I desperately need valid proof of creationism.

[Speedwell]

deleted

 

[Speedwell]

Ad hominem? Fallacious satire? What post are you reading? And where does Darwin come into it? Where did I dismiss original sin?

Well, never mind. I still don't get it. You are making what you obviously consider to be a cogent argument, but I think you have left out, or assumed, a premise or two. I dismiss Luke's genealogy as irrelevant to the discussion. Romans 5 is based only and entirely on the Garden story. It is a literary excursion, not a factual or historical one. Given the nature of the story and the fact of its divine inspiration, for Paul's purposes the historicity of the story is unimportant. Undoubtedly he believed that it was historical in some sense, as do I, but you cannot determine from Paul's use of the story that he believed it the product of plenary verbal inspiration or 100% accurate literal history or what ever you think you need it to be in order to combat "Darwinism."

Can you not forget about Darwin for even a little while?

 

[mark kennedy]

Ad hominem? Fallacious satire? What post are you reading? And where does Darwin come into it? Where did I dismiss original sin?

Now it's going in circles again, the ideology is Darwinian, there is no mistaking it.

Well, never mind. I still don't get it. You are making what you obviously consider to be a cogent argument, but I think you have left out, or assumed, a premise or two. I dismiss Luke's genealogy as irrelevant to the discussion. Romans 5 is based only and entirely on the Garden story. It is a literary excursion, not a factual or historical one. Given the nature of the story and the fact of its divine inspiration, for Paul's purposes the historicity of the story is unimportant. Undoubtedly he believed that it was historical in some sense, as do I, but you cannot determine from Paul's use of the story that he believed it the product of plenary verbal inspiration or 100% accurate literal history or what ever you think you need it to be in order to combat "Darwinism."

Can you not forget about Darwin for even a little while?

Calling it an excursion ignores the immediate and proximate context. Just as you have no figurative language in Genesis one, there is no squirming out of the core emphasis on lineage and the source of original sin being one man, Adam, the first parent of humanity. You may believe yourself at liberty to dismiss the authority and veracity of Scripture, and of course your entitled to your opinion. But don't try to pass it off as an interpretation, excursion or some convoluted plenary rationalization. There are no interpretative challenges here, you either believe it or you don't and that goes for the Genesis account of creation. The creation account transcends Scripture, literally from the first chapter of the Bible to the last. Your treatment of the New Testament witness concerning creation indicates clearly, your interpretation of Genesis one is not about an isolated text but extends well into the New Testament.

 

[Speedwell]

Now it's going in circles again, the ideology is Darwinian, there is no mistaking it.

No, it's much older than Darwinism, and if the theory of evolution was overturned tomorrow my understanding of Genesis wouldn't change.
But you accused me of "dismissing" original sin. That is a false and offensive accusation, and I require you to prove it.

Calling it an excursion ignores the immediate and proximate context. Just as you have no figurative language in Genesis one...

I thought we were talking about Gen 2.

You may believe yourself at liberty to dismiss the authority and veracity of Scripture...

Another false accusation. For me, the "authority and veracity" of Genesis 2 derives from its divine inspiration, not its verifiable historicity. Are you sure you believe Gen 2 to be an inspired text?

Your treatment of the New Testament witness concerning creation indicates clearly, your interpretation of Genesis one is not about an isolated text but extends well into the New Testament.

No, you may not like my interpretation of Scripture, but I am not so witless as to use the same interpretive scheme for the entire book.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, it's much older than Darwinism, and if the theory of evolution was overturned tomorrow my understanding of Genesis wouldn't change.

I don't know why you can't call it what it is because it's Darwinian naturalistic assumptions that are at the heart of this issue, and you know it. Genesis is an historical narrative, the literal understanding is always preferred and assumed unless you have good reason not to. Genesis is a simple, straight forward series of people and events and you either believe it or you don't.

But you accused me of "dismissing" original sin. That is a false and offensive accusation, and I require you to prove it.

