More misconceptions - do they ever actually listen to us?

seebs · Sep 13, 2004

Beowulf said:
When was the last time NASA did anything with the sole purpose of proving that God does indeed exist?

Why would NASA ever spend time or effort on either side of a theological debate? It's not their line of work.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Sep 14, 2004

fuzzyh said:
All science still must have some form of philosophy attached to it. I'd venture to guess that most scientists are either atheists or agnostics. Now I know that there are some Christian scientists, but they are not the majority.

Christians are not the majority within the population. Since science does not base itself on theology, it's to be expected that science will draw from atheist, agnostic and religious people from the community at large.

Now an atheist or agnostic, doesn't even include God in there assumptions. They start with the basic assumption that God does not exist.

But this is a philosophical assumption, not a scientific one. There is no "atheism co-efficient" that they can plug into their formulae. And religious scientists come to the same conclusions as the non-religious ones.

Therefore they come to the conclusion that the world is old, they come up with evolution in millions of years.

NO. I strongly suggest you actually immerse yourself in the physical evidence for this before falsely (and somewhat offensively) concluding that mainstream scientific models are based on atheism rather than evidence. It's utter nonsense.

My question for much of the TE's, did you accept what secular science has told you at face value? Did you try to interpret the data yourself?

If you mean "do I think I'm better at cosmology than someone with a degree in physics, a masters in astrophysics, a PhD in stellar formation and a list of papers as long as my arm?", to which the answer is "no".

If you mean "do I look at the evidence to see if mainstream scientific conclusions appear reasonable?" then the answer is "to the best of my ability, yes".

But why should they not be?

I'm not going to say that your interpretations are always going to be correct, but I will say that if you do a correct interpretation it will include God?

Philosophically, yes.

Not just as a side note, because God does not want to be a side note in his creation. We do not want our thoughts to be like our declaration of independence where God is "sprinkled" into it to make us feel better or look better.

The only way one can include God without either putting the whole thing down to a series of ad hoc and unsubstantiated miracles (not to mention a subsequent cover-up exercise), or, preferably, to see the whole scientifically described process as the physical outworking of the creative activity of God. In other words, one must either point to particular things and say "goddidit" (and by implication, say of the other things "goddidnaedooit"), or point to the whole thing and say "goddidit, this is how". I know which is more intellectually satisfying, and which better fits a God who created all things.

I'm willing to bet many Christians are so influenced by this train of thought and don't realize it.

Please don't try to tell us you know better than us how we're thinking. It is tiresome in the extreme.

I would rather debate an atheist on evolution than a TE (that's why I don't post very much). Starts off with the assumption that this no God and doesn't try to work him into any of the puzzle. TE's it seems have tried to work God in the puzzle of creation.

Nonsense. We don't point to bits and work God into them. God is behind the whole darned thing. See my answer above.

In the last couple of weeks I have read much of the supporting arguments for both sides. It every case, the proof for a young earth creation is refuted because someone doesn't interpret the data in that way. The proof against a young earth creation is refuted because of a different interpretation of the data.

Are you suggesting that all interpretations are equally valid? OK, then, I interpret the craters on the moon to be left behind from when it was bombarded with explosive fairy cakes by the invisible sky unicorn. Just my interpretation against the mainstream one.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Sep 14, 2004

And yet more, this time from TwinCrier:

That is very hard to do. How do you not react when the only answer ever give is "Well, science say this." Evolutionists are so condecending most of the time. They have chosen to accept everything science tells them without question, and then accuse us of same for having our faith.

No, we do not just say "well, science says this". We explain - often in detail to people who can't be bothered to actually read it - why science says what it does, and why the creationist interpretation does not do the evidence justice.

We do not "choose to accept everything science tells us without question"; rather we accept that we are not experts, and it is far more likely that those who have made these matters their life's work are more likely to be right than someone with a religious agenda for trying to disprove the mainstream position. But many of us are ourselves intelligent layman, capable of research, which we do. We post the results of our research on these boards. Again, people generally can't be bothered to read them.

When will it stop?

United · Sep 15, 2004

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
And yet more, this time from TwinCrier:

No, we do not just say "well, science says this". We explain - often in detail to people who can't be bothered to actually read it - why science says what it does, and why the creationist interpretation does not do the evidence justice.

