Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The text seems to indicate that it's not a period of time at all.There is no evidence to support a day in Genesis being 24 hours.
Sorry to respond so late. I got called away for an emergency and was out of communication.You're missing my point. My point is that you go too far in equating evolutionary thinking, of whatever forms, with atheism. They're not the same and one does not by any necessity follow the other.
Also, I'm not an atheist, and neither are many of the posters here. I would suggest you stop talking at us as if we're atheists. It's getting tiresome. Very tiresome. Notice, too, I don't condescend upon you if you want to tow the Literalist View. If you want to take the Genesis Creation account literally, go ahead. I'm fine with that, but stop the derogation.
Like Jesus changing water to wine, the so called "evidence" suggest nothing. Just as you mentioned the God "could" have done so. One has to have some very hard evidence from an independent source.Of course, God could have created the world in 6 days 10,000 years ago. But so what? God could have done many things. What matters is what the evidence suggests did actually happen.
Show us that data. Checkable sources.I don't think I'm going too far with equating evolution with atheism when 95% of evolutionists are atheists.
Perhaps you don't know how science works. It depends on evidence that is repeatable, and verifiable.What I'm saying is that any stats or "science" you get from evolutionists is going to be tainted by a worldly evolutionary view and not an objective view.
Nonsence. Michael Behe, for example, is an evolutionist and and advocate of "intelligent design." Michael Denton is a fellow of the Discovery Institute and acknowledges the fact of evolution. How could you not know these things?You will NEVER hear about Intelligent Design.
No problem. I know people have lives to live.Sorry to respond so late. I got called away for an emergency and was out of communication.
I don't think I'm going too far with equating evolution with atheism when 95% of evolutionists are atheists. Now, it is clear that you are among that small 5% of the sample who believe in evolution while believing in God. What I'm saying is that any stats or "science" you get from evolutionists is going to be tainted by a worldly evolutionary view and not an objective view. You will NEVER hear about Intelligent Design. Just pick up any scientific journal.
At one time, up until very recent (late 1600+), scientists conformed their understanding of the universe around them to their understanding of the nature of God. Great discoveries happened primarily in the western Christian world. Then, slowly, the "Age of Reason" began in which scientists started to conform the Bible to their understanding of the world. A dramatic, and dangerous, shift away from God to human reason.No problem. I know people have lives to live.
And what is an "objective" view in your understanding of the Nature of Science, Harley? I'm just wondering because I think that true and full objectivity is hard to come by where historical appraisal is involved in the process of doing science. This perspective about evolution being primarily a 'historical' concept contributes to the way I am able to hold both mainstream science and the Christian faith simultaneously. Both are historically mediated conceptually. So, when I refer to what I've learned from evolutionists either Christian or atheist, I tend not to get very disconcerted about it in relation to my faith in Christ. And as far as I know, the evolutionary Christian scientists that I read/study use the same measures and similar praxis that their irreligious counterparts do.
Anyway, I appreciate the thoughts and studies done by some Christian advocates of Intelligent Design, and I don't discount everything they say. It's just that there is a lot of philosophy that is tied up within the doing of science and, presently I don't find I.D. arguments overly compelling. At least not just yet. But who knows? Maybe someday, some bit of evidence for design will be brought forth that impels me to 'see' what I haven't noticed before. This is why I remain open to all philosophical considerations as they are plied to the protocols of science, and unlike the materialist perspective of Philosophical Naturalism, there really isn't much of anything in Methodological Naturalism, comparatively, that requires I ignore what proponents of I.D. might bring to the table of discovery and discussion.
At one time, up until very recent (late 1600+), scientists conformed their understanding of the universe around them to their understanding of the nature of God. Great discoveries happened primarily in the western Christian world. Then, slowly, the "Age of Reason" began in which scientists started to conform the Bible to their understanding of the world. A dramatic, and dangerous, shift away from God to human reason.
Right. It's not like we're competing factions in academia. They all play by the same rules.And as far as I know, the evolutionary Christian scientists that I read/study use the same measures and similar praxis that their irreligious counterparts do.
Have you read "Nature's Destiny" by Michael Denton? His notion that "the designer" "front-loaded" the universe to produce living things (and ultimately us) sounds like a reasonable one to me.Anyway, I appreciate the thoughts and studies done by some Christian advocates of Intelligent Design, and I don't discount everything they say.
Yep.Right. It's not like we're competing factions in academia. They all play by the same rules.
No, but I think I remember going through one of his other books from twenty years ago about the same time I was reading some Kenneth Miller among a number of others.Have you read "Nature's Destiny" by Michael Denton? His notion that "the designer" "front-loaded" the universe to produce living things (and ultimately us) sounds like a reasonable one to me.
He makes it clear that a rational understanding of teleology via a designer would rule out YE creationism as a possibility. I disagree with Denton on a number of things, but on this point, I think he has it right.
