered upon an unsuspecting public by scientists who were doing the work of the Devil: "Some of the tricky methods used by the Great Deceiver to befuddle the people of the last days". (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 137) Price's ideas became known as "Flood geology".

During the first two thirds of the twentieth century, during which most Christian fundamentalists accepted the existence of long geological ages, the leading voice arguing for the recent creation of life on earth in six literal days was George McCready Price (1870-1963), a scientifically self-taught creationist and teacher. Born and reared in the Maritime Provinces of Canada, Price as a youth joined the Seventh-day Adventists, a small religious group founded and still led by a prophetess named Ellen G. White, whom Adventists regarded as being divinely inspired. Following one of her trance-like "visions" White claimed actually to have witnessed the Creation, which occurred in a literal week. She also taught that Noah’s flood had sculpted the surface of the earth, burying the plants and animals found in the fossil record, and that the Christian Sabbath should be celebrated on Saturday rather than Sunday, as a memorial of a six-day creation.

Shortly after the turn of the century Price dedicated his life to a scientific defense of White’s version of earth history: the creation of all life on earth no more than about 6,000 years ago and a global deluge over 2,000 years before the birth of Christ that had deposited most of the fossil-bearing rocks.

References:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/734576/posts
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/history2.shtml?main
http://www.counterbalance.net/history/floodgeo-frame.html

 

[IHaveQuestions]

Yes, there are many Christian scientist's who believe God created the world, and most of them believe the earth is very old.

Thats right Jazzbird, and it goes by the name of Theistic Evolution - the world evolved with the help and guidance of God

 

[DeltaDawnry]

Quote:

there is absolutely no actual facts that support evolution that has not been manufactered by man.


I am proof of evolution- I have no wisdom teeth- none whatsoever and the dentist who took the xrays said more and more people are being born without them 'cuz we don't ned them anymore- thus we are evolving

 

[hesalive]

Anyone who directs someone to www.answersingenesis.org should be .... well you know.


I hope this is not being said with a straight face. AIG is about 2 things - lying for Christ and making money of fundamentalists who know no science from AIG "scientists" who know a little science.

By all means read all you can from all the sides - always keep your personal bs filter in place - but do realise the "professional Creationists" have a financial angle in this towards Christians individually - which probably explains their propensity for lying and/or ability to remain ignorant.

!

Dear Samantha,
I had no doubt that this position and tone would soon follow your original post. This issue evokes much passion that can spill out in viscious personal attacks. I would like to appologize for those who display it.

As for my thoughts, I am remided of a sermon that gave a good analogy of this topic. Some may be familiar with it. We were asked to draw a circle. We were to consider this circle to contain all the knowledge that God posseses. The knowledge that created the universe, the galaxies, planets and sun, the earth, the plants and animals. every atom, molecule and cell of everything the universe contains. Now that your circle contains all this knowledge, draw in the circle what your knowlege is. I could not make a mark as small as even the most knowledgable person to ever live could represent when compared to Gods knowledge. Solomon said the beginning of wisom is fear of the Lord. In the context of this issue, I would pose to you that Gods word is supreme above all mans reasoning. We should take what God says first and then see if what we observe fits it rather than taking our human observations and trying to see if they fit Gods word. If we try and reason God and his creation by purely natural terms we will undoubtedly fall short of even a cursory understanding.

I pray that God will grant you wisdom in considering this topic. There are many other hotly debated subjects within Christianity, so I hope that as you weigh this and other topics that you will give Gods word the weight that it deserves.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

We should take what God says first and then see if what we observe fits it.

But that's the problem isn't it? If by "what God says" you mean a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3, despite the fact that (a) God didn't write it, and (b) it is far from obvious that literal is the best way to understand it, then what we observe does not fit it.

The reason Capn Jack rants about AiG is because they misrepresent "what we observe" until it does fit it. "What we observe" - creation - is more directly a work of God than the Bible is.

 

[jazzbird]

[/font]

But that's the problem isn't it? If by "what God says" you mean a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3, despite the fact that (a) God didn't write it, and (b) it is far from obvious that literal is the best way to understand it, then what we observe does not fit it.

The reason Capn Jack rants about AiG is because they misrepresent "what we observe" until it does fit it. "What we observe" - creation - is more directly a work of God than the Bible is.

I agree that AIG does misrepresent scientific findings, and seems to be afraid of science for some reason, yet I believe the Bible is the work of God, just as His creation is. It is inspired and inerrant, and they do not contradict each other. There is no reason that a literal interpretation of Genesis cannot lead to old earth conclusions if we are really studying the Scripture, and not merely doing a surface reading.

 

[hesalive]

[/font]

the fact that (a) God didn't write it,

If we cannot accept what the Bible has to say as absolute truth in entirety, then what do we have? Without this acceptance we have no basis for our eternity and subjects the Bible to mans opinion of what is true and what is false in it. Subjective interpretation aside, I believe that God did write it. He holds each breath of our bodies in His hand, how much more so a simple stroke of a pen. To negate the validity of any portion of the Bible on the basis of human authorship is to negate it all. Who then decides what is true or false in it? I understand the debate over interpretation, but I do hope we are not considering errancy here.

By the way, has anyone else had a problem getting on here? The site seemed to dissapear for a while.