We do not "choose to accept everything science tells us without question"; rather we[/size][/color][/font] accept that we are not experts, and it is far more likely that those who have made these matters their life's work are more likely to be right than someone with a religious agenda for trying to disprove the mainstream position. But many of us are ourselves intelligent layman, capable of research, which we do. We post the results of our research on these boards. Again, people generally can't be bothered to read them.

When will it stop?

Hi Karl,

The short answer is that it won't. I've been reading this forum for a couple of months & sometimes I think you must copy & paste extracts from your previous posts. I can see your frustration at times.

However, I don't think emails like your one above will ever have the desired impact. Sometimes I think you are writing more for fellow TE's than to convince YEC's. You will never convert someone to your POV when they feel they are being attacked. In fact, it is likely to make them more insular and more blinded to the TE POV - exactly the thing you are so frustrated with.

I can only ask you this - why do you respond to the YEC arguments?

artybloke · Sep 15, 2004

Any scientist must start with an assumption then provide evidence to support the beginning assumption and interpret the data again to support what it is he/she set out to show.

Close, but no cigar.

Scientists do start with assumptions (hypotheses), but they don't (if they're being honest) just find supporting evidence. They have to test their hpotheses - and, in a sense, to attempt to disprove them. If they don't do it, someone else will anyway. New scientific theories are only accepted if rigorous testing fails to disprove them.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Sep 15, 2004

United - I respond because I don't like being misrepresented, and even less like being falsely accused of the various things YECs routinely accuse us of.

I've tried the softly-softly approach for years. Got nowhere. My only hope now is that if YECs realise how much they actually hurt people with their pronouncements of who is and isn't a "proper" Christian, and what is "proper" Christian belief, they might turn and think. Probably as forlorn a hope as any other strategy.

But it's more therapeutic.

Vance · Sep 15, 2004

I speak out becuase I think the YEC's are doing actual damage to the Christian Faith. I think souls are being lost by their teaching, plain and simple.

Amalthea · Sep 15, 2004

seebs said:
Why would NASA ever spend time or effort on either side of a theological debate? It's not their line of work.

Well that's because, as we all know, NASA stands for North American Satanists Association. It's obvious they have a theological agenda for the Dark Side.

I have actually seen that expansion of the NASA acronym used on message boards.

seebs · Sep 16, 2004

Amalthea said:
Well that's because, as we all know, NASA stands for North American Satanists Association. It's obvious they have a theological agenda for the Dark Side.

I have actually seen that expansion of the NASA acronym used on message boards.

Oh, that's funny.

I actually know a guy who works for NASA. I've even sold computers to NASA. (Two days ago, that woulda been "a computer", but now they're a REPEAT CUSTOMER!)

Beowulf · Sep 18, 2004

Vance said:
I speak out becuase I think the YEC's are doing actual damage to the Christian Faith. I think souls are being lost by their teaching, plain and simple.

The "More harm than good" argument also surfaces within the Jewish culture. Any differing viewpoint can initiate the same argument no matter who/what it is.

http://www2.townonline.com/lynnfield/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=88298

"Logically, it would seem that when two separate groups of Jews each believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, they'd be able to find some common ground. But coming from a Messianic Jewish standpoint, Vos Levitz says the Jews for Jesus actually do more harm than good."

rmwilliamsll · Sep 18, 2004

Vance said:
I speak out becuase I think the YEC's are doing actual damage to the Christian Faith. I think souls are being lost by their teaching, plain and simple.

Science is the dominant epistemology in our society.
To all most anyone with a scientific education the issues of creation and evolution are a primary source of conflict between a scientific viewpoint and a Christian hermeneutic. It is an important enough issue to me personally to have spent nearly 2 years reading and studying on the issue. see:
http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/index_ced.html

it is in fact an enormous stumbling block for anyone with a university education who looks seriously at the claims of our faith.

i think the way the above quote words it is not too strong for the numerous discussions i've had on the issues.
----

adam149 · Sep 18, 2004

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
No. We believe that Genesis is clearly non literal. It's plain meaning is a mythological one. We do not "choose" to "reject" anything.

Then you are clearly in error. There is no, repeat, no textual evidence to indicate that Genesis 1-11 was intended to be interpreted as anything but straightforward history. COnsider the words of possibly the world's best Hebrew expert:

so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 111 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

Noahs flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. James Barr, Professor of Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures at Oxford University. He is not a creationist, but recognizes what Genesis is saying.