Demand anything you like, this is nothing more then melodrama. You lost the exchange and now you want to bury it by feigning moral indignation. You have not addressed the substance of the argument, which really isn't an argument just a basic exposition of the proof texts. Since you can't squirm out of it you left with nothing but ad hominem attacks, in order to stoke the internal motivation you just pretend to be outraged. It would not be so bad if it were not every single time, you always end up here, I always hoped you would finally learn. This isn't about me, it's about the substance of the text of the canon of Scripture and how it relates to the scientific evidence for natural history. Save the dramatic performance for someone who appreciates it because I know your indignation is with what I believe, not what I have said.

I thought we were talking about Gen 2. Another false accusation. For me, the "authority and veracity" of Genesis 2 derives from its divine inspiration, not its verifiable historicity.

Kind of switching off from pretending to be confused to feigning moral indignation I see. We are talking about the New Testament witness concerning the creation account in Genesis, specifically Luke calling Adam son of God and Paul's exposition in Romans 5. We have been chasing this in circles because you either want to pretend to be confused or pretend to but offended but the problem is you don't believe the Genesis account of creation happened. There is no need to verify the historicity, it's possible but there is no point if your not open to it as a possibility. Scripture in a living witness and the canon of the Christian faith, it is a stand alone primary source document not subject to secular skepticism nor your private interpretation.

This is how it works, you deny the historicity I conclude unbelief. Get as indignant as you like because there is no other logical explanation, you believe it happened or you don't.

Are you sure you believe Gen 2 to be an inspired text? No, you may not like my interpretation of Scripture, but I am not so witless as to use the same interpretive scheme for the entire book.

You don't seem to understand but to be honest, I know you do. What I believe is that Moses at the foot of Sinai began writing down what is known as the Pentateuch what God himself revealed and did from that time till Israel crossed the Jordon about 40 years later. The substance of the text has not changed significantly in all the time since, the historicity of those texts is evident and obvious, you either believe it or you don't. If by inspiration do I believe God spoke to Moses and Moses recorded what God said I would simply respond, of course, that's what the argument is about in the first place.

The fact that you don't believe the creation account sets a chain reaction, the sin of Adam and the doctrine of original sin are directly effected and profoundly changed. I made an obvious statement about Luke calling Adam 'son of God', because he was created that you could not refute and did not even really try, it is obvious. Then Romans 5, the most extensive discussion of Adam in the New Testament and I gave you an extensive, detailed exposition of the text that you simply ignored.

Paul's argument is predicated on Adam being the first parent of humanity and the sin of Adam condemns us all. Another obvious conclusion from an unambiguous text which you will neither accept, deny or otherwise address because it's undeniable.

Now comes the dramatic acting, I've seen it too many times and it always ends up here. The subject will be me and the predicate will be emotive negativity but it's invariably going to end in ad hominem banter. The substance of the discussion gets buried, any interested bystanders drift away and when your done I can find the exact same thing anywhere this issue is addressed.

The historical narratives of Genesis do not require fancy terminology, scientific acumen or emotive personal engagement. You either believe it or you don't.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Speedwell]

I don't know why you can't call it what it is because it's Darwinian naturalistic assumptions that are at the heart of this issue, and you know it.

What I know is that accusing me of accepting "Darwinian naturalistic assumptions" is a sly and indirect accusation of atheism. Of course I am offended by the manner of it.

Genesis is an historical narrative, the literal understanding is always preferred and assumed unless you have good reason not to. Genesis is a simple, straight forward series of people and events and you either believe it or you don't.

OK, I don't believe it. Is that what you wanted to hear? I don't believe that the Genesis creation stories are or were intended to be a literal description of history. Moreover, I don't believe that accepting them as literal history is necessary to accepting Paul's exposition of original sin in Romans 5.

it's about the substance of the text of the canon of Scripture and how it relates to the scientific evidence for natural history.

The substance of the text of the canon has nothing to do with the scientific evidence for natural history.

Save the dramatic performance for someone who appreciates it because I know your indignation is with what I believe, not what I have said.

Of course it is. What you believe is that you and your sect are right about the Bible and all the rest of us are willfully wrong and that you are justified to sneer at and despise any attempts at explanation.

Scripture in a living witness and the canon of the Christian faith, it is a stand alone primary source document not subject to secular skepticism nor your private interpretation.

