Evolutionists win by default....

[Follower of Christ]

lucaspa:
"Second, the fact is there is no way for a 6 day creationist to have a valid position. "



FOC:
And there it is in a nutshell.

I leave this part of the forum as I came in,

To all the brethren out there buying into evolution,
Please be careful.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 09:45 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #1

lucaspa:
"Second, the fact is there is no way for a 6 day creationist to have a valid position. "



FOC:
And there it is in a nutshell. 

And this is why it is sometimes difficult to have respect for creationists.  This is a classic out-of-context quote.  The entire paragraph read: 
"Second, the fact is there is no way for a 6 day creationist to have a valid position.  The data in God's Creation is overwhelming that God simply didn't create that way.  This was seen by Christian scientists (most of whom were ministers) by 1820.  By then, virtually no Christian thought that creation had taken 6 days or that the earth was young. "

Notice that I am not ruling out YEC by "default", but because the data says it can't be true. 

FOC, if the data had been different, we would have had no trouble accepting YEC.  Examples of data that would have falsified an old earth and supported YEC:

1. No stars visible beyond 6,000 light years and new visible stars recorded thru history as their light first reached earth.
2. No fossils
3. All bones of all animals mixed together in the sediments, since they were all contemporaries.
4. Very little sedimentary rock since erosion would not have had time to make any.
5. No metamorphic rock because there is no time to have made it.
6. Short half-life isotopes in the earth's crust.

FOC, if all this had been found, then YEC would be the accepted theory today. BUT, the data instead is exactly opposite of what we would find if  YEC were true.  Since true statements can't have false consequences, YEC is false. Being false, it simply can't be a valid position to take.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Is that the smell of sour grapes?

 

[euphoric]

Today at 03:21 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #3

Is that the smell of sour grapes?

Actually, it's the distinct odor of troll, I believe.

-brett

 

[Melchior]

Although I disagree with Lucaspa's Judeo/Christian Deistism, he certainly uses his brain when evauting and interpreting the Bible and applying that theology to what he observers in the real world.

And unlike 90% of the Christian posters on this board, his knowledge and understanding of the Bible is way above those who just spew out the unthoughtful rheotric they hear from their ministers and biased web sites.

I honestly enjoy debating with him and enjoy his posts more then many of the atheists who post here.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 10:32 AM Melchior said this in Post #5

Although I disagree with Lucaspa's Judeo/Christian Deistism, he certainly uses his brain when evauting and interpreting the Bible and applying that theology to what he observers in the real world.

And unlike 90% of the Christian posters on this board, his knowledge and understanding of the Bible is way above those who just spew out the unthoughtful rheotric they hear from their ministers and biased web sites.

I honestly enjoy debating with him and enjoy his posts more then many of the atheists who post here.

Why, thank you, sir!

There is no compulsion to agree with Judeo/Christianity.  That a deity exists or not is independent of any arguments of the matter.

One thing, Melchior, don't mistake discussion of specific claims as indicative of a belief.  If you look carefully, you will see that I am almost always (can't think of an exception right now, but there may be one) discussing a specific claim about the Bible or Judeo/Christianity.  IOW, is this interpretation the only interpretation? Is this argument for the non-existence of deity valid? Does a particular verse say what you say it does?

That is not the same as saying: "deity exists" "deity doesn't exist" "Judeo/Christianity is the truth".

Do you see the difference?

 

[wblastyn]

By then, virtually no Christian thought that creation had taken 6 days or that the earth was young. "

When did the Creationist movement start again, and by who? I found some information that it may have been started by a 7th day adevntist?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 11:31 AM wblastyn said this in Post #7


When did the Creationist movement start again, and by who? I found some information that it may have been started by a 7th day adevntist?

My understanding is that it was revived in the '60's by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb after they published The Genesis Flood .

 

[ardipithecus]

Yesterday at 04:39 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #8

Today at 11:31 AM wblastyn said this in Post I]#7 [/I]


When did the Creationist movement start again, and by who? I found some information that it may have been started by a 7th day adevntist?

My understanding is that it was revived in the '60's by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb after they published The Genesis Flood .

You might want to find a copy of Ronald Numbers The Creationists which covers the history of creationism in detail.  It has excellent reviews from mainstream science sources as well as creationist sources.

Morris and Whitcomb were heavily influenced by a prior YEC/Flood "geologist" by the name of George McCready Price.  Price is almost certainly the 7th Day Adventist that wblastyn is thinking of.  Price was influenced the doctrines of the prophetess who founded that particular sect, Ellen White.  A good number of pre-Genesis Flood creation "scientists" were influenced by White. 