Thus we can see that creationists are certainly justified in their interpretation, and is consistent with the textual claims of Scripture, which takes precedence over any other claim. In fact, because this is what the Scriptures clearly teach, the creationist has an advantage over the TE because they are consistent to the proper understanding of the text as the author intended it to be.

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
No. Because it is not the way it was meant to be read, and it does not accord with reality. Many of those promoting "the popular view of origins" as you call it are infact Christians, not people who "do not believe God's truth". It's that old "True Christianity = Creationism" bovine waste material again, isn't it?

Yes, as demonstrated above, it is in actually, or reality the proper way in which to interprete Genesis. You are in error on this point. Secondly, all facts are interpreted through a presupposition which is clung to by a priori faith. This is basic logic, philosophy, and mathematics. Thus, since God is the creator, God determines the interpretation one is to take as laid out in the Bible. You are misusing reason by making it Magisterial Reason. See http://www.christianforums.com/t883477 for the distinction.

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
No. The creation itself clearly shows that Genesis 1-3 is not literal history. I certainly hold the testimony of creation itself, that was created without human interaction, over your interpretation of a book that was created with fallible human interaction.

Again, you misapply reason by placing man's fallen reasoning abilities in authority over the Bible and the way which God told us he created. All of the Apostles and Christ Himself upheld the "literal" view of Genesis, and nowhere else in the Bible are we given any reason to interprete it in any other way than literal history.

You then deny that the Bible is the inspired, inerrent Word of God, revealing your neo-orthodox position. The Authority of Scripture is vital part of Christian theology. Most TEers are followers of Higher Criticism, a faulty hoax of an interpretational method that posits various "redactors" or editors of a given aspect of Scripture so as to change the meaning completely from the original intention. I suggest you seek out Dr. Gary North's The Hoax of Higher Criticism, which can be read online here: http://www.freebooks.com/sidefrm2.htm You'll have to search down through the book listings.

Any person who denies the authority of Scripture departs drastically from orthodoxy, regardless of whether they are TEers or not. A YEC who takes such a position departs from Orthodoxy just as much as anyone else. This is not accusing TEers of having no faith, though I know that some will invariably try to accuse me of such in a response.

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
No, this is referring specifically to the idea that God made the universe in six days but rigged the evidence to make it look like it had a fifteen billiion year history - the Omphalos argument. That model does indeed make God a deceiver; if neither of us is promoting that then it's not relevant.

I trust the above misrepresentations of TE thought will not be repeated?

Only if they are not true. Let us recap. TEers think Genesis is non-literal. But as we have seen, it is intended to be literal, hence they are rejecting the plain interpretation. Thus, your first "misrepresentation" dissolves.

TEers claim that they do not elevate man's theories over God's Word; but as we have seen, they misuse reason to do that very thing and even admit that they would rather take "testimony of creation itself, that was created without human interaction, over your interpretation of a book that was created with fallible human interaction" while at the same time rejecting the very Bible itself by reducing it to a collection of fallible human writings. We are not told how it is that human interpretation of the "testimony of creation" is any less fallible than man's writings.

The only real misrepresentation here is the last one, that they accuse God of lying. This is dependent upon the person. Many people, even on this very board, but also elsewhere, have claimed this and many TEers hold to this argument when it suits their purposes, so in some instances would not be a misrepresentation anyway.

rmwilliamsll · Sep 18, 2004

Only if they are not true. Let us recap. TEers think Genesis is non-literal. But as we have seen, it is intended to be literal, hence they are rejecting the plain interpretation. Thus, your first "misrepresentation" dissolves.

you use the word literal to mean a vast amount more than 'plain common man in the pew' interpretation.

literal, does that mean in the case of Gen 1, historical?
see framework interpretation for a large body of conservative theology that takes Gen 1 literally but not historically nor in a modern scientific manner.

But once again you demonstrate a huge polarization in the discussion.
aligning all TE with neoorthodox, higher criticism etc. this is nothing more than name calling. there are many fully orthodox, full inerrant, conservative theologians that are TE.
To force this huge wedge that TE=not christian in some serious way is an error on your part.

for example:
i would recommend Howard VanTill's books
Terry Gray's heresy trial in the OPC over the issues.

as a start in your education that fully committed conservative orthodox Christian struggle with the issues and do not throw out Gen 1-6 as you so strong propose and insist that we do.

adam149 · Sep 18, 2004

rmwilliamsll said:
you use the word literal to mean a vast amount more than 'plain common man in the pew' interpretation.

literal, does that mean in the case of Gen 1, historical?
see framework interpretation for a large body of conservative theology that takes Gen 1 literally but not historically nor in a modern scientific manner.