I would be flattered that you regarded my view of scripture as a "private interpretation" if I did not know that it derived from an abysmal ignorance of Christian tradition.

This is how it works, you deny the historicity I conclude unbelief.

That, at least, is a straightforward statement. Good. You are welcome to believe that I am an atheist. I regard it as something of a testimonial to my faith.

 

[mark kennedy]

What I know is that accusing me of accepting "Darwinian naturalistic assumptions" is a sly and indirect accusation of atheism. Of course I am offended by the manner of it.

No you are equivocating Darwinian naturalistic assumptions with atheism, if I meant atheistic materialism, I would have said that, and you know it. Your just trying to build up some steam, so you can pretend to be indignant, because you don't have an argument.

OK, I don't believe it. Is that what you wanted to hear?

No, that's what I was trying to say when you got all indignant.

I don't believe that the Genesis creation stories are or were intended to be a literal description of history.

Right, so Moses wasn't a prophet or a Levitical scribe, he was an historical novelist. Must have missed the footnote on that one.

Moreover, I don't believe that accepting them as literal history is necessary to accepting Paul's exposition of original sin in Romans 5.

Sure that just leaves you with no explanation for original sin, why would you need one of those?

The substance of the text of the canon has nothing to do with the scientific evidence for natural history.

It does if your talking about natural history, or just plain history, unless you think Genesis is fiction, which would make evidence irrelevant.

Of course it is. What you believe is that you and your sect are right about the Bible and all the rest of us are willfully wrong and that you are justified to sneer at and despise any attempts at explanation.

Where do you think I'm getting this, from snake handlers in the Appalachians, I have never met an evangelical or fundamentalist who even knows about creationism. That's why I come on here. As for my opinion, about your opinion, about the context of the proof texts. It's my opinion that it's not a matter of opinion, when it's the clear meaning of the text. I'm basing everything I'm saying to you on what Moses, Luke and Paul have said to you, you just choose not to believe it. I'm not sneering, I don't despise you and I have no idea if you are being willful, factious, frivolous or otherwise. I do know you are wrong and I suspect you know that, you just don't like the fact that you can't get the text to say what you want it to mean.

I would be flattered that you regarded my view of scripture as a "private interpretation" if I did not know that it derived from an abysmal ignorance of Christian tradition. That, at least, is a straightforward statement. Good. You are welcome to believe that I am an atheist. I regard it as something of a testimonial to my faith.

I'm not surprised you missed that one:

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (2 Peter 1:20)
​

The Scriptures are the core of Christian tradition and traditionally the Genesis account of creation and original sin were taken quite literally. It was not until the advent of Darwinism that professing Christian thought it wise to dismiss the Genesis accounts as imaginative, figurative or otherwise fictitious stories. The problem isn't evolution, or the theory of evolution, the problem is Darwinian naturalistic assumptions being mutually exclusive with creation.

Finally, being thought of as an atheist, you consider to be a testimony to your faith? Is that some kind of a Freudian slip or what. All I've been doing is showing you from the Scriptures that Adam is defined and described in Scripture, especially in the New Testament as the first parent of humanity, and his sin, is the reason we are condemned as sinners. When you were confronted with this fact, from a straightforward exposition of Romans 5, you became defensive and indignant. Now you are circling the drain, in a downward spiral, due to a fallacious argument and diversionary tactics.

There are other passages, there are other issues like the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah. It just doesn't matter what the specifics are when the argument is essentially fallacious. The subject is me, the predicate is negative, and the substance of the discussion is gone. It doesn't matter where it starts it always ends up here. I have no reason to judge you, I have no way of knowing what you believe or why, all I know is you are denying what the Scriptures state clearly as matters of fact, not opinion. Don't blame me if you can't defend your worldview, go complain to the Darwinians, it's not my fault that lemon they sold you keeps breaking down. Just don't expect me to get out and push.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Speedwell]

No you are equivocating Darwinian naturalistic assumptions with atheism, if I meant atheistic materialism, I would have said that, and you know it. Your just trying to build up some steam, so you can pretend to be indignant, because you don't have an argument.

Well, I forgive you for that one, because you did indeed make an unequivocal accusation of atheism at the end of your last post--nothing sly or indirect about it.

No, I don't have an "argument." I was just trying to explain what I believe and why.

No, that's what I was trying to say when you got all indignant.

And here I thought we were taking it for granted all along. After all, I have said the same thing on a number of occasions.

Sure that just leaves you with no explanation for original sin, why would you need one of those?

I don't. That I am a sinner in need of redemption is a fact of my present experience. I don't need to read about it in a book to find out. I don't know, and neither did the author(s) of the Garden story, which is why it is in the form of an etiology. A divinely inspired etiology is enough for me.

I'm not surprised you missed that one:

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (2 Peter 1:20)​

​

I didn't miss it; I don't think you know what it means.

The Scriptures are the core of Christian tradition and traditionally the Genesis account of creation and original sin were taken quite literally. It was not until the advent of Darwinism that professing Christian thought it wise to dismiss the Genesis accounts as imaginative, figurative or otherwise fictitious stories.

LOL!

The problem isn't evolution, or the theory of evolution, the problem is Darwinian naturalistic assumptions being mutually exclusive with creation.

If you don't mean metaphysical materialism, I'm not sure what "assumptions" you are talking about.

Finally, being thought of as an atheist, you consider to be a testimony to your faith?

Coming from you, yes.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, I forgive you for that one, because you did indeed make an unequivocal accusation of atheism at the end of your last post--nothing sly or indirect about it.

You said atheist, I said naturalistic assumptions.

No, I don't have an "argument." I was just trying to explain what I believe and why.

I'm simply doing an exposition of the New Testament witness concerning Adam and original sin. You have no argument, that's called conceding the point.

And here I thought we were taking it for granted all along. After all, I have said the same thing on a number of occasions.

Oh you have been clear, but then again so was Luke, Paul and Moses.

I don't. That I am a sinner in need of redemption is a fact of my present experience. I don't need to read about it in a book to find out. I don't know, and neither did the author(s) of the Garden story, which is why it is in the form of an etiology. A divinely inspired etiology is enough for me.

You know you are a sinner, Paul tells us why. No need for esoteric language:

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned. (Romans 5:12)​

Paul in unambiguous, why aren't you?

I didn't miss it; I don't think you know what it means.

It means what it says and no Scripture is of any private interpretation, not the prophets and not yours:

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (2 Peter 1:20)
​

You really struggle with the obvious don't you.

LOL! If you don't mean metaphysical materialism, I'm not sure what "assumptions" you are talking about.

This is what I'm talking about:

All change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
​

And yes, it's metaphysical materialism. Darwinian naturalistic assumptions are transcendent, that much is clear.

Coming from you, yes.

Ok, it's not a Freudian slip, it's a boast. No wonder you are so defensive.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Speedwell]

You said atheist, I said naturalistic assumptions.

And then you go on to define those naturalistic assumptions as metaphysical materialism.
Metaphysical materialism = atheism.

I'm simply doing an exposition of the New Testament witness concerning Adam and original sin. You have no argument, that's called conceding the point.

Yes, you win. I concede the point. You have consigned me to Hell because I don't "believe the Bible" and mere faith in Christ will not save me. One good thing about Hell--that even you are powerless to do anything about--is that I won't have to share it with the likes of you.

 

[mark kennedy]

And then you go on to define those naturalistic assumptions as metaphysical materialism.
Metaphysical materialism = atheism.

That's the philosophy of Darwinism, that's what I like about you, you at least admit the obvious.

Yes, you win. I concede the point. You have consigned me to Hell because I don't "believe the Bible" and mere faith in Christ will not save me. One good thing about Hell--that even you are powerless to do anything about--is that I won't have to share it with the likes of you.

That's the spirit, rage against the dying of the light! I don't think the influence of Darwinism makes you a child of perdition so lets dispense with the melodrama. At the end of the day it comes down to the exposition of the New Testament witness concerning Genesis. Yes, you failed to make a substantive point about the Genesis account of creation and original sin being figurative, but that does not consign you to the lake of fire. It doesn't mean you lost your soul, it means you got on the wrong horse.

