The majority of fundamentalists NOT committed to a young earth?

[Vance]

I guess this gets back to the old question of the whether all those who died never hearing the Gospel can be saved and go to Heaven.

 

[StuckRags]

There is a general misunderstanding with regard to this quote, beyond the fact that it is the slippery slope falacy.

I think it is more a "if the creation account isn't true, then how can I be sure the resurrection is true?" kinda deal. In which case none of us are saved anyway, not even YECs.

There is a false premise there: "If the creation account isn't true." YEC's, TE's and PCs (like me) believe the creation account is true. It is the interpretation of that account that differs between the three. All interpretation (if there must be an interpretation), is a theory. The resurrection account, salvation doctrine, etc., are not interpretations. They are directly witnessed accounts. The genesis account was told by and witnessed by God himself. God may or may not have chosen to tell it in parable form - and for good reason; to make sure it isn't required for salvation, so everyone is on a level playing field.

The interpretation of the Genesis account hangs on the interpretation of the translation of the word "Day." There are good reasons to question the literal reading of the word "day" if you read up on it (including certain laws of physics, which I might remind you were created BY God FOR God's Universe).

So to correct the above quote to something more meaningful:

"If the YEC interpretation of the genesis account is not true, then how can I be sure the resurrection account that was witnessed by hundreds of humans be true?"

Well, now that question seems like a silly thing to say to me....

 

[Gold Dragon]

The genesis account was told by and witnessed by God himself. God may or may not have chosen to tell it in parable form - and for good reason; to make sure it isn't required for salvation, so everyone is on a level playing field.

The interpretation of the Genesis account hangs on the interpretation of the translation of the word "Day." There are good reasons to question the literal reading of the word "day" if you read up on it (including certain laws of physics, which I might remind you were created BY God FOR God's Universe).

Great points. And we are also reminded by Peter about God's sense of time.

NASB - 2 Peter 3:3-9

Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation."

For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.

But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.

The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

 

[GodSaves]

The verse from 1 Peter 3 is to say that God is not bound by time. He is the creator of time, not created by time, therefore God exists outside of time. Time to God is irrelevant. What is relevant to me, is that God used time to explain how long He decided to take to create the universe, six days.

It is not a salvation issue, necessarily. There is an issue though that lies in each of us. If we are wrong in our understanding, will be realize we were the ones who were wrong, or will be attribute being wrong to God? Will we blame God for creating in a deceptive way, or will we be humbled and realize that maybe we didn't have all the evidence, or bias' existed, or we were looking from a very limited perspective, or we misunderstood God's Words. If we attribute any, and I mean any(whether extremely little or large) blame to God for our misunderstanding, then we are sitting in God's seat of judgement and passing judgement on God.

You want to reach more people with the Gospel, which is great, so speak of the Gospel instead of evolution or creationism. The latter two are in dispute, but God's Grace and Mercy are not. Start there and leave it there in witnessing. When questions arise, one can humbly say, I was not there, I am not sure, but I do know God created everything.

Where I see future problems are creationism must be accepted in order to be a Christian and evolution must be accepted in order to be a Christian. Also, evolutionary thought has come from man. Maybe some would like to argue that God spoke to scientists and told them that He created by using evolution, whatever. With evolution coming from man's mind, one must be careful not accept other theories that may come into conflict with the Bible. Men who believe there is a god believe there are many ways to God. It is theories like these that come from man, that are in conflict with the Bible that one must watch out for. Young Christians can easily be influenced by the world. Teaching evolution to young Christians and how you can read parts of the Bible allegorically if you can still find truth can be very damaging to young Christians.

Again, to reach people, evolution and creationism is the wrong place to start, the wrong place to throw all of your energy into. To reach people is the preach what Jesus Christ did for all of us. Not how Jesus Christ created the world. There is salvation at the cross, not in the earth.

 

[StuckRags]

Young Christians can easily be influenced by the world. Teaching evolution to young Christians and how you can read parts of the Bible allegorically if you can still find truth can be very damaging to young Christians.