Literal, though I prefer plain, in the case of Genesis 1-11 is historical, yes.

As to the framework hypothesis, it most certainly does not take Genesis 1 literally, since, as I pointed out, it is intended to be historical. In point of fact, the framework hypothesis is a form of higher criticism in that it must claim, entirely without textual evidence, that God revealed himself to man in a way that we can understand while creating in a different manner. For some good, conservative rebuttles to the Framework hypothesis, see the following:

http://capo.org/cpc/pipa.htm
http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/Framework.pdf
And Noel Week's thorough critique in audio format from AiG, which can be found on this page, under the heading "Framework Hypothesis" http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp

rmwilliamsll said:
But once again you demonstrate a huge polarization in the discussion.
aligning all TE with neoorthodox, higher criticism etc. this is nothing more than name calling. there are many fully orthodox, full inerrant, conservative theologians that are TE.
To force this huge wedge that TE=not christian in some serious way is an error on your part.

Notice that I qualified my statements with "most TEers". There are, perhaps, some TEers who accept neither neo-orthodoxy and higher criticism, but I have yet to meet any.

I also said that "Any person who denies the authority of Scripture departs drastically from orthodoxy, regardless of whether they are TEers or not. A YEC who takes such a position departs from Orthodoxy just as much as anyone else. This is not accusing TEers of having no faith, though I know that some will invariably try to accuse me of such in a response."

This was done to prevent what just happened. My point was that any person, be they YEC, OEC, TE, or whether they are Reformed, Arminian, Pelagian; Predestination or Free will, etc., if they reject the authority and inerrency of Scripture they depart from orthodoxy. It just so happens that the vast, vast majority of TEers happen to be this. I'm not accusing them; I'm pointing out historical fact. Is a historian a racist for pointing out the historical fact that many people in the past were racist against blacks? Of course not.

rmwilliamsll said:
for example:
i would recommend Howard VanTill's books
Terry Gray's heresy trial in the OPC over the issues.

as a start in your education that fully committed conservative orthodox Christian struggle with the issues and do not throw out Gen 1-6 as you so strong propose and insist that we do.

Thank you for the references. I have Van Till's books on my reading list.

THe point is that if a person is a conservative orthodox Christian who believes in the authority of Scripture over all other things and its divine inerrency and at the same time hold to the TE theory, I feel that they are being inconsistant, it seems to me. I might be wrong.

rmwilliamsll · Sep 18, 2004

As to the framework hypothesis, it most certainly does not take Genesis 1 literally, since, as I pointed out, it is intended to be historical. In point of fact, the framework hypothesis is a form of higher criticism in that it must claim, entirely without textual evidence, that God revealed himself to man in a way that we can understand while creating in a different manner.

my reading list on the topic is at:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...RX8/ref=cm_aya_av.lm_more/102-5378519-6524143

it is not higher criticism. You wont find JPED anywhere in Kline. nor do you find the assumptions of redaction, what you find is a fully orthodox infallible WCF-subscribing Christian.

Micaiah · Sep 18, 2004

This was a quote I made in the CO forum. I do not consider it is in keeping with the intent of that forum to copy quotes into other more public forums.

That said, the comments made by various TE's in this thread only serve to reinforce the validity of my comments.

rmwilliamsll · Sep 18, 2004

Micaiah said:
This was a quote I made in the CO forum. I do not consider it is in keeping with the intent of that forum to copy quotes into other more public forums.

That said, the comments made by various TE's in this thread only serve to reinforce the validity of my comments.

I did not post your comment into an area where you could not respond. If you wish to discuss the content of your statement, then please do.

Kline is not a theological liberal.
The framework interpretation is not a result of higher criticism a la JPED and to accuse it of such is to malign a group of serious Christian brothers who are struggling with the message of Scripture at least as hard as you yourself do.

i see no validity to this criticism nor do i see any engagement with the issues, but rather a systematic attempt to attack personal faith, whether it is Kline's or TE's posting here.

discuss the issues.
i believe in the historicity of Adam, and struggle with both the Scriptural and scientific evidence for him. I see Gen 1 being interpreted as polemic and preamble to the treaty of the Great king as a systematic thoroughly Biblical way to relate science and theology.
You consistently use terms like fairy tales to describe TE analysis of Gen1, nowhere has kline or any of the authors i refer to above have anything but the highest acknowledgement of the authority of Scripture over ours lives and our thinking.

