Petty name-calling doesn't prove either side

[TwinCrier]

The allegation is often made that YECs accuse TEs of not having faith or not being true Christians. While I on occasion see this happening, it may be a defense mechanism that happens when YECs are repeatedly accused of ignoring evidence that supports evolution or, as has been done on some occasions, accusations that creationists lie or make up evidence to support our view. Every one of us has looked at evidence for both theories and made our decisions on what we believe based on the evidence we have seen. I feel it is unfair to proclaim that the bible must not be taken literally and that conclusions drawn about evolution evidence must be taken as fact. Nothing makes me stop reading a post faster than the assumption that creationists are just ignorant or blind. I know there may be frustration that the other side doesn't miraculously "see da light" and fall in lockstep with your beliefs, but it is unjust to claim that the beliefs of others are made with anything other then the best of intentions. This goes to both sides. Just face the fact that you are not going to make one magical post that is going to totally change the mind of everyone who reads it to agree with your belief.

 

[notto]

So then why would you post something like this?

"[size=-1]Evolution is a faith, EVOLUTION IS RELIGION! What religion? Atheism!"


[/size]

 

[TwinCrier]

TRhat was in the CREATION forum. We talk about creation theroy there. If it offends you feel free to debate it here.

 

[notto]

Evolution does not equal atheism. By claiming that it does, you are accusing Christians who accept mainstream science of accepting atheism. This is false witness.

As for the rest of the post that the statement came from. I notice that it also includes the moon dust argument and the 2nd law of thermodynamic argument. If you still use this argument, you are ignoring evidence, only supporting the claim that creationists do this.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Moon dust argument no longer useful
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/moondust.asp

None of the mechanisms of evolution violate the laws of thermodynamics which deal with heat and work.

 

[TwinCrier]

The 2nd theory as it applies to creation has to do with entrophy, not heat.
Now I have never claimed that "Christians who accept mainstream science of accepting atheism" I challenge you to find where I said such, and going to the testimony or a site linked to a site I posted doesn't count. I may feel, think and believe that but I would never state that as it is against the board rules.

 

[Vance]

"Every one of us has looked at evidence for both theories and made our decisions on what we believe based on the evidence we have seen. I feel it is unfair to proclaim that the bible must not be taken literally and that conclusions drawn about evolution evidence must be taken as fact.."

For the most part, TE's do not say we MUST read it non-literally, or that evolution MUST be taken as fact. Most of us are fairly good about agreeing that there can be differing interpretations. My whole point, as you know, is NOT that one side must be correct (even though I am convinced myself of one side), but that neither side should be taught dogmatically to the detriment of the ultimate message of God.

But, still, it is VERY rare that Creationists have reviewed the science as thoroughly, and as objectively, as those who have come to accept evolution as the way God created. While there are some exceptions, most seem to have their information on these issues from Creationist sources for the most part (see my signature line).

This debate is really NOT one between two groups equally informed on the science.

Now, it is true, a more in-depth knowledge on the subject does not insure greater wisdom, or even correct conclusions, but it gets frustrating to hear the same complete mistatements of science over and over again, even when the person has been told, and shown, that it is not correct. Even if the person does not agree with the conclusion, the proper thing to do would be to rebut the argument/evidence given, or at least make reference to those arguments rather than just blithely making the same conclusory statement elsewhere. The debate gets nowhere when that happens.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

"Every one of us has looked at evidence for both theories and made our decisions on what we believe based on the evidence we have seen. I feel it is unfair to proclaim that the bible must not be taken literally and that conclusions drawn about evolution evidence must be taken as fact.."

For the most part, TE's do not say we MUST read it non-literally, or that evolution MUST be taken as fact. Most of us are fairly good about agreeing that there can be differing interpretations. My whole point, as you know, is NOT that one side must be correct (even though I am convinced myself of one side), but that neither side should be taught dogmatically to the detriment of the ultimate message of God.

But, still, it is VERY rare that Creationists have reviewed the science as thoroughly, and as objectively, as those who have come to accept evolution as the way God created. While there are some exceptions, most seem to have their information on these issues from Creationist sources for the most part (see my signature line).

This debate is really NOT one between two groups equally informed on the science.

Now, it is true, a more in-depth knowledge on the subject does not insure greater wisdom, or even correct conclusions, but it gets frustrating to hear the same complete mistatements of science over and over again, even when the person has been told, and shown, that it is not correct. Even if the person does not agree with the conclusion, the proper thing to do would be to rebut the argument/evidence given, or at least make reference to those arguments rather than just blithely making the same conclusory statement elsewhere. The debate gets nowhere when that happens.

a favorite past pastor of mine summed this up best in the aphorism:

everyone has a right to their opinion
but no one has a right to demand that i take their opinion seriously unless they have done their homework.