You need to be careful here. Realize that teaching TE or PC to YOUNG Christians, IMMUNIZES them from secular attacks regarding laughable (on the part of seculars) YEC beliefs. It takes that whole issue out of the equation and blazes a path to the Gospel instead of the non-Christian belaboring the creation account. Non-christians are the ones that bring up the creation account "problems," not the Christians. It is rare for someone to open their witness with their view of the first six "days" rather than their relationship with Christ. I've come to believe that non-chrisitan's biggest fear of Christianity is the prospect that they must check their brains (and decades of dilligent, credible, scientific research) at the door.

 

[Gold Dragon]

It is not a salvation issue, necessarily. There is an issue though that lies in each of us. If we are wrong in our understanding, will be realize we were the ones who were wrong, or will be attribute being wrong to God? Will we blame God for creating in a deceptive way, or will we be humbled and realize that maybe we didn't have all the evidence, or bias' existed, or we were looking from a very limited perspective, or we misunderstood God's Words. If we attribute any, and I mean any(whether extremely little or large) blame to God for our misunderstanding, then we are sitting in God's seat of judgement and passing judgement on God.

Agreed. I don't blame God at all for misunderstandings and deceptions. I blame YECs, knowing that most of the time, those misunderstandings and deceptions are not intentional or malicious but simply propogation of dogma.

You want to reach more people with the Gospel, which is great, so speak of the Gospel instead of evolution or creationism. The latter two are in dispute, but God's Grace and Mercy are not. Start there and leave it there in witnessing. When questions arise, one can humbly say, I was not there, I am not sure, but I do know God created everything.

Again, to reach people, evolution and creationism is the wrong place to start, the wrong place to throw all of your energy into. To reach people is the preach what Jesus Christ did for all of us. Not how Jesus Christ created the world. There is salvation at the cross, not in the earth.

Great posting GodSaves and I hope that is shared by everyone on this board. This is what Vance and other TEs are campaigning for, that the creation/evolution debate be removed from requirements for salvation or acceptance of the bible that YECs often correlate it to.

Where I see future problems are creationism must be accepted in order to be a Christian and evolution must be accepted in order to be a Christian. Also, evolutionary thought has come from man. Maybe some would like to argue that God spoke to scientists and told them that He created by using evolution, whatever. With evolution coming from man's mind, one must be careful not accept other theories that may come into conflict with the Bible

No TE I have witnessed has ever argued that evolution is a divine revelation or that evolution is a requirement for Christianity and acceptance of the bible.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Also, evolutionary thought has come from man.

I hear this thought, like a refrain in a song, from the YECist.

but reading the two books of God:
Scripture the book of Words
and the Creation the book of Works

is almost parallel. both require human beings to interpret the 'words' on the 'pages'. Scripture requires hermeneutics and Creation requires scientific epistemology. Both are HUMAN INTERPRETATIONS of their respective books.

what is curious to me is the division in the church as to the interpretation of Scripture and the surprising unity of interpretation of the physical world. I can go to basically any university in the world, study physics, biology and get the same course of study. While i can not walk down the street from my Presbyterian church to the local Methodist and not get into an argument about very low level interpretations. Why is that?

it appears that the world has mastered God's epistemology to read Creation far quicker and far better, with much greater unity than the Church, the seamless body of Christ has managed to do it's job and read the Book of Scripture with some consistency and unity.

But the point remains, there is virtually no difference in how you interpret Gen 1 and the mental steps you must go through and how another person reads the book of nature and does physics or astronomy etc. Both are human endeavors with all the problems that entails, both have this layer of interpretation between the human mind and the object they are reading. It is just plain silly to contend that we read what is really there in Scripture as if we have a direct access to the Mind of God when the evidence from denominationalism is so presuasive that we do not understand even the simplest things with unity. While at the same time insist that evolution is just the words and discoveries of men,as if the unity of the human race in physics, chemistry, biology and the radical intersubjectivity of science was 'just someones wild conjectures'.

it is a bad argument, neglecting both the necessity of interpretation and the radically different levels of unity in both groups.....

--------------
post posting edit

i didn't mean for "Why is that?" to be a rhetorical question.
for the answer is sin.
but if sin effects everyone, why does it seem to effect the secular sciences less, as evidenced by their relative unity when compared to the disasterous denominationalism of the Church?
the answer is that science relies solely on public knowledge and religion is a mixture of public and private knowledge, it is both sin and the inability of people to have a common data point in private knowledge that leads to these problems. so if anything the misapplication of 'that is just your opinion' is better directed at theological questions then to scientific ones.