Why must we TE's or OEC's justify the content and strength of our faith before even entering into a discussion with YECism?

rmwilliamsll · Sep 18, 2004

Thank you for the references. I have Van Till's books on my reading list.

my review of one of his books

THE FOURTH DAY: what the Bible and the Heavens are telling us about the Creation
Howard J. Van Till

amazon link

This will be the hardest review yet. The book is a five star must read, filled with important ideas.
Most of all it shows the way clear for solutions for several problems i am currently working on.
So i will have to fall back on good technique, *grin*, and start with an outline for this review.

title of the review: neither Right nor Left but OUT IN FRONT

Purpose:

Like the German Green's motto " neither Right nor Left but OUT IN FRONT" this book takes on both sides of the CED debate.
and in doing so moves the whole discussion into a new higher level:
---quote---
"It is my contention that neither the scriptural nor the scientific view of the cosmos is complete in itself, despite the fact that each view contributes an essential perspective on the complete reality. Through the spectacles of scriptual exegesis, we Christians see the cosmos as Creation: we see where it stands in relationship to God the Creator,who is its Originator, Preserver, Governor, and Provider. Through the lens of scientific investigation, natural scientists are able to observe the internal affairs of the material world--its coherent properties, its lawful behavior, and its authentic history. Both views are integral parts of what I call the 'creationomic perspective,' the view of the cosmos that is gained when natural science is place in the framework of the biblical doctrine of creation." preface pg ix
---end of quote---

The take home message is simple enough:

God is Creator, Sustainer, Law-Giver, and Provider.

What this book is not, it is not primarily an entry into the CED(creation, evolution, design) debate. Although it bears heavily on the discussion and in fact directly addresses the issue in chapter 11, this is not the author's primary motivation. He is, as he states in the preface, a member of two communities: the one of science, for he is a professor of Astronomy? at Calvin College, as well a member of the Christian community(CRC). I see his book as a genuine attempt to explain himself and his ideas to both communities, in the hope that his views will be valuable to both his committments, and in doing so do justice to his deepest convictions.

What the book is: two pieces of a single argument,
part one= The Biblical View, chapter one="Taking the Bible Seriously",
part two= The Scientific View, chapter six="Taking the Cosmos Seriously",
part three=Integrating the Two Views, chapter 10="Taking Both the Bible and the Cosmos Seriously"
The structure of the book itself mirrors the argument, analogously to the way the structure of Genesis 1-3 mirrors the "covenantal document --covenantal not only in function but in form",pg 79 the major exegetical conclusion following M. Kline's framework principle.

But for purposes of organization I am going to start the review with chapter 10, with a table, from pg198.

categories of questions.......................................................................Appropriate sources of answers
about the material world......................................................................for the Christian
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A internal affairs................................................................................the created cosmos itself, which is constituted
.....1. Properties.................................................................................and governed in such a way that it is amenable
.....2. Behavior...................................................................................to empirical investigation and is intelligible to
.....3. History......................................................................................the human mind.

B external relationships.....................................................................The Bible, the covenantal canon, which was
.....1. Status......................................................................................written principally for the purposes of revealing
.....2. Origin.......................................................................................the divinely established covenantal relationship
.....3. Governance..............................................................................among God, mankind, and the rest of Creation,
.....4. Value........................................................................................and of providing a witness of past human
.....5. Purpose....................................................................................experience with the Creator-Redeemer

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This in a single table is the argument of the book, but to understand the critical component: the categories of questions you need to hear the example he uses.
Holding up a piece of paper, he asks you to describe it, one voice answers GREEN, another offers SQUARE. pg 204-5 The paper is in fact, both. Is these two pieces of information contradictory, of course not, it is complementary, coming from two different viewpoints. The extend the example in a way that the author does not, to which person do you address the questions concerning shape, to which do you address questions concerning color?

In a like manner, to Scripture you address questions of the I-Thou relationship concerning things that deal with: status, origin, governance, value and purpose.
To Science, you address a different but COMPLEMENTARY set of issues concerning properties, behavior, history.

