Seeing fossils without the Evolution goggles

[lifepsyop]

You still haven't told us what your story is. You don't like the idea that God lets nature do the heavy lifting. How do you think it works?

How the Bible says it does, generally speaking. I am personally convicted that the Bible is, in fact, the preserved communication from the Creator of the universe, and so I trust his witness of Creation and earth history much more than groups of men with obvious ideological axes to grind. I also see lots of geologic and archaeological evidence that the Bible is historically accurate.

I see evolutionists ultimately always retreating behind an ideology of naturalism (or "methodological naturalism" applied to cosmology, i.e. Nature Did It ), rather than being able to offer any convincing demonstration that their origins worldview is correct anywhere near beyond a reasonable doubt. Assumptions on top of assumptions mixed with a general repulsion of the authority of God's Word.

Evolution is the founding myth of the modern world, the mass acceptance of it goes very deep on a psychological (or spiritual) level. Like most founding myths, it is based more around a spiritual collective identity or great spiritual victory of good or evil, (Man using the powers of his reason and intellect to overcome evil superstition and discover and master the secrets of the universe)... As such the founding creation myth of Evolution has never been subject to serious criticism by modern institutions based on its ideology.

 

[VirOptimus]

How the Bible says it does, generally speaking. I am personally convicted that the Bible is, in fact, the preserved communication from the Creator of the universe, and so I trust his witness of Creation and earth history much more than groups of men with obvious ideological axes to grind. I also see lots of geologic and archaeological evidence that the Bible is historically accurate.

I see evolutionists ultimately always retreating behind an ideology of naturalism (or "methodological naturalism" applied to cosmology, i.e. Nature Did It ), rather than being able to offer any convincing demonstration that their origins worldview is correct anywhere near beyond a reasonable doubt. Assumptions on top of assumptions mixed with a general repulsion of the authority of God's Word.

Evolution is the founding myth of the modern world, the mass acceptance of it goes very deep on a psychological (or spiritual) level. Like most founding myths, it is based more around a spiritual collective identity or great spiritual victory of good or evil, (Man using the powers of his reason and intellect to overcome evil superstition and discover and master the secrets of the universe)... As such the founding creation myth of Evolution has never been subject to serious criticism by modern institutions based on its ideology.

Using magic in a science debate is an auto-loss.

 

[AV1611VET]

Using magic in a science debate is an auto-loss.

As it should be.

God did not use science (nature) to create the universe.

Genesis 1 is a series of one miracle after another; over a six-day period, that raised the level of mass/energy of the universe from zero to what it is today.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution is the founding myth of the modern world, the mass acceptance of it goes very deep on a psychological (or spiritual) level. Like most founding myths, it is based more around a spiritual collective identity or great spiritual victory of good or evil, (Man using the powers of his reason and intellect to overcome evil superstition and discover and master the secrets of the universe)... As such the founding creation myth of Evolution has never been subject to serious criticism by modern institutions based on its ideology.

This is just unfounded, conspiratorial nonsense.

This is also why creationists have utterly failed. Creationists are not able to address the science as-is. Instead, creationists continually invent imaginary opponents and fight imaginary battles.

You should write screenplays, not forum posts.

 

[Speedwell]

How the Bible says it does, generally speaking. I am personally convicted that the Bible is, in fact, the preserved communication from the Creator of the universe, and so I trust his witness of Creation and earth history much more than groups of men with obvious ideological axes to grind. I also see lots of geologic and archaeological evidence that the Bible is historically accurate.

I see evolutionists ultimately always retreating behind an ideology of naturalism (or "methodological naturalism" applied to cosmology, i.e. Nature Did It ), rather than being able to offer any convincing demonstration that their origins worldview is correct anywhere near beyond a reasonable doubt. Assumptions on top of assumptions mixed with a general repulsion of the authority of God's Word.

For Christians, the repulsion is not so much directed at the authority of Scripture--which is upheld by all Christians--but at the genre determination. For non-Christians, the Bible is merely a collection of ancient texts not properly admissible as scientific evidence and no more historically authoritative than any other ancient texts of the same period.