 

[Vance]

“The verse from 1 Peter 3 is to say that God is not bound by time. He is the creator of time, not created by time, therefore God exists outside of time. Time to God is irrelevant. What is relevant to me, is that God used time to explain how long He decided to take to create the universe, six days.”

Right, the real question is whether He used those terms literally or figuratively. That is still what it comes down to.

“It is not a salvation issue, necessarily. There is an issue though that lies in each of us. If we are wrong in our understanding, will be realize we were the ones who were wrong, or will be attribute being wrong to God? Will we blame God for creating in a deceptive way, or will we be humbled and realize that maybe we didn't have all the evidence, or bias' existed, or we were looking from a very limited perspective, or we misunderstood God's Words. If we attribute any, and I mean any(whether extremely little or large) blame to God for our misunderstanding, then we are sitting in God's seat of judgement and passing judgement on God.”

Of course, God CAN NOT deceive. Period. That is why no one says God DID deceive, or COULD deceive. It is because of this fact that it is almost assured that he did not created the Earth 10,000 years ago. Since God can not deceive, He would not create a world that looks old when it is really young. So, the degree to which the evidence shows that the Earth is old is the degree to which it likely is old. If the evidence shows a 99% likelihood that the Earth is older than 10,000 years, then there is a 99% likelihood that the Earth is older than 10,000 years since God can NOT have allowed the evidence to show it that old if it was not that old. So, the likelihood of the Earth being old is dependent on the evidence. If you say that the evidence is not convincing, or that it is a much lower likelihood, fine, but you would have to discuss the evidentiary issues.

I thought I had reiterated this enough times in earlier threads, but you keep saying it, so I better point it out again. God can not deceive, and no one here is saying anything different.

“You want to reach more people with the Gospel, which is great, so speak of the Gospel instead of evolution or creationism. The latter two are in dispute, but God's Grace and Mercy are not. Start there and leave it there in witnessing. When questions arise, one can humbly say, I was not there, I am not sure, but I do know God created everything.”

Exactly. No one starts witnessing using evolution v. creation. That is just silly. The point is that the presentation of YEC’ism can be a barrier to people’s coming to, or maintaining their, faith. This comes out WHEN we witness. Or, it comes out when our youth in crisis come for counseling on this issue. But yes, we should say something like what you mention. The problem is that it rarely ends there. I have found that they want something more. They want to know how Scripture can still be true when they have been told that if evolution is true, Scripture isn’t. So, that is why it is an issue.

“Where I see future problems are creationism must be accepted in order to be a Christian and evolution must be accepted in order to be a Christian. Also, evolutionary thought has come from man. Maybe some would like to argue that God spoke to scientists and told them that He created by using evolution, whatever. With evolution coming from man's mind, one must be careful not accept other theories that may come into conflict with the Bible. Men who believe there is a god believe there are many ways to God. It is theories like these that come from man, that are in conflict with the Bible that one must watch out for. Young Christians can easily be influenced by the world. Teaching evolution to young Christians and how you can read parts of the Bible allegorically if you can still find truth can be very damaging to young Christians.”

1. No one needs to accept BOTH YEC and TE in order to be a Christian. You will necessarily believe one or the other or “I don’t know”. This is fine, since it is not a salvation issue.

2. The theory of evolution was, of course, developed by humans, based on their human interpretation of God’s Creation. Just as most of our doctrines of the Church were developed by humans, based on their human interpretation of Scripture. Both are fallible. Both are believed by some Christians, but not all. Whenever humans are involved in developing ideas, we must scrutinize them carefully, since it all involves interpretation. The question is what you, as a Christian, hold to be an essential and necessary truth of the faith. What fact would cause you NOT to believe in Christ if you found out tomorrow that it was not true?

3. You are begging the question when you say that the theory of evolution conflicts with the Bible. Yes, if something actually conflicts with the Bible in an absolute and irrefutable way, then that is different. But if, as a Christian, I don’t believe that it conflicts with the Bible, then where is the danger to “watch out for”?

