Interesting article on the 'deconversion' of a Young-Earth creationist

[pitabread]

I believe it is bad logic amongst those who deny a creator. How do evolutionist have a basis if there is no God?

Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive concepts. Many people who believe in God also accept that life has evolved over time.

You may want to check out this site for more: BioLogos – God’s Word. God’s World.

Do they expect us to believe that matter is eternal? or that something comes from nothing? Or the complexity we see in creation just happened randomly? All that would take blind faith to believe.

Understanding the universe in which we live requires an honest investigation of that universe. That is the purpose of science.

 

[AV1611VET]

I believe it is bad logic amongst those who deny a creator.

Yet they'll label their discoveries with transgender names of our Saviour.

Ever heard of El Niño and La Niña?

 

[Strathos]

I don't understand the pitting of the ToE against Creationism when evolution supposedly deals with changes among species and not origins, whereas creationism has to do with origins. If you want to talk about origins without a First Mover...try it.

It was the creationist side that first insisted that the ToE and God were incompatible.

 

[crossnote]

Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive concepts. Many people who believe in God also accept that life has evolved over time.

The God of Scripture and evolution are mutually exclusive, as it was Adam who introduced sin and death into the world. If evolution was true it would require many deaths before Adam's first sin at the Fall.

You may want to check out this site for more: BioLogos – God’s Word. God’s World.

Just a bunch of liberal theologians like N.T. Wright, from lib seminaries like Fuller, who don't mind sacrificing God's truth on the altar of 'maintaining intellectual respectability', simply compromisers of God's Word.

Understanding the universe in which we live requires an honest investigation of that universe. That is the purpose of science.

Understanding the origins of the universe requires being there. Evolutionists never observed it's beginnings once, let alone multiple times. God not only was there, He actively spoke it into existence.

By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
(Heb 11:3)

 

[crossnote]

Yet they'll label their discoveries with transgender names of our Saviour.

Ever heard of El Niño and La Niña?

Yes, those are certain weather patterns. (little boy and little girl). Is that what they are calling baby Jesus?

 

[crossnote]

It was the creationist side that first insisted that the ToE and God were incompatible.

Well, that's because they are incompatible. If you as a Christian had someone pushing a lie, that contradicts God's Word on you, would you agree with it?
It was the evolutionists that first challenged the creation account back in the 19th Century. Now the 'tolerant' ToE side won't even let something like Intelligent Design be heard.

 

[Strathos]

Well, that's because they are incompatible. If you as a Christian had someone pushing a lie, that contradicts God's Word on you, would you agree with it?
It was the evolutionists that first challenged the creation account back in the 19th Century. Now the 'tolerant' ToE side won't even let something like Intelligent Design be heard.

The Kitzmiller vs Dover trial established that there was no coherent scientific theory of 'intelligent design'.

 

[crossnote]

The Kitzmiller vs Dover trial established that there was no coherent scientific theory of 'intelligent design'.

So? I find Darwinian evolution incoherent.
At least if science would open it's eyes and examine the intricacies and complexity found in this universe, they would find it quite coherent that a design requires a Designer, intricacy requires an Engineer, matter a Creator and intelligence an Intelligent Being. The last apparently missing with the judges at the Kitzmiller trial.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Just because the theory of gravity says that things fall down doesn't mean we have a moral imperative to push things off tables.

That's only for cats.

 

[Strathos]

So? I find Darwinian evolution incoherent.
At least if science would open it's eyes and examine the intricacies and complexity found in this universe, they would find it quite coherent that a design requires a Designer, intricacy requires an Engineer, matter a Creator and intelligence an Intelligent Being. The last apparently missing with the judges at the Kitzmiller trial.

Science can only answer the 'how', not the 'why'.

 

[crossnote]

Science can only answer the 'how', not the 'why'.

Science can't answer 'how' we got here; or 'why' we are here, but only 'what' is here.

 

[Strathos]

Science can't answer 'how' we got here; or 'why' we are here, but only 'what' is here.

It can answer the first one, up to a point.

 

[USincognito]

I realized it wasn't your writing and you were quoting but it was done as if you endorsed it's content.
What I don't understand is that you, being an agnostic, would even care about the Young Earth Creation view at all unless there actually is a God. That YE/OE issue is more of an in-house debate amongst Christians.

You must not be paying much attention to the efforts to teach YECism in classrooms.

 

[USincognito]

If memory serves me right, it was the evolutionists that interfered with the Creation view in the public school system back in the 1920s or so.

Your memory isn't serving you right, don't get your history of Inherit the Wind. Teachers were teaching science in school classrooms when fundamentalists pushed for laws that outlawed the teaching of science in school classrooms.
Creation and evolution in public education in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[USincognito]

Sciences classes? We were having the theory of evolution crammed down our throat in the third grade in the '50's. I'd call that brainwashing, not giving us an alternative view.

Histrionic verbiage does not help you to make a rational case. You were taught science in the science classroom. And the science classroom is not the place for alternative views, especially when those "alternative" views are based on garbage and lies from dishonest professional Creationists.

And here's another history refresher for you, there was very little by way of organized YECism in the 1950s. The movement was mostly contained within 7th Day Adventism from the 30s until the 60s. You might want to read up on George McCready Price.

 

[USincognito]

1

 

[USincognito]

...I was overly joyed years later to find out the theory of evolution was an agenda driven lie.

I don't know what you were actually taught in school, but whatever it was that convinced you of this was, ironically, an agenda driven lie itself. Evolution has an enormous amount of evidence supporting it. If you don't think so, then go to this thread and tell me why the evidence I presented isn't evidence.
The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

 

[pitabread]

The God of Scripture and evolution are mutually exclusive, as it was Adam who introduced sin and death into the world.

If that's what you believe, then that's that. There are many Christians who disagree with that sentiment though.

It also seems odd to me to set up Christianity to be dependent on a scientific theory being false. In effect, you are allowing your own beliefs to be falsified.

Understanding the origins of the universe requires being there.

That makes no sense.

 

[AV1611VET]

It can answer the first one, up to a point.

Yup ... with a wrong answer.

 

[USincognito]

In the 19th century there were many young-earth creationists (some geologists themselves) who were persuaded and conformed to the current fashionable theory of earth history (at the time strict Uniformitarianism),

Yes, by the evidence. Something that modern YECs appear immune to.

and they were eventually shown to be just as wrong as the evolutionists.

LOL