I've had the opportunity to listen to Miller and meet him. He's a very pleasant person, with a good sense of humor.No, but I think I remember going through one of his other books from twenty years ago about the same time I was reading some Kenneth Miller among a number of others.
This is not a fair analogy. The event where Jesus changes water to wine has no evidence other than the biblical account. More specifically, there is no evidence that this event did not occur.Like Jesus changing water to wine, the so called "evidence" suggest nothing. Just as you mentioned the God "could" have done so. One has to have some very hard evidence from an independent source.
If I made it sound like every scientist in the last 500 years has been atheists, then I'm sorry for the confusion. My emphasis is on the here and now.That's not exactly how things have transpired historically among scientists or theologians. There have been a lot of messy philosophical surmising over the many centuries, all mixed in with both Christian Theology, even before modern science. There has been more than one or two paradigm shifts over the millennia. You make it sound like modern scientists over the past 500 years have all been atheists and have purposefully lied in order to cheat folks out of the Christian faith. And I think that sort of thesis doesn't really hold up. It's only a half-truth.
The upshot is that everyone, Christian Theologians and various scientists, whether Christian or atheistic, have averred that they should use their God-given minds in order to make sense out of the world. Even those Christians who ambiguate by saying we can "rely on God and not on human reason" use reason in order to create and imply a false disjunction between God and Reason.
Besides, no one should be mindlessly reading the Bible.
"The event where Jesus changes water to wine has no evidence other than the biblical account. More specifically, there is no evidence that this event did not occur."This is not a fair analogy. The event where Jesus changes water to wine has no evidence other than the biblical account. More specifically, there is no evidence that this event did not occur.
By contrast, there is oodles of evidence that evolution took place.
It certainly seems you are trying to suggest that if I deny young Earth creationism, I have to deny the water to wine miracle. But that is not the case at all. Whereas there is plenty of evidence to reject young Earth creationism, there is no particular evidence to reject the water into wine miracle.
Orthodox Christianity takes no stand on the evolution/special creation issue. And God doesn't care if you approve of evolution or not. Only if you make an idol of your new beliefs, will it be a problem for you. Christians should tread very carefully in making claims that runs counter to sound biblical teaching.If I made it sound like every scientist in the last 500 years has been atheists, then I'm sorry for the confusion. My emphasis is on the here and now.
What I see today is a slow erosion and drift away from orthodox biblical belief among Christians who buy into what the world is peddling. It is certainly prevalent in today's church (in every church/Church).
It's rather laughable for a Catholic, with their beads, prayers to Mary/saints, relics, etc., to tell a Protestant about the "idol of evolution".Orthodox Christianity takes no stand on the evolution/special creation issue. And God doesn't care if you approve of evolution or not. Only if you make an idol of your new beliefs, will it be a problem for you. Christians should tread very carefully in making claims that runs counter to sound biblical teaching.
I know you're not a wacky, crazy person, although you may perhaps be overcompensating a bit to make up for what you feel is lost time.If I made it sound like every scientist in the last 500 years has been atheists, then I'm sorry for the confusion. My emphasis is on the here and now.
What I see today is a slow erosion and drift away from orthodox biblical belief among Christians who buy into what the world is peddling. It is certainly prevalent in today's church (in every church/Church). It doesn't mean one has to disregard or dismiss science. I'm not some wacky crazy person that believes every time you cut your finger let's send it to the prayer chain for healing rather than pulling out the Neosporin and bandaids.
Well, I'm sorry, but I don't think science and scripture have to be compatible in order for a person to have faith in Jesus Christ. This is a false dilemma, a canard that both atheists (mainly disgruntled ex-christians) and some Christians have ingratiated themselves to. I don't suspect that as the Falling Away commences further on in time that this outcome will be reversed. Another reason not to get too worried about the fact that folks are letting go of the Bible, in more ways than one and not just on the level of 'orthodoxy.'Science and scripture should be compatible. But that isn’t what I’m hearing-especially with evolution. Where one cannot reconcile the two, scripture should always trump. Not because of blind faith, but in every case, there is simply not enough solid, definitive information. Many of the things in scripture that was pooh-pooh one hundred years ago have been found to be true. And, many of the things we don't understand now, eventually work themselves out as we study and understand the scriptures. This I've learned from experience.
Christians should tread very carefully in making claims that runs counter to sound biblical teaching.
Matthew 5:19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
I notice that Martin Luther said that Mary was due veneration as the Mother of God. And you should know that The Church says that images and relics have no power whatever. Your idolization of YE doctrines is quite another issue. Instead of hating other Christians, you should just find a way to accept God's word as He has given it to you.It's rather laughable for a Catholic, with their beads, prayers to Mary/saints, relics, etc., to tell a Protestant about the "idol of evolution".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?