 

[GodSaves]

But, still, it is VERY rare that Creationists have reviewed the science as thoroughly, and as objectively, as those who have come to accept evolution as the way God created. While there are some exceptions, most seem to have their information on these issues from Creationist sources for the most part (see my signature line).

This debate is really NOT one between two groups equally informed on the science.

And it has been my experience that it is uncommon for theistic evolutionists to use the Word of God for any of their positions or claims in evolution. It has been increasingly said that they don't need to use the Bible, because the Bible does not touch on the subject of evolution or anything about it. Thus, denying the Bible teaches on death and life. God is a God of life and not death. Life in both aspects of physical and spiritual. To infer that God is a God of physical death is also to infer that God is a God of pain, sorrows, and suffering. For physical death brings those things not only to the one suffering but also to those who love the one suffering.

If physical death was the direct creation of God, before the fall of man, then it makes no sense that Paul spoke about physical death and the physical ressurection. It makes no sense that there would be a physical ressurection as taught by Jesus Christ, and John in Revelations. And for that matter why would death be thrown into the lake of fire.

Theistic evolutionists get around this quite simply. Change the meaning of death. Then deny any scriptures that talk about a clear physical death, and say it is not physical death.

Revelation 21
4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

Revelation 20
14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.

So lake of fire is the second death. The second death is spiritual death, apart from God for eternity. And yet death is thrown into the second death. And spiritual death does not happen until judgement day. Hence the problem with theistic evolutionists thinking of Adam and Eve suffering spiritual death, meaning they were thrown into the lake of fire. This thinking clearly goes against Biblical teaching.

 

[Vance]

And it has been my experience that it is uncommon for theistic evolutionists to use the Word of God for any of their positions or claims in evolution. It has been increasingly said that they don't need to use the Bible, because the Bible does not touch on the subject of evolution or anything about it. Thus, denying the Bible teaches on death and life.God is a God of life and not death. Life in both aspects of physical and spiritual. To infer that God is a God of physical death is also to infer that God is a God of pain, sorrows, and suffering. For physical death brings those things not only to the one suffering but also to those who love the one suffering.

If physical death was the direct creation of God, before the fall of man, then it makes no sense that Paul spoke about physical death and the physical ressurection. It makes no sense that there would be a physical ressurection as taught by Jesus Christ, and John in Revelations. And for that matter why would death be thrown into the lake of fire.

Theistic evolutionists get around this quite simply. Change the meaning of death. Then deny any scriptures that talk about a clear physical death, and say it is not physical death.

Revelation 21
4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

Revelation 20
14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.

So lake of fire is the second death. The second death is spiritual death, apart from God for eternity. And yet death is thrown into the second death. And spiritual death does not happen until judgement day. Hence the problem with theistic evolutionists thinking of Adam and Eve suffering spiritual death, meaning they were thrown into the lake of fire. This thinking clearly goes against Biblical teaching.

No, it really doesn't. I think that the teaching that the result of the Fall was physical death goes directly against Scripture and is theologically very dangerous, as I have set out in full elsewhere. But will summarize here:

Jesus came to redeem us, to allow us to come back into full communion with God, thus UNDOING the death that was suffered at the Fall. I believe, and all Christians must believe, that He was successful in this endeavor for all those who accept the gift of redemption.

Now, we know that Christians still suffer death, even after fully accepting the gift of that redemption. Thus, if the death suffered at the Fall was physical death, then Jesus would not have been successful in His redemptive effort. And we know that it is not merely the "eternal life" which we will experience in heaven after our physical death, since this applies to EVERYONE, even those who do not accept Christ. After all they WILL have eternal life, just not in communion with God (spiritual life). They will be spiritually dead.

 

[GodSaves]

Provide the scriptures that physical death at the fall goes against. Not your interpretation of the scriptures but the scriptures themselves.

 

[Vance]

Of course it is a matter of Scriptural interpretation. It is the same Scripture you have cited, just with a different interpretation.

Did Christ die to redeem us from our sins, thus undoing the death suffered at the Fall?

If so, was this redemption successful, so that those who accept this redemption are no longer bound by that death suffered at the Fall?

If so, then the death suffered at the Fall can not have been physical since we still suffer physical death. It also can not be the mere granting of "eternal life" since this will be experienced by everyone, saved or not.

If you say that the death suffered at the Fall was physical death, there are some serious problems.

