Evolutionists win by default....

[Pete Harcoff]

Continuing with the line of thought from my previous post, I'd also like to point out the danger in presenting a literal Gen 1 as requirement for Christian theology.

If you explain to a non-theist that Gen 1 must be taken literally to accept Christian theology, then you run the risk of the non-theist (assuming they are familiar with modern science) concluding scenarios E or F.

While some creationist organizations would like to convince the average person that scenario B is really the case, it does not take much to see that there are flaws in many creationist lines of logic. This is further demonstrated by the simple fact that creationist organizations like AIG, ICR, etc, have adopted a theological basis for their position, not a scientific one. The simple fact that they outright reject any evidence that risks contravening their theological position, automatically renders their stance non-scientific.

So, attempting to convince a person that Gen 1 is literal, contrary to scientific discovery for the past 200 years... Well, it's not hard to see why they might reject such theology.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 03:01 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #38



Just did. Had I been holding an irony meter, it would have gone up in smoke.

I believe I see what you're aiming at there

Which came first belief in Gods written word OR: the theory of evolution.
( insert remarks about how evolution theory preceded scripture here).

Evolution coming afterward and the fact that it has worked like leaven throughout His congregation, I wont be surprised at all to see multitudes wishing they had only kept their faith in God Untainted by the world.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 03:55 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #41

Continuing with the line of thought from my previous post, I'd also like to point out the danger in presenting a literal Gen 1 as requirement for Christian theology.

If you explain to a non-theist that Gen 1 must be taken literally to accept Christian theology, then you run the risk of the non-theist (assuming they are familiar with modern science) concluding scenarios E or F.

While some creationist organizations would like to convince the average person that scenario B is really the case, it does not take much to see that there are flaws in many creationist lines of logic. This is further demonstrated by the simple fact that creationist organizations like AIG, ICR, etc, have adopted a theological basis for their position, not a scientific one. The simple fact that they outright reject any evidence that risks contravening their theological position, automatically renders their stance non-scientific.

So, attempting to convince a person that Gen 1 is literal, contrary to scientific discovery for the past 200 years... Well, it's not hard to see why they might reject such theology.

I love how all your secular and sellout ''christian'' scientists are the true scientists in your opinion.

Who cares what people reject.

God and His truth was rejected by the Hebrews time and again.
His Christ was rejected by the Hebrews.
His propitiation for our sins has been rejected by the masses since day one.

So why in the world would we care that anyone or even everyone rejects His truth now?
People will come to God on HIS terms and In HIS truth or not at all.

Many will come in that day and He will say He never knew them.
I wonder which group that could possibly be?
The ones who decided He was a liar because they couldnt understand Him.
Or the ones who decided to LIVE BY FAITH, NOT BY SIGHT

He will always have His remnant that takes Him seriously and who dont ridicule His word.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 07:29 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #42

Evolution coming afterward and the fact that it has worked like leaven throughout His congregation, I wont be surprised at all to see multitudes wishing they had only kept their faith in God Untainted by the world.

Ignorance is bliss, huh?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 07:40 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #43

I love how all your secular and sellout ''christian'' scientists are the true scientists in your opinion.

The theology which groups like AIG and ICR subscribe to is immovable. And the fact that they hold that theology above any and all scientific evidence, precludes them from doing honest science.

Many will come in that day and He will say He never knew them.
I wonder which group that could possibly be?

So what are you suggesting? That Christians that don't accept a literal 6-day creation are not True Christians (TM)?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Today at 02:45 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #35

Jesus was a humble man til it came to defending His fathers house.
Gods word needs defending from wolves in sheeps clothing

The weak and defenseless often need the most protecting. This is as true of ideologies as it is of people. 

 

[Nathan Poe]

Today at 07:29 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #42



I believe I see what you're aiming at there

Which came first belief in Gods written word OR: the theory of evolution.
( insert remarks about how evolution theory preceded scripture here).

No such remarks needed. But am I to understand that man's written word, accredited to God, is better becasue it came first? Are there to be no new, improved ideas in the world?

Evolution coming afterward and the fact that it has worked like leaven throughout His congregation, I wont be surprised at all to see multitudes wishing they had only kept their faith in God Untainted by the world.

I felt the same way when I found out the truth about Santa Claus. Of course, I was only six years old at the time, so I quickly recovered.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 08:14 PM Nathan Poe said this in Post #47



No such remarks needed. But am I to understand that man's written word, accredited to God, is better becasue it came first? Are there to be no new, improved ideas in the world?



I felt the same way when I found out the truth about Santa Claus. Of course, I was only six years old at the time, so I quickly recovered.

You omit yourself from my presentations because of your obvious unbelief.
How could you even begin to understand, yet remark on a situation that you have no knowledge of?

Without believing in God and His truth, you will believe anything presented to you in a convincing manner.

You ever play the PC game called ''Lemmings"
If not, buy a copy and check it out.
Just like sheep lead to the slaughter

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 08:04 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #45



The theology which groups like AIG and ICR subscribe to is immovable. And the fact that they hold that theology above any and all scientific evidence, precludes them from doing honest science.



So what are you suggesting? That Christians that don't accept a literal 6-day creation are not True Christians (TM)?

They are adamant because they have seen no real proof contrary to their faith.
They only even get involved so that they can save a few.


I do not say anything except that evolution is unproven theory being taught as fact.

It is Gods decision as to whether or not He approves to being called a liar.


''True Christians (TM)? ''

Are you from Dennis Mckinseys group? I have seen this there as well

 

[chickenman]

they'll never accept anything contrary to their faith, its written in their charter.

thats why they're not scientists

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 10:34 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #49

They are adamant because they have seen no real proof contrary to their faith.
They only even get involved so that they can save a few.

