Summary of positions

[TomUK]

I've been trying to read some of the posts on this board, but there are so many terms describing a variety or different viewpoints, i was wondering if anyone could summarise them for me, or at least the key ones.
Also, i was wondering what catagory i fell into:
I believe that Adam and Eve were literal people (ie. not evolution)- i believe the events of Genesis etc to be true (eg. flood). I don't believe the earth was created in six literal days; rather a period of time (how long? i'm not sure) I realise i have already fallen into a major inconsistency regarding the genealogies given in the NT, but i'll deal with those later.
Many thanks

 

[Dracil]

You're probably an Old Earth Creationist

Check out http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1593_the_creationevolution_continu_12_7_2000.asp

 

[Gander]

The most simplistic way of of catagorisation is Young World Creationist, Old World Creationist, and Evolutionist.

A young world creationist is someone who believes that creation and the flood happened as recorded in Genesis and in the literal time frame . There is in my view an overwhelming weight of scientific evidence for this.

An old world creationist is someone who believes in a compromise between the literal creation story and the evolutionist theory. The main purpose of this compromise is to fit God into an evolutionist time frame and process, neither of which has a shred of scientific evidence.

Evolutionist belief is basically atheistic, dispensing with a creator in favour of theoretical processes in a theoretical time frame all of which has no basis.

You mention believing that the six days of creation could be six ages. The actual Hebrew text does not use a word that has any latitude for use as an age. It has a literal meaning for a 24 hour day.

I once believed that the truth was somewhere in Old world creationist belief. I changed my mind when I started delving into the science of origins and of a global flood.
The evolutionist theory and time frame, regardless of whether it is from the atheistic or old world creation point of views, does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Contact me if you want some recommended reading. I'll even have a go at any science based queries you may have.

Whats this about a N.T genealogy inconsistancy?

 

[Talcos Stormweaver]

Firstly, I shall negate the resolution that Gander has brought forth.

A young world creationist is someone who believes that creation and the flood happened as recorded in Genesis and in the literal time frame . There is in my view an overwhelming weight of scientific evidence for this.

Firstly, can you cite a few sources on this evidence? It has become a basic requirement, for it becomes difficult to differentiate assumption from evidence when you do not do so.

An old world creationist is someone who believes in a compromise between the literal creation story and the evolutionist theory. The main purpose of this compromise is to fit God into an evolutionist time frame and process, neither of which has a shred of scientific evidence.

Does not have a shred of scientific evidence? You continually degrade your opponents points, but you must have evidences that support your points that you must present.

Evolutionist belief is basically atheistic, dispensing with a creator in favour of theoretical processes in a theoretical time frame all of which has no basis.

Evolution, in and of itself, is not athestic, it is a scientific theory which attempts to explain biological diversity.

The evolutionist theory and time frame, regardless of whether it is from the atheistic or old world creation point of views, does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Once again, we require evidence.

 

[Bushido216]

The most simplistic way of of catagorisation is Young World Creationist, Old World Creationist, and Evolutionist.

A young world creationist is someone who believes that creation and the flood happened as recorded in Genesis and in the literal time frame . There is in my view an overwhelming weight of scientific evidence for this.

An old world creationist is someone who believes in a compromise between the literal creation story and the evolutionist theory. The main purpose of this compromise is to fit God into an evolutionist time frame and process, neither of which has a shred of scientific evidence.

Evolutionist belief is basically atheistic, dispensing with a creator in favour of theoretical processes in a theoretical time frame all of which has no basis.

You mention believing that the six days of creation could be six ages. The actual Hebrew text does not use a word that has any latitude for use as an age. It has a literal meaning for a 24 hour day.

I once believed that the truth was somewhere in Old world creationist belief. I changed my mind when I started delving into the science of origins and of a global flood.
The evolutionist theory and time frame, regardless of whether it is from the atheistic or old world creation point of views, does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Contact me if you want some recommended reading. I'll even have a go at any science based queries you may have.

Whats this about a N.T genealogy inconsistancy?

Did it ever occur to you to read non-Creationist literature? Ya know, the kind that is peer-reviewed?