First, God told them the death they would suffer would happen "on the day" that they ate of the tree. They did not suffer physical death "on that day". Now, you can begin your interpretive efforts at this point, and say "well, he meant that they would BEGIN their death on that day, or they became subject to death at that point", but that sure ain't the plain readin'. So, you can not make those arguments and remain consistent about taking the plain reading of Scripture at face value.

Second, if the death suffered at the Fall was physical death, then why do those who accept Christ's redemption still suffer physical death? It is not because they will have eternal life, since even those who reject Christ will have eternal life, just in a different place.

It simply is a more consistent reading within Christian doctrine that the death suffered at the Fall was a spiritual death. This means that once you accept the redemption bought by Christ's sacrifice, you immediately regain full communion with God (Spiritual Life), thus undoing the loss suffered at the Fall (which was the purpose for the redemptive sacrifice, after all).

And, upon your physical death, you will remain in Spiritual Life for eternity. Those who don't accept Christ will remain in Spiritual Death. Now, we will all overcome physical death, saved and unsaved, of course.

 

[TwinCrier]

This debate is really NOT one between two groups equally informed on the science.

And this is just the type of comment that makes creationists turn off evolutionists. The arrogance that if you don't believe evolution you are just uneducated is false. We need something more convinceing than 'you're just stupid to believe what you do.'

 

[TwinCrier]

I also would like to see evolutionist use more scripture, or at least explain their interpretation of scripture when arguing against creation.

 

[Vance]

And this is just the type of comment that makes creationists turn off evolutionists. The arrogance that if you don't believe evolution you are just uneducated is false. We need something more convinceing than 'you're just stupid to believe what you do.'

But we are NOT saying you're stupid to believe what you do, that is my point. All we are saying is that young earth creationists TEND to be less informed about evolution and all the evidence for and against it than those who accept theistic evolution. Just like I am less informed about a LOT of things.

A person is not "stupid" because they are not as well-informed as someone else, they are just do not know the subject matter in as much depth.

You would have to admit, I believe, that most young earth creationists tend to have gotten most of their information about evolution from Creationist sources, whereas thesitic evolutionists tend to have read up on both sides. This fact comes through very clearly on these forums (as I have seen over the last year).

 

[GodSaves]

Vance, you have said that physical death not coming into the world till after the fall of man is very dangerous belief. Where does this belief stem from, if it is from man, how can you expect any Christian to believe it. You want to correct this thinking, then remember what Paul said,

2 Timothy 3
15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

I am more then happy to be corrected, but only by the Bible, God's Word, not by a scientist. Take Paul's advice to Timothy and use scripture to correct YEC, and not some scientists who have been quoted on talk origins. Just like you will not accept aig or icr, then why should another accept your website of choice.

I believe Paul's words to Timothy. That is why I stick with the scriptures and don't waste my time in man's written word which many hold in authority over God's Word.
I have given many scriptural references in the 'creation only' forum under the title of death before the fall. If I am wrong then present the scriptures, since I have presented many scriptures that say otherwise.

You will notice I have presented the verses. Not my summing up of the verses only, which is interpretation.

Maybe you can start off explaining what the second death is, with the Bible. And then explain what death is thrown into the second death, with the Bible. And how the first death is spiritual and the second death is, (??) physical (??), with the Bible. You can also explain why there is physical resurrection if God meant for the body to die anyways, with the Bible. Then you can explain with the Bible how evolution was God's work and not creationism.

And remember when I say explain, I don't mean you explaining, I mean verses from the Bible that would tell us differently.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Vance, you have said that physical death not coming into the world till after the fall of man is very dangerous belief. Where does this belief stem from, if it is from man, how can you expect any Christian to believe it. You want to correct this thinking, then remember what Paul said,

2 Timothy 3
15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

I am more then happy to be corrected, but only by the Bible, God's Word, not by a scientist. Take Paul's advice to Timothy and use scripture to correct YEC, and not some scientists who have been quoted on talk origins. Just like you will not accept aig or icr, then why should another accept your website of choice.

I believe Paul's words to Timothy. That is why I stick with the scriptures and don't waste my time in man's written word which many hold in authority over God's Word.
I have given many scriptural references in the 'creation only' forum under the title of death before the fall. If I am wrong then present the scriptures, since I have presented many scriptures that say otherwise.

You will notice I have presented the verses. Not my summing up of the verses only, which is interpretation.

Maybe you can start off explaining what the second death is, with the Bible. And then explain what death is thrown into the second death, with the Bible. And how the first death is spiritual and the second death is, (??) physical (??), with the Bible. You can also explain why there is physical resurrection if God meant for the body to die anyways, with the Bible. Then you can explain with the Bible how evolution was God's work and not creationism.