Is this the same idea as Stephen Jay Gould's NOMA? (non-overlapping magisteria). No, Gould divides up the universe of discourse, the things we talk about into two mutually exclusive pieces. This division is concerning the questions we ask of each. Both pieces exist in this world, in this world are found the answers each proposes. Another important issue, at least for me, is the relationship of this division to Abraham Kuyer's concept of two sciences. Van Till explicitly covers this on pages 211-2 where he argues that it is the extension of science into naturalistic scientism that is Kuyer's first science, and that science extended by Christian assumptions and leading to Christian conclusions about the world that becomes the 2nd science, which Van Till terms, creationomic. So essentially we return the argument about atheistic scientism versus theism back to the domain of metaphysics from the domain of science, where it rightfully belongs.

The first part concerns Scripture and how to build a correct hermeneutic to interpret it by. Again he introduces a good illustration, i suspect from his years of teaching this has proven to be a good memory technic and organizing principle: good illustrations. It is the vehicle model of Scripture, pg 14ff, a caravan of vehicles carrying packages with things inside the packages, think a bunch of UPS brown vans. (looks remarkably like the compiler theory train) The vehicle is the cultural historical context as expressed in the literary genre the passage is written in. The packages are the specific story, particular symbolism in a poem, specific cultural patterns. The contents are God's message to His people, in all places, throughout all time. And from pg 83, "In either case, if we attempt to consume both the content and the packaging, we may encounter significant difficulty in chewing, swallowing, and digesting the combination. Those who want to feed on the truths of Scripture must take care to differentiate between food and packaging." The two cases to distinguish are a journalistic account of the actual events of creation(think video tape) from the primeval history account that we have in Genesis.(think metaphorical origins story- mythos)

Scientism and YEC(young earth creationists)- chapter 11, " more heat than light, the creation/evolution debate" and the real battle with unbelieving scientific naturalism as a religious doctrine. Van Till makes it clear throughout the book that the YEC position of apparent age is nothing more than bad science and bad theology, for it denies the coherence of creation. It denies that God created the universe with sufficent thought to have inside it the things it needs to build up the complexity we see around us. By more importantly it denies the value of creation as an arena for the providence of God, to operate through the use of physical means.

I finished the book with a touch of sadness. For the time, energy, and people the false debate of CED is consuming in the Christian community. While good frameworks like Van Till's are neglected for want of people to work on them. If AiG or ICR did not exist, and that energy and talent was used to advance Van Tills type of arguments the Church would be far along the way to competing with the real enemy. Scientism, the world and life view that we are nothing more than sophisticated machines, the result of mindless and random meanderings through the genetic space of living beings. This is a religious, a metaphysical battle, not scientific. For science rightfully limits itself to the things of this creation, the things we see and the forces we can theorize behind them. The YEC have diverted an enormous amount of energy into bad science, trying to fight a battle at the level of facts, denying the clear evidence for an old earth, while misinterpreting the preamble of the Great KIng of Genesis One as a scientific how-to-do book on the manufacture of us. Sadly we are all the weaker knowing that good ideas like this book have been around since 1986 and are yet to be discovered.

I hope you discover this book as a result of my review. It will well worth the time to read, and i didn't even try to tell you the gems in the astronomy section--part 2.

thanks for listening.

richard williams

version dated 13 Mar 2003

it is really a good book.
my reviews are on amazon and referred to at:
http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/bookreviews.html

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Sep 19, 2004

Adam - I fully accept all of the nicene and apostles' creeds, which are the touchstone of orthodoxy.

I cannot take seriously either your redefinition of orthodoxy to include inerrancy and the identification of Scripture as the "Word of God", neither of which I recognise as core orthodox positions, nor your attempt to call my position heterodox or heretical on the basis of your redefinition of orthodoxy.

In other words, no, I'm not what you call an orthodox Christian, and I don't care much, because I'm more concerned about the Church's defintion, by which I am one.

Christianity is bigger than that twentieth century upstart Fundamentalism, thank God.

seebs · Sep 20, 2004

Micaiah said:
This was a quote I made in the CO forum. I do not consider it is in keeping with the intent of that forum to copy quotes into other more public forums.

It is more in keeping with the intent of ChristianForums to talk about people where they can talk back, rather than sniping at them and/or gossiping about them.

I think the purpose of the Creationist forum is not to allow sniping and hostility, but rather, to give Creationists a place to talk about their beliefs... Not a place from which to attack others.

More misconceptions - do they ever actually listen to us?

God Made Me A Skeptic

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Well-Known Member

God Made Me A Skeptic

Active Member

avid reader

Active Member

avid reader

Active Member

avid reader

Well-Known Member

avid reader

avid reader

Senior Veteran

God Made Me A Skeptic

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency