- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,817
- 52,558
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
So do I.
But I know who I'm disagreeing with ... and why.Paul of Eugene OR said:
Do you?
Upvote
0
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.
So do I.And its Young Earth Creationists I disagree with,
But I know who I'm disagreeing with ... and why.Paul of Eugene OR said:See how easy it is? You already do it yourself.
So do I.But I know who I'm disagreeing with ... and why.
Do you?
What in the world are you getting at?I know that the truth of the science of evolution and deep time is as settled as the truth of the rotation of the earth. And I allow that to help me understand how to interpret the Bible, just as you allow the truth about the rotation of the earth to help you understand how to interpret the Bible.
Well, you deny the reality of what science has discovered and you do it in combination with ascribing the age of the earth to an appearance only of age . . . . so I count that as a variety of YEC.What in the world are you getting at?
From Martin Luther to the earth rotating, are you trying to pin a label on me (YEC) that I have denied in the past?
Science doesn't ignore anything that points to God as a principle; instead, science ignores anything for which there is no physical evidence. As a human being you and I have the right to consider God to be the Creator of all things; but we do that in faith, not in science. Science doesn't stop us. But science does open our eyes to ever more wonderful things that, if created, show how wonderful the Creator must be.
Those who deny the findings of science, including the deep time in our universe and the marvels of creations through evolution, are denying God some of the glory He is due. That is a sin.
No. Sin (evil) is attributing evil to God, such as billions
of years of death where there was no sin.
Ask science
to prove how stars and planets are born, why some
planets and moons spin the wrong way, and how life
came from nothing, with no guidance, and contrary to
natural law, developed more complex bodies and minds.
Again baloney, astronomy, cosmology, physics and geology have nothing to do with it.
In evolutionary biology the only difference is the point of origin. [Staff edit].
Considering all 4 demonstrate the earth/universe to be MUCH older then a couple thousands years, it seems they have everything to do with it.
And it's 3.8 billion year history.
All we know about the creation of the heavens and the earth is that it was 'in the beginning', creeation week starts later, perhaps much later, six thousand years ago.
No, says the evidence.Says you, the endless impossible transitionals are a myth. God created life fully formed, evolution began there.
Actually creation is essential doctrine. If God isnt believed to have created life, whats that say about eternal life. Its amazing how much you guys never learn about the religious convictions you trample under foot.No, that is what you believe religiously.
It's literally part of your religious doctrine.
How would you know, its been years since the Darwinians on hear showed the slightest interest in actual eviden, even when confronted with it.No, says the evidence.
Creation is essential doctrine, but the literal historicity of Genesis is not.Actually creation is essential doctrine. If God isnt believed to have created life, whats that say about eternal life. Its amazing how much you guys never learn about the religious convictions you trample under foot.
Didn't Jesus die on the Cross to save the sons of Adam?Creation is essential doctrine, but the literal historicity of Genesis is not.
Adam ≠ yAdamYour point being...?
... then why are there so many different forms of creationism?
Different creationists have very different views of the history of the planet. Just the dichotomy between OEC and YEC is huge; there is a vastly different view of the planet being 6000 years old versus billions of years old. Throw in "Appearance of Age" arguments into the mix and you have some very different ideas about the planet's history.
Then you have the stark disagreement over how biological life forms should be classified (there is no agreement on what a "kind" is), how Noah's Flood effected the planet (global, local, who knows?), and so on.
Now the immediate rebuttal is usually of the form, "oh yeah??? well, scientists don't agree on things either, so neener-neener-neener!".
The difference though is that findings in science aren't claiming divine inspiration for their views. Whereas all creationists would claim that the Bible is the Word of God. And many creationists also claim that their interpretation is led by the Holy Spirit. In fact, I've encountered many creationists who claim one can't properly interpret or understand the Bible without the latter.
Yet is it still not uncommon to find disagreement among creationist views even with those claiming divinity as being the source of their particular view point.
So why, if divine inspiration is meant to be the source of creationist beliefs, are there so many different creationist beliefs? Everyone can't be correct when views fundamentally don't agree with each other. That means at least some of the purported divine inspiration clearly isn't. But how would one tell who is right and who isn't?
Contrary to what academians say, the creation narrative was not written by the Israelites.The creation narrative written by the Israelites,
Indeed, but that sounds more like waffle inspired by cluttered thinking, than Truth inspired by God.It might be because a wide variety of people read the same three or four or five vaguely-worded chapters of scripture and take different things from them.
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?