 

[Caliban]

For Christians, the repulsion is not so much directed at the authority of Scripture--which is upheld by all Christians--but at the genre determination. For non-Christians, the Bible is merely a collection of ancient texts not properly admissible as scientific evidence and no more historically authoritative than any other ancient texts of the same period.

As a skeptic, I see the Bible as you described--a non authoritative ancient text. Thats a good description.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Genesis 1 is a series of one miracle after another; over a six-day period, that raised the level of mass/energy of the universe from zero to what it is today.

It is funny how everyone thinks their chosen creation story is special.......


A creation myth (or cosmogonic myth) is a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it.[2][3][4] While in popular usage the term myth often refers to false or fanciful stories, members of cultures often ascribe varying degrees of truth to their creation myths.[5][6] In the society in which it is told, a creation myth is usually regarded as conveying profound truths, metaphorically, symbolically and sometimes in a historical or literal sense.[7][8] They are commonly, although not always, considered cosmogonical myths—that is, they describe the ordering of the cosmos from a state of chaos or amorphousness.[9]

Creation myths often share a number of features. They often are considered sacred accounts and can be found in nearly all known religious traditions.[10] They are all stories with a plot and characters who are either deities, human-like figures, or animals, who often speak and transform easily.[11] They are often set in a dim and nonspecific past that historian of religion Mircea Eliade termed in illo tempore ('at that time').[10][12] Creation myths address questions deeply meaningful to the society that shares them, revealing their central worldview and the framework for the self-identity of the culture and individual in a universal context.[13]

Creation myths develop in oral traditions and therefore typically have multiple versions;[3] found throughout human culture, they are the most common form of myth.[7]

List of creation myths - Wikipedia

 

[AV1611VET]

For non-Christians, the Bible is merely a collection of ancient texts not properly admissible as scientific evidence and no more historically authoritative than any other ancient texts of the same period.

This is almost sig-worthy.

The only way to improve on it is to say:

"For academia, the Bible is merely a collection of ancient texts not properly admissible as scientific evidence and no more historically authoritative than any other ancient texts of the same period."

 

[Caliban]

This is almost sig-worthy.

The only way to improve on it is to say:

"For academia, the Bible is merely a collection of ancient texts not properly admissible as scientific evidence and no more historically authoritative than any other ancient texts of the same period."

It's not just academia who do not find the Bible a compelling authoritative source. Most of the world doesn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

As a skeptic, I see the Bible as you described--a non authoritative ancient text. Thats a good description.

LOL

I started to ask: "I assume you must have a college degree in something?"

But I decided to look at your profile first, and it reads:

"Educator--I teach literature and writing"

Go academia!

 

[Caliban]

LOL

I started to ask: "I assume you must have a college degree in something?"

But I decided to look at your profile first, and it reads:

"Educator--I teach literature and writing"

Go academia!

And you think my education makes me less likely to have a correct opinion on this topic???

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus will come soon and make sure it catches up.

That song has been playing for almost two millennia. I don't think very many people are taking that seriously any longer.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is funny how everyone thinks their chosen creation story is special.......

I get a good laugh now and then.

The joy of the LORD is my strength.

A creation myth (or cosmogonic myth) is ...

Agreeing with those who myth the point, I take it?

 

[AV1611VET]

And you think my education makes me less likely to have a correct opinion on this topic???

Yes.

Are you Nathan Poe?

 

[Subduction Zone]

As it should be.

God did not use science (nature) to create the universe.

Genesis 1 is a series of one miracle after another; over a six-day period, that raised the level of mass/energy of the universe from zero to what it is today.

And yet you claim that he does. Like it or not magic and miracles are synonymous in this context.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think very many people are taking that seriously any longer.

It shows.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It shows.

Yes, the world is improving.

 

[AV1611VET]

And yet you claim that he does. Like it or not magic and miracles are synonymous in this context.

I somehow don't consider you an expert on synonyms.

Not from our discussion on kinds, anyway.

This post here QEDs my suspicions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, the world is improving.

One riot at a time.

 

[Speedwell]

This is almost sig-worthy.

The only way to improve on it is to say:

"For academia, the Bible is merely a collection of ancient texts not properly admissible as scientific evidence and no more historically authoritative than any other ancient texts of the same period."

Christians in academia take a different view, of course, one which they recognize is sustained by faith rather than by objective reality.