Maybe you should consider whether you want to side with secular skeptics or perhaps consider the New Testament witness. I'm not trying to convince you that you are not a Christian, I'm just reminding you that you are one. Friendship with the world is enmity against God and we are all guilty of it at one time or another. The only real question is why, and if we are willing to surrender our egos to God, because just as God created the world once, he will again. It's up to you if you want to be part of that.

I don't want to fight you, I'm trying to convince you to reconsider. I'm appealing to you from the Scriptures, isn't that something we are supposed to have in common as Christians? For crying out loud dude, back off the melodrama and lets just talk like adults.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Speedwell]

I don't want to fight you, I'm trying to convince you to reconsider. I'm appealing to you from the Scriptures, isn't that something we are supposed to have in common as Christians?

You are appealing to me from your interpretation of scripture which you insist is the only possible correct one. You will not even entertain in a civil manner the notion that any other interpretation is possible, much less older or more widely believed.

For crying out loud dude, back off the melodrama...

Melodrama? Don't you recognize irony when you see it? I'll admit that it shows an unchristian lack of respect, but it's hardly melodrama.

...and lets just talk like adults.

I don't think that's possible. You don't want to talk; all you want to do is win.

 

[mark kennedy]

You are appealing to me from your interpretation of scripture which you insist is the only possible correct one. You will not even entertain in a civil manner the notion that any other interpretation is possible, much less older or more widely believed.Melodrama? Don't you recognize irony when you see it? I'll admit that it shows an unchristian lack of respect, but it's hardly melodrama. I don't think that's possible. You don't want to talk; all you want to do is win.

You say all that without reference to the text and drenched in drama, with nothing but personal references. I stand on the clear testimony of Scripture and you manage to avoid any reference to the text. Where is your exposition of Romans, chapter five or elsewhere? You don't appeal to the Scriptures, you don't talk to me like a fellow Christian, you confront me like I stole your wallet. I'm appealing to you from the clear testimony of Scripture, I have no malice, I have no agenda. I have no animosity and you offer nothing but angry words for someone who has shown you nothing but kindness. If you are satisfied that the Darwinians have made their case I have no problem with you, go in peace. If on the other hand you are willing to consider the New Testament witness concerning Adam, original creation and original sin, then you are left with a choice. Take your stand on the gospel, or stand against it.

Your right, I do want to win, but I don't want to beat you, I want you to understand. I have been trying to show you what the Scriptures actually say and you can believe it or not. I didn't write it and it doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. What matters, what carries the most weight, what this really comes down to is what the Scriptures actually say. According to Paul:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).
​

Take it or leave it, but the truth is plain to see.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Speedwell]

Have you never wondered why it is, that the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental churches have never felt themselves as threatened by the theory of evolution as you Evangelical Protestants seem to be? They haven't changed their traditional view of scripture, it was the same before "Darwinism" as it is now. It appears that it is only your interpretation of scripture which is under serious threat from Darwinism.
So here you are trying to convince me to trade in my own substantially similar traditional view (which btw causes me no difficulty in accepting Romans 5 at face value) for yours.
No, I don't think you are trying to steal my wallet. I see you more as a guy in a flashy suit trying to sell me a dodgy-looking used car.

 

[mark kennedy]

Have you never wondered why it is, that the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental churches have never felt themselves as threatened by the theory of evolution as you Evangelical Protestants seem to be? They haven't changed their traditional view of scripture, it was the same before "Darwinism" as it is now. It appears that it is only your interpretation of scripture which is under serious threat from Darwinism.

I don't feel threatened, Orthodox and Catholic churches care more about ecccelsistical authority then Scripture. They feel it's only canon because they say it is, I've actually debated a number of them. They have a creation doctrine just like all Christians:

The fact that Adam and Eve were created by God last of all the other created beings and in a different way - not just by the utterance of a Divine Word but by the direct involvement and action of God - indicates not only the outstanding position of the human in the whole of the creation, but also its special relation to God. According to the Church Fathers, Genesis 1:26 ff, "...Let us make man. Orthodox Perspectives on Creation​

Like all traditions, they aren't worried about Darwinism, they teach the doctrine of creation and ignore Darwinism. Catholics believe Adam was the first parent of humanity as well, special emphasis is put on original sin:

1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offense of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offense of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema. (The Council of Trent. The Fifth Session)​

So here you are trying to convince me to trade in my own substantially similar traditional view (which btw causes me no difficulty in accepting Romans 5 at face value) for yours.
No, I don't think you are trying to steal my wallet. I see you more as a guy in a flashy suit trying to sell me a dodgy-looking used car.