And remember when I say explain, I don't mean you explaining, I mean verses from the Bible that would tell us differently.

where does the Bible define death?

better yet, repost your 'death came only after the fall' summary to the open origin forum so the rest of us can respond. that is a better way so as not to divert this thread.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I also would like to see evolutionist use more scripture, or at least explain their interpretation of scripture when arguing against creation.

if i am discussing evolution and the evidence for it, i am discussing science. I use what i know of science to show those contentions and to lead the reader to his/her own studies. Theology talks not to science but to the metaphysics of a scientism, that is the extension of science into the realm of the big questions about life. But scientism is not science, it only uses science, the domain of legitimate questions in science is deliberately truncated to a subset of those that appear to have materialistic answers, that can be asked within the dominant paradigms of each science, that are interesting to those doing science.

Science doesn't care about salvation or eternal life or God. Those things are outside of its domain, its interests, its universe of discourse.

Likewise the philosophy and history of science is not science. It is meta-science, above (if you wish to use this metaphor) science, used by scientists to do science, necessarily even if unconsciously, but not part of science itself. Religion and theology has lots of things to address in the philosophy of science and to scientism, but very little to address to the sciences directly. Rather it speaks to the hearts and minds of those doing science and is a part of their matrix of understanding, their grid of presuppositions, whatever you wish to call this interpretive framework that we use to read the book of nature.

so, why would you expect me to quote Scripture when discussing the GLO pseudogene? But if you want to discuss the ramifications for a YECist viewpoint of kinds in the light of the GLO pseudogene then we cross that metaphysical boundary and are talking about the philosophy of science and then using Scripture can be useful.

which pyramid of interpretive systems and how high up the pyramid is the issue. not whether you support everything you write with Scripture. it is inappropriate in lots of places because the levels are different.

...

 

[Vance]

“Where does this belief stem from, if it is from man, how can you expect any Christian to believe it.”

The same place your interpretation comes from: humans interpreting God’s Word. What makes you think that your interpretation is NOT interpretation? You are saying "the way you read is interpretation, the way I read is not interpretation." Which, of course, doesn't make any sense. EVERY reading of the Bible is interpretation.

“I am more then happy to be corrected, but only by the Bible, God's Word, not by a scientist.”

We are not talking science now, but our interpretation of God’s Word. Yours and mine.

“I believe Paul's words to Timothy. That is why I stick with the scriptures and don't waste my time in man's written word which many hold in authority over God's Word.”

I sure don’t hold any man’s word in authority of God’s Word, as I have stated many times.

“Maybe you can start off explaining what the second death is, with the Bible. And then explain what death is thrown into the second death, with the Bible. And how the first death is spiritual and the second death is, (??) physical (??), with the Bible. You can also explain why there is physical resurrection if God meant for the body to die anyways, with the Bible. Then you can explain with the Bible how evolution was God's work and not creationism.”

First of all, the verse you cite which mentions a second death does refer to the first death being a physical death, since we all still suffer a physical death. The second death is the confirmation of the spiritual death. Up to that point, we all have the chance at spiritual life, even though we are currently in spiritual death. Once that point comes, the spiritual death is permanent. The discussions of death can refer to physical death or spiritual death, you must take each verse in its own context and determine what is meant for that verse.

You say to quote scripture, and I say look at all the scripture you have cited. They all can be read the way I am describing. There are not two sets of Scriptures, so I say look at the Scripture you have cited and tell me which of those simply can NOT be read the way I am describing rather than the way YOU are describing.

Now, maybe you can explain to me why the difficulties I have mentioned are NOT difficulties after all. I noticed you just ignored those points.

 

[TwinCrier]

A person is not "stupid" because they are not as well-informed as someone else, they are just do not know the subject matter in as much depth.

Umm, read that out loud to yourself. It pretty much sounds like 'You're not stupid, you're just not as smart as me or you would believe what I do.'

 

[Vance]

Umm, read that out loud to yourself. It pretty much sounds like 'You're not stupid, you're just not as smart as me or you would believe what I do.'

No, no, no, you are really not getting what I mean. It is not a matter of "smart", it is a matter of how much you know about a specific subject. You could be a Mensa member and still not know a thing about a given subject.

I know nothing about cars, but I would not say I was stupid. When talking to a car buff, though, I definitely would acknowledge my limited understanding of the subject right up front, though. I would also not pretend to make conclusory statements about the workings of my car's engine. This would not mean he had superior intellect or that I was inferior in intellect.