Support for creationists

[busterdog]

Then when we as Creationist try to state and affirm the Creationist viewpoint AGAINST THE LIE OF EVOLUTION, the friendly moderator moves the Thread OUT OF CREATIONISM. That makes sense. . . .

OK. Then, evolution is not a lie. Wait, I am now no longer a creationist. The TEs are right. It all works out so simply.

(There are only nicer words for "lie" that simply mean the same thing. If we believe in inerrancy, what other conclusion can you come to? We can all believe that evolution is based in some reason and with some evidence, but we still believe the ultimate conclusion is a lie. I don't think there is a soft-pedalling option. Note that we are not calling TEs "liars". Deceived perhaps!)

 

[shernren]

If we believe in inerrancy, what other conclusion can you come to?

Ask theFijian. He's said before that he holds to the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, and yet accepts theistic evolutionary creationism. I've never cared enough about the Chicago Statement to build it into my worldview so if you want to know, you'll have to ask him.

I'm assuming of course that this wasn't a rhetorical question. The "Do pigs fly?" kind.

 

[busterdog]

Ask theFijian. He's said before that he holds to the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, and yet accepts theistic evolutionary creationism. I've never cared enough about the Chicago Statement to build it into my worldview so if you want to know, you'll have to ask him.

I'm assuming of course that this wasn't a rhetorical question. The "Do pigs fly?" kind.

Let's put it a different way. Don't we both of necessesity come to the idea that the opposing position is a "lie" based upon what we believe? (Again not the the opposition is comprised of "liars.")

 

[Dannager]

Look, do you want evolutionist naysayers kicked out of Creationism or not? When evolutionists respond, you feel attacked. When a mod moves a thread out of Creationism in response to such provocation, you cry discrimination. Would you be happier if evolutionists simply couldn't see or do anything at all with anything you posted?

Then find another forum. It's as simple as that. It's one thing to hate evolutionists to the core but it's another thing to whine and mock when the moderators are trying their utmost best to help you and fulfill your needs.

But beyond that, what if evolutionists started debating them in real life? They'd have to move indoors and hide from critical analysis out there too! But then they might see evolutionists on television! Truly, there is no safe haven for them! It might be about time for them to actually consider that whole move-to-one-area thing. Maybe even another country.

 

[Assyrian]

If we believe in inerrancy, what other conclusion can you come to?

Inerrancy does not have problem with the geocentrist passages, why should geological age and evolution be any different. Don't forget that the original 'Fundamentalists' Orr and friends believed in an old earth and were Day Age or Gap. The issue with Age and Evolution is not one of the bible being wrong, but it being misinterpreted.

 

[KokoTheGorilla2]

For anyone that's intrested here a link to get a PDF copy of the book:

Atlas of Creation

Thanks for the link!

That was one very big big PDF file!

 

[shernren]

Let's put it a different way. Don't we both of necessesity come to the idea that the opposing position is a "lie" based upon what we believe? (Again not the the opposition is comprised of "liars.")

But lies we give different perspective to. On the one hand, to me, considering creationism and evolutionism gives rise to deep questions about the relation of nature and God, science and Scripture, and man's investigation of both. I certainly accept that these deep questions are not for everyone - probably not even for most people - and I bear no grudge whatsoever against anybody who simply doesn't have time or effort to invest into these questions. (Of course, somebody who simply doesn't have time or effort to invest into these questions, but goes ahead and yaps about them anyway, is really doing nothing very good for the faith and simply making a fool of themselves out of their laziness.)

And in fact inerrancy is not a big part of the picture for me here. God can inerrantly inspire a scientific treatise; He can inerrantly inspire a tale. Why should my acceptance of inerrancy or rejection of inerrancy cause any difference in the sensory and observational data I receive about the physical universe? Why would starlight or fossils or rocks around me behave any differently simply because I held to one school of thought about Scripture instead of another?

So no, I don't think creationism is so much a position of lies as a position of people who could be investing a lot more time, effort, and thought into the issue. (Of course, again, people who claim to have invested such things but show little fruit for it are either lying or deluded.) It will not stunt faith significantly to simply focus on other areas of our glorious beliefs.

On the other hand we have:

you are basing your eternal soul on 150 years of secular research while we have over 6,000 years of God's word?

Now that I can't fathom. I might not like how some creationists base their ideas on essentially 40 years of defective geological and biological research, but I certainly have no concern that they are basing their "eternal soul" on it.

But like I said. If you really wanted to know how inerrancy works with evolution, ask theFijian. If you didn't really want to know - well, that's your business.

 

[busterdog]

But lies we give different perspective to.

Indeed. We are quite suspicious about each others respective foundations. But we take it as given that each perspective has something to offer.

Why should my acceptance of inerrancy or rejection of inerrancy cause any difference in the sensory and observational data I receive about the physical universe? Why would starlight or fossils or rocks around me behave any differently simply because I held to one school of thought about Scripture instead of another?

Groucho Marx: "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

Lots of creationism is built upon an evidential debate. But, what the hey .... Why not just question whether we have the ability to observe in the first place. Works for me. My reply to you elsewhere:

Here is an interesting story. A woman told me about how she was completely broke and starving while trying to get through school. This was like 20 years ago. All she had was a small quantity of spaghetti, which she put into a pot to cook and put a lid on it and prayed for God to save her. Each time she took the lid off, there was more spaghetti than there should have been.

Question: why did she need the lid?

Note the feeding of the 5,000. Why is it that it is only upon collecting the fragments that the Jesus' power is revealed? I think a magician would suggest that this would really be the best opportunity to create the illusion of multiplication. Since we deny that this multiplication was an "illusion", is there something about the appearances that makes the miracle work better when people can't see it happening?

http://www.christianforums.com/t5723898-darwins-beliefs.html&page=5#post36921447

So no, I don't think creationism is so much a position of lies as a position of people who could be investing a lot more time, effort, and thought into the issue. (Of course, again, people who claim to have invested such things but show little fruit for it are either lying or deluded.) It will not stunt faith significantly to simply focus on other areas of our glorious beliefs.

Well, if evolution is right, we have been lead down the garden path by somebody.

Now that I can't fathom. I might not like how some creationists base their ideas on essentially 40 years of defective geological and biological research, but I certainly have no concern that they are basing their "eternal soul" on it.

I am all for the perseverence of the saints as sound theology.

But, there is such a thing as an eternal reward that is distinct from being saved from damnation. Apart from exactly what it is that the poster was suggesting, there are future consequences for each of us in this debate.

Mat 10:42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold [water] only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.
Mat 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

As for Fijian and our reform theology debate, in which the nature of time is so critical, here is a bit of wisdom:

"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a bannana." - Groucho Marx