Let's see, no answer for the expositions, no Christian tradition that supports this worldview, and I'm the one selling a junker. Creation is essential doctrine, you either believe it or you don't. I gain nothing, I lose nothing, one way or the other.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't feel threatened, Orthodox and Catholic churches care more about eccelsistical authority then Scripture.

Actually, it's Apostolic and Patristic authority they care about as much as they care about Scripture, but that's a side issue. And I am as capable of ignoring Darwin when it suits me as any Orthodox Christian. You're the one who thinks this is all about Darwinism.

Let's see, no answer for the expositions, no Christian tradition that supports this worldview, and I'm the one selling a junker. Creation is essential doctrine, you either believe it or you don't. I gain nothing, I lose nothing, one way or the other.

Right. And the "junker" you are trying to sell me is not the creation doctrine which we share with all Christians, not whether Adam was the parent of all humanity, not whether his fall brought sin and death into the world, etc.

It's that the text of the Garden story must be 100% accurate literal history or none of it ever happened.

 

[mark kennedy]

Actually, it's Apostolic and Patristic authority they care about as much as they care about Scripture, but that's a side issue. And I am as capable of ignoring Darwin when it suits me as any Orthodox Christian. You're the one who thinks this is all about Darwinism.

There was a time I was interested in the subject matter just because it was interesting. Darwinism is just another word for naturalism which is what Darwin and his contemporaries would have called it. What is interesting here is that without being about to make a point stick you still cling to the notion that there is an agument to be had. I don't really see this as all that controversal, it's just a pass time I endulge in because in this case, it turned into an exposition. Now I have some interesting material on what the Greek Orthodox teach regarding creation. The antagonism is probably what kept my interest over the years since it's not based on behavior. Popped into the common forum and made some passing remarks about radiometric testing, the very first thing and virtually the only thing they respond with is what big fat liars AIG is. That's not an argument, it's a rhetorical fallacy.

Right. And the "junker" you are trying to sell me is not the creation doctrine which we share with all Christians, not whether Adam was the parent of all humanity, not whether his fall brought sin and death into the world, etc.

Who says I'm selling anything, I pursue this to learn more about the doctrine of creation. The fact that you spar with me helps me to develop further, fielding objections and trying new approaches to the material. The lemon car analogy is just some random satire I like to use when Darwinian logic breaks down and leaves you with nothing but fallacious rhetoric.

It's that the text of the Garden story must be 100% accurate literal history or none of it ever happened.

Your not going to find much from church history defending creation, some of what you do encounter is kind of interesting. The trinity is the top apologetic issue of all time for the church, due almost entirely to the incaration. Somehow the doctrine of creation is related to the incarnation, the two doctrine are interwined in the Nicene Creed and in 'On the Incarnation of the Word' (Athanasius) there is an apologetic argument concerning creation. He defended an ex nihilo creation that Catholics and Orthodox hold to, to this day. Their view is more like Intelligent Design whereas what we call Creationism has historically been known as Nature Theology. I know that because that's what Francis Bacon called it and the book Natural Theology by William Paley that has the famous watch and stone analogy.

This is just an intellectual exercise for me, your the one who likes getting all dramatic. It's the contentious nature of Darwinism that drives so many Christians from learning more. That and the fact that the Scriptures couldn't be clearer.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Speedwell]

Popped into the common forum and made some passing remarks about radiometric testing, the very first thing and virtually the only thing they respond with is what big fat liars AIG is. That's not an argument, it's a rhetorical fallacy.

The problem with those Creationist propaganda sites is that they misrepresent the content of the theory of evolution, essentially erecting a straw man. AiG is the most reputable of the lot and it may not be fair to say that they are actually lying about it. The worst of them is CRI, a commercial outfit who wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the fanny.

Who says I'm selling anything, I pursue this to learn more about the doctrine of creation. The fact that you spar with me helps me to develop further, fielding objections and trying new approaches to the material. The lemon car analogy is just some random satire I like to use when Darwinian logic breaks down and leaves you with nothing but fallacious rhetoric.

Fallacious rhetoric? Like when you say that you can conclude atheism from a disbelief in your Bible doctrine?

That and the fact that the Scriptures couldn't be clearer.

Ah, the doctrine of perspicuity. Along with literal inerrancy, self-interpretation and plenary verbal inspiration, the spawn of that unfortunate event whose 500th anniversary we mark today.

 

[Thursday]

Hello everyone,

I'm assuming that this is the correct subforum in which to post this topic, but if not, forgive me. Basically, I've grown up in a home that believes in 100% biblical inerrancy and that's what I've believed, but recently I've been having a lot of doubts about creationism in particular. There are a few articles and websites that I have read that seem to completely and almost convincingly refute the idea of creationism. I'll link them below.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthr...ams-10-facts-that-prove-creationism-debunked/

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability_of_creationism

How am I, as a Christian, supposed to keep my belief in biblical inerrancy when there are all of these rebuttals that seemingly debunk creationism? Why can't creationists come up with good rebuttals to evolutionists' claims and rebuttals? If the creation story and the fall of man aren't true then is there no original sin by Adam? If there wasn't then why did God even have to send Christ to die for us, or did He? Was there even divine intervention in the universe's creation or formation? Is my faith just weak? I don't mean to cause controversy, I just really need some answers. I'm so tired of doubting my whole life. If these can't be answered, I'm afraid I may start to slip away to agnosticism. So, if anyone has answers, please share them.

Thank you!

The bible can be true without being 100% literal.

Much of the bible is allegory and poetry designed to teach.

It is not a science book.

 

[~Anastasia~]

In regards to 'proving' evolution', are you familiar with the Lenski study? Dr. Lenski has developed over 50 000 generations of E. Coli in order to map out long term development. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Here's a link

Thank you for the link. I didn't see conclusions posted there, so I read a few abstracts, and an interview with Dr. Lenski.

I suppose one needs to define "evolution". This is going to sound simplistic, perhaps, but my basic thoughts are that it doesn't surprise me at all that after 64,000 generations, the E. coli are larger and more efficient at processing glucose. If that's the type of evolution one argues for, then that is all well and good.

We can look at domestic breeds of dog and see far more variation and specialization in fewer than 64,000 generations, through selective breeding. That doesn't surprise me either. But I also wouldn't put that on a par as proof that all life on earth in their present forms arose out of single-celled organisms (and before that, simple proteins), as a result of sufficient time and environmental pressures. Those breeds of dogs are still dogs, and can produce viable offspring with one another - indeed, they can often produce viable offspring with a number of related canine species.

In the same way, after 64,000 generations, he still has E.coli? Correct? Bigger, better E.coli, but still E.coli?

And I see he talks of reconstituting fossilized bacteria, and comparing those to modern-day bacteria? How many billions upon billions of generations are we talking about there? While other things can be said about this (for example, it can simply be claimed that the bacteria considered is at the apex of its development and no further evolution would have been of benefit), one has to wonder why otherwise the bacteria has not "evolved" into some completely different, higher form, with multiple cells, or eyes, or sexual reproduction, after those untold billions of generations? And if one accepts the apex argument, then perhaps that undermines (at least to some degree) the logic of anything developing from similsr single-celled organisms in the first place?

This does not demonstrate the kind of evolution that claims to explain the development of all life from a single source.

Personally, I don't like to see a person's faith hinge upon being able to disprove or prove evolution or creation - neither are provable or demonstrable, imo.

But speaking from a strictly scientific point of view, evolution as currently taught is not the only necessary explanation for what is observed. But we are taught from such a young age, and accept it as our foundation, so that it becomes very difficult to think outside of the box in which we have been placed. Most also don't care to be subjected to the ridicule that would almost certainly result.

I'm not sure if that's what you are looking for, but those are my immediate thoughts.