It's not that they haven't seen evidence contrary to their faith. It's that they've set up their faith so they can automatically dimiss evidence to the contrary. Or have you not seen AIG's statement of faith?

I do not say anything except that evolution is unproven theory being taught as fact.

All scientific theories are unproven. However, they are considered "fact"
because of the large body of evidence supporting them. That, and they have yet to be disproven.

It is Gods decision as to whether or not He approves to being called a liar.

So, according to you, accepting a non-literal intepretation of Gen 1 is calling God a liar? How do you know that? Did He tell you that?

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 10:42 PM chickenman said this in Post #50

they'll never accept anything contrary to their faith, its written in their charter.

thats why they're not scientists

Typical.
Anyone who disagrees with evolution, regardless of their credentials or motivations would not be ''scientists'' in your opinion, which is why we dont care about your opinion in this matter.

Other than starlight, the evidence fits our views, and even without theory on that we accept the biblical account of a 6 day creation.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 10:49 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #52

Typical.
Anyone who disagrees with evolution, regardless of their credentials or motivations would not be ''scientists'' in your opinion, which is why we dont care about your opinion in this matter.

It's a matter of whether or not they disagree with evolution. It's why they disagree with evolution. And they disagree with evolution because they view it incompatible with their faith. Which is all well and dandy, but it's not a scientific position.

Other than starlight, the evidence fits our views, and even without theory on that we accept the biblical account of a 6 day creation.

And again, this is why YEC is not scientific. You outright dismiss or ignore evidence that falsifies your position.

 

[Follower of Christ]

"It's not that they haven't seen evidence contrary to their faith. It's that they've set up their faith so they can automatically dimiss evidence to the contrary. Or have you not seen AIG's statement of faith?"


FOC:
Yes, I believe the term dogmatic would apply.
One thing I have learned is that supposed ''evidence'' does NOT dictate truth.




"All scientific theories are unproven. However, they are considered "fact"
because of the large body of evidence supporting them. That, and they have yet to be disproven."



FOC:
I say your facts fit fine into my young earth.



"So, according to you, accepting a non-literal intepretation of Gen 1 is calling God a liar? How do you know that? Did He tell you that?"



FOC:
Yes He did tell me that when His word said Let God be true and every man a liar.

 

[gentu]

Oy Vey, Follower. Don't take things so personally! If your interpretation of Genesis happens to be wrong based on what we see in God's Creation, so what? You still have faith in Christ!

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 10:55 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #53



It's a matter of whether or not they disagree with evolution. It's why they disagree with evolution. And they disagree with evolution because they view it incompatible with their faith. Which is all well and dandy, but it's not a scientific position.



And again, this is why YEC is not scientific. You outright dismiss or ignore evidence that falsifies your position. [/B]

This is turning into a game, please look around to some sites and see all the ''evidence'' your so called scientists ignore concerning evolution.
They also have their hedge.

Oh thats right, its would only be valid data if it agrees with your evolutionist POV.
If any creationist disputes your facts and evidence, then it immediatly becomes baised.

 

[edgeo]

Today at 08:49 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #52


Typical.
Anyone who disagrees with evolution, regardless of their credentials or motivations would not be ''scientists'' in your opinion, which is why we dont care about your opinion in this matter.

Other than starlight, the evidence fits our views, and even without theory on that we accept the biblical account of a 6 day creation.

No.  Chickenman is specifically referring to AIG and ICR.  You should read their statements of faith and tenets of scientific creationism.  They state that evidence that refutes creationism must be ignored. This is contrary to science, hence they cannot be practicing science...

I have little doubt that some creationists are very good scientists and engineers.  However, they do not use creationism in their work, and for the most part, they are not involved in any scientific discipline that hinges on origins.  This may be a generalization, but it is one of the most reliable in predicting individual traits that I have ever seen. 

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 11:05 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #56

This is turning into a game, please look around to some sites and see all the ''evidence'' your so called scientists ignore concerning evolution.
They also have their hedge.

Trust me, after spending the last year researching the subject, I've seen plenty of creationist material. In fact, that's how I got into the whole debate in the first place (I used to take creationist material from places like AIG at face value; I stopped when I began investigating some of their claims and discovering flaws in them).

Oh thats right, its would only be valid data if it agrees with your evolutionist POV.
If any creationist disputes your facts and evidence, then it immediatly becomes baised.

If you consider AIG so unbiased, then why do they need this as part of their statement of faith:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

They are not arguing from a scientific basis. They are arguing from a theological one. And the only way to dispute their position (at least from their perspective) is to question their theology.

 

[edgeo]

Today at 09:05 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #56

This is turning into a game, please look around to some sites and see all the ''evidence'' your so called scientists ignore concerning evolution.

No, it has not been ignored.  It has been refuted.  There is no need to back over that ground repeatedly. 

Oh thats right, its would only be valid data if it agrees with your evolutionist POV.

No, it would only be valid if it made sense. 

If any creationist disputes your facts and evidence, then it immediatly becomes baised.

Not a question of bias.  It is a question of accuracy.  Creationist claims have been found unsupportable in every case.  So, maybe, yes, we are biased.  We are biased against nonsense.


 



 

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Statements of Faith by AiG and ICR which clearly show their bias:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp

The Institute for Creation Research is a private, not-for-profit corporation, chartered by the State of California for the purposes of research, writing, and education in both the standard curriculum of each scientific discipline and the Institute's supplemental framework of scientific creationism and Biblical authority in all disciplines.

http://www.icr.org/abouticr/intro.htm

In other words, the authority of the Bible is maintained at all costs. That's where the claims of ignoring evidence and bias clearly apply. This does not follow the scientific method.