It should also point out that while YECism did die out for educated mainstream clergy, scientists, etc. there has always been YECs around.

 

 

[Francie]

I Genesis God said six days, I am not going to dispute his word. God Bless!

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 07:39 PM Francie said this in Post #10

I Genesis God said six days, I am not going to dispute his word. God Bless!

If I was forced to take a stance like that (literal Genesis), then I would conclude that the Christian God either doesn't exist or is lying, since the evidence in His Creation says He did not create as per a literal reading of Genesis.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 11:31 AM wblastyn said this in Post #7


When did the Creationist movement start again, and by who? I found some information that it may have been started by a 7th day adevntist?

Yep.  The founder of 7th day adventism (I can't recall her name right now) insisted on a literal reading of Genesis.  George McReady Price in the 1920s and 1930s revived Flood geology.  Whitcomb and Morris in their 1968 book The Genesis Flood started modern YEC.  Look up Ronald Numbers on the web and you will find links to all this.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 07:39 PM Francie said this in Post #10

I Genesis God said six days, I am not going to dispute his word. God Bless!

Francie, Pete has already given the problem with this attitude.  You are setting up Christianity to be falsified by tying an untestable statement "God created" to a very testable how of creation. When the testable "how" gets shown to be wrong, you have set up the untestable "God created" to be wrong too.  You are falsely condemning Christianity. 

What's worse, we are not dealing with "God said".  We are dealing with human authors and your human intepretation of those authors.  You are setting your human interpretation against what you believe is God's Creation.  And you have the chutzpah to believe your interpretation over God?  I have been told that pride is a deadly sin.  I wish you good luck!

 

[Francie]

Lucaspa , look at your own pride . The Bible is the inspired word of GOD man may have written it but God told them what to write. I put nothing obove GOD! You are taking His word and putting your own interpretation on it.

 

[Francie]

And let me just say, I am Proud to be a christian!And I do take the Bible as the literal word of GOD, THat is my opinion I did not try to attack you on a personal basis why are you doing that to me? I respect you for you for your opinion. please respect me for mine>GOD BLESS

 

[wblastyn]

And let me just say, I am Proud to be a christian!And I do take the Bible as the literal word of GOD, THat is my opinion I did not try to attack you on a personal basis why are you doing that to me? I respect you for you for your opinion. please respect me for mine>GOD BLESS

You implied that anyone who accepts evolution does not take God at His Word, which is wrong.


I'm a Christian but I don't take Genesis literally, like Pete said, if Christianity was based on a literal interpretation of Genesis then Christianity would be false, or God is lying to us. 

You'll find many Christians here who accept evolution.

Thanks everyone for your help on the beginning of modern creationism.

 

[Ray Cho]

I am a Christian as well, and I do take Genesis literally and historically.  I also subscribe to the scientific view that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that the evidence for universal common ancestry is overwhelming.

"WHAT?!?!?" (you may be thinking).  "Doesn't a literal interpretation of the Bible require a belief in 6-day creation?"  No, in fact it does not.  A literal interpretation of most modern English translations of the ancient Hebrew text of the Old Testament may require such, but a scholarly treatment of the original inspired text can reveal possible alternate translations that may maintain the historicity of Genesis without conflicting with the foundations of evolutionary theory.  Dismissing the first book of the Bible as "myth" or "parable" may be one convenient way to reconcile Christian faith with evolution, but I think many Christians may be giving up on the historical accuracy of Genesis too quickly. 

To cite one example that attempts to reconcile science with the creation account, Christian geologist Glenn Morton presents an interesting theory at www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/person.htm.  I'm not sure I completely agree with his theory, but it's worth considering.  There are many others out there that hold just as much merit.

I believe Christians should be open to the possibility that some middle ground exists between "literal" 6-day creation and the "myth" of Genesis.  To find such a stance is not an easy or straightforward proposition, but the Bible never says that studying God's word would be easy.



 

 

[Follower of Christ]

Good Choice Francie.
There plenty of reason to think that most of this so called evidence fits in to a young earth anyway.
As for Starlight, I have seen a couple of other ''theories'' that back up the bible.

If I am going to accept any ''theory'', it will be one that validates my bible.

 

[wblastyn]

If I am going to accept any ''theory'', it will be one that validates my bible.

Or your poor interpretation of it.

 

[euphoric]

Today at 03:15 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #18

Good Choice Francie.
There plenty of reason to think that most of this so called evidence fits in to a young earth anyway.
As for Starlight, I have seen a couple of other ''theories'' that back up the bible.

If I am going to accept any ''theory'', it will be one that validates my bible.

Evidence that supports a young earth?  Well don't be selfish, do share it with us.

-brett