4. I disagree with your last sentence completely. I think it is highly dangerous to teach a young Christian that it must all be read literally. This means that when he comes to a passage that he does not believe can be literally true, he is more likely to lose faith in the rest of Scripture. If you teach that different parts of Scripture have to be read differently, such as Job, Song of Solomon, poetry and history, etc, and that some read Genesis literally and some non-literally, but it is all truth, then they would have no reason whatsoever to doubt Scripture. It is ALL true, always.

“Again, to reach people, evolution and creationism is the wrong place to start, the wrong place to throw all of your energy into. To reach people is the preach what Jesus Christ did for all of us. Not how Jesus Christ created the world. There is salvation at the cross, not in the earth.”

Yes, we should all be spending a great deal of time reaching people with the Gospel. But did not Paul go out of his way and spend time with the Jerusalem church over the issue of circumcision? This was time taken away from his direct evangelism in order to make that evangelism more effective, by removing the stumbling block that other Christians were placing in his way.

These forums are particularly set aside for these very discussions and, yes, even debates. People coming to these forums want to know what Christians believe on these issues. The place to present the Gospel is elsewhere, especially live and in person. What those people come away with from this forum may make a difference in whether they are receptive to the Message, or whether they remain in the faith.

 

[GodSaves]

Yes, we should all be spending a great deal of time reaching people with the Gospel. But did not Paul go out of his way and spend time with the Jerusalem church over the issue of circumcision? This was time taken away from his direct evangelism in order to make that evangelism more effective, by removing the stumbling block that other Christians were placing in his way.

These forums are particularly set aside for these very discussions and, yes, even debates. People coming to these forums want to know what Christians believe on these issues. The place to present the Gospel is elsewhere, especially live and in person. What those people come away with from this forum may make a difference in whether they are receptive to the Message, or whether they remain in the faith.

Paul was a great Apostle, but let us take our lead from Christ, as Paul did.

Did Christ spend His ministry debating the Pharisees or reaching out to others? Christ came into conflict with the Pharisees because the Pharisees would be attacking Him. Did Christ seek out the Pharisees continually to drive His point into them, even though they would not concede?

Since these forums were created for, as you say discussions/debate, shall we do that instead of what Christ told us to do? Since man created these forums shall we do what man does best, argue? Or shall we strive to be more like Christ, and do what Christ told us to do, preach the Gospel. Christ did not say preach creationism, preach evolutionism, preach origins. Christ said preach the Gospel, preach salvation through His Blood.

Think for a moment. How much time do you spend in here arguing creationism or evolutionism? Could you have taken that time and spent it reaching to people who have not heard of Christ, or who are not saved by Christ? Which time is better spent, preaching Christ, or preaching creationism/evolutionism? Which would Christ want you to do? If you say evolutionism or creationism is not a salvation issue, then why preach it?

You say you are preaching out against those who say creationism is the only way. Who in here says this? WHo in here specifically is going to non-creationists saying you cannot be saved(specifically saying this) unless you accept creationism? And if there is a person, how are you correcting them when you bring them up on these charges in public, instead of 1on1 in love? When you bring it up publically, a persons naturally reaction is to defend, even if they know they are wrong. You don't want people to talk about you behind their back, then lead the example and don't do it to others. You want people to not preach creationism, then stop preaching evolutionism. You preach evolutionism when you preach creationism is damaging. You push people into defending, rather then listening. You want to be heard? Do it in love, in a private 1on1 way. You do more harm by publically denouncing a person, then by a 1on1 chat. You denounce every person who believes in a young earth by saying it is damaging to faith. It is what we believe, we were not there so we have faith that that is the way God created. You denounce us as Bible idolators because we try to be faith to God's Word. This is why we are defensive, you have said out beliefs are damaging, we are Bible idolators cause we try and hold to God's Word.

I believe you did not mean to cause any harm. I even believe that you think your posts are correcting and in love. I believe you mean well. But what I think you don't realize is that your posts come of as judgmental to a YEC and what we believe. We feel we are being judged that we are harmful to Christ's cause because we believe in a young earth. We feel we are being judged as idolators because we try to hold to God's Word. You speak out against us because we use a capital "W" for God's Word. Yet we do so in a sign of respect for what God has given us, the Bible. And then you wonder why we get frusterated, upset, and defensive.

We too are not without blame. We should turn the other cheek, realize you didn't mean any harm. But as you we are human and make mistakes, just as you have with your posts that were meant for good, but have not been taken as such.

Do you want to be called a child of God? Then make peace. Stop preaching YEC as dangerous to faith. Both evolution and creationism are dangerous when preached as the way of salvation. And if someone is doing so, then they must be taken aside and talked with, not publically denounced. Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation.

If we want peace and reconcilation, then we will both just be humble and realize that we do not have the answers and will not preach that our thoughts are the way. Jesus Christ is the way to truth and eternal life. Preach Jesus Christ, not origin theories. Imagine what it would be like we didn't bicker all the time, and combined forces and preached JESUS CHRIST. Imagine....

 

[Vance]

Godsaves you have once again entirely missed the point.

1. We don't know how much time Jesus spent trying to clear the path by pointing out dangerous teaching and actions. We have a few examples, such as his discussions with the Pharisees, his action in the temple, his chastisement of those who were wanting to stone the woman. Jesus gave us examples of both methods of doing God's work. Paul followed this example as well, using both methods.

2. Yes, we preach the gospel. I assume you do, and you can assume I do. That is not the point, since we are doing that. But we also must clear the stumbling blocks where they exist. That is part of the job.

3. Do you think this forum should not exist? That we should not debate the pros and cons of the various approaches to origins? Go back to the front page and look at all the various forums where people go to discuss and debate the huge variety of issues among Christians. All the doctinal issues, all the denominational issues, etc, etc. Should they all not exist and we should nto discuss any of those issue, but just head out and save souls? No, because WHAT is being preached has an effect on whether the fields will be ripe.

4. No one in these forums has ever said the words that Creationism is the only way. One of the reasons for this is that, to a certain extent, this is because we have been having these very discussions. Six months ago there WERE Young Earth Creationists on this forum who said that if you don't accept a literal reading of Genesis, you were trusting Man over God and not accept God's Word, and this DID call into question whether a person's Christianity was sincere. We have even seen very similar statements by YEC's when they first arrive over in the other forum even recently. Part of the purpose of this discussion to make Christians aware that there is more than one viewpoint on this issue which is believed by sincere, Bible-believing Christians. And THAT helps remove the stumbling block. Awareness.

5. I do not want people to stop preaching YEC'ism. I want people to stop preaching that evolution and an old earth are contrary to Scripture so that if one is true the other is false. This is WAY too dangerous of a statement to be messing around with. All I have been asking for, although you continually ignore this and want to conflate my statements into a blast against Creationism and Creationists, is that YEC's "preach the controversy" the same way they want schools to "teach the controversy". Right now they don't do this.

6. No, YEC is not damaging to Christianity. I have explained this so many times, but you insist on saying that so that you can ignore what I am really saying. Teaching that YOU believe that Genesis should be read literally and that this means that the earth is young and evolution is false, is perfectly fine. It is only the teaching that good, sincere Christians believe this and compromising, worldly Christians read it non-literally that is wrong. It is the teaching that evolution equals atheism, when we all know this is not true, that is wrong.

7. This issue already IS a public issue. Creationists have made it so by going on seminars, writing books, doing radio shows, etc, etc. They have, in the last 25 years or so, created a subculture within Christianity that has actually become the majority in the US. There are Christians growing up believing that Christians believe in Creationism and atheists believe in evolution, period. LOTS of them. This IS very dangerous. As a counter to this movement, we must speak out equally publicly to re-educate the Christian community that there ARE other viewpoints within the Church. They do NOT have to abandon their Christian faith just because they come to accept the evidence for evolution and an old earth.

Again, why do you think this forum even exists?

Consider the amazement we see when some Christians stumble into this forum and find out that there are Christians who actually accept evolution! They honestly have never heard of such a thing before. This is a very bad state of affairs for the Church.

I would LOVE to be able to stop debating over these topics, but as long as the Creationist movement is teaching loud and clear that a belief in evolution is not believing Scripture, that it is trusting Man over God, that it is showing a lack of faith, and all the other misrepresentations, we MUST continue to undo this damage to the extent we can.

BTW, I think you would have noticed by now that I also always use a capital "W". I revere the Word of God every bit as much as you do. A point you can't accept since I read it differently than you do. It is exactly these type of presumptions that must be undone.

 

[artybloke]

No one starts witnessing using evolution v. creation.

Oh, if only this were so. Sadly, however, in a church just 50 yards from my home, I heard a preacher try to convince some non-Christians that evolution was wrong as a tool of evangelism. The same old non-arguments and strawmen came out.

I'm afraid I couldn't resist putting a spanner in his works. I don't like to see the Gospel supported by lies.

 

[Andy D]

You need to be careful here. Realize that teaching TE or PC to YOUNG Christians, IMMUNIZES them from secular attacks regarding laughable (on the part of seculars) YEC beliefs. It takes that whole issue out of the equation and blazes a path to the Gospel instead of the non-Christian belaboring the creation account. Non-christians are the ones that bring up the creation account "problems," not the Christians. It is rare for someone to open their witness with their view of the first six "days" rather than their relationship with Christ. I've come to believe that non-chrisitan's biggest fear of Christianity is the prospect that they must check their brains (and decades of dilligent, credible, scientific research) at the door.

I had to laugh at this post....A YEC will say teach them creationism to immunise them against secular evolution attacks...but that isnt the reason I was taught creationism. In Peter I am told that Scripture is not open to private interpretation..it is the Holy Spirit who is to guide us. I was taught creationism because all those before me thoroughly believe it is the truth. I was taught creationism because when i first started to read my Bible I read that God created it in 6 days and rested on the 7th and it all just fit in...6 days work and 7th is day of rest...plough a field 6 years and on the 7th rest it....and so on. I never questioned it and if anyone asked me....I would defend it. The secular world generally dont know enough about evolution to be able to make any attacks on YEC beliefs anyhow so mostly it comes from athiests or TE's...well in my situation and many of the creation scientists who debate YEC also seem to debate athiests a lot of the time.

Whilst I dont see it as stopping someone from being saved as it isnt a requirement from what I see, I see it as beneficial to understand the creation account. The questioning of salvation isnt made by YEC's (I believe) to say they are not Christians, but because this is a Christian forum and we want to debate this issue with other Christians who have different beliefs...if not a Christian then they can make it clear they are not Christian...then their arguments wont hold any water against a YEC because our authority is God and if someone isnt being led by God then how can they argue from a Scriptural point of view or at least with the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Hope you'll understand my point anyhow...

 

[Andy D]

Consider the amazement we see when some Christians stumble into this forum and find out that there are Christians who actually accept evolution! They honestly have never heard of such a thing before. This is a very bad state of affairs for the Church.

I was one of those Christians who stumbled into here and thought I was debating creationism against non-Christians because I had never heard of Christians beleiving evolution and nor have any of my friends whom i told afterwards....I dont believe it is a bad state of affairs for the church...if the church preaches that God created the earth in 6 days then I cant see how that is a bad thing...evolution just never came into the picture in any church i been in and the churches were very healthy still...evangelising and growing at tremendous rates...and yet didnt even considering evolution as a possibilty...so whilst I now know there are Christians who believe in TE....i dont look down on any Christian who doesnt know this. We are all called to different callings...I came on here...I am a learning freak...I love to learn and study...and I need to learn to love those who disagree with what I believe..and I am

 

[Andy D]

Oh, if only this were so. Sadly, however, in a church just 50 yards from my home, I heard a preacher try to convince some non-Christians that evolution was wrong as a tool of evangelism. The same old non-arguments and strawmen came out.

I'm afraid I couldn't resist putting a spanner in his works. I don't like to see the Gospel supported by lies.

Strangely enough, many have come to Christ from being shown the error in man's thinking and shown truth.....when evolution becomes truth...we couldnt as YEC's dispute it...but at this point there is insufficient evidence to call evolution truth....maybe so for the Bible as well.....but the Holy Spirit makes a huge difference in undestanding truth.

 

[artybloke]

The problem is, Andy, it's very easy to fool people who don't know anything about science. But it's not so easy to fool people who do; and when people find out that the creationist case is largely lies, self-deception, strawmen arguments, misinformation, bad science and worse theology, I can't honestly blame any of them for just walking away.

but at this point there is insufficient evidence to call evolution truth

This, for instance, is most definitely not true. There is more evidence supporting the theory of evolution than there is evidence for the theory of gravity. The sheer weight of evidence alone is enough to convince at least 99% of all scientists in its truth. Many of those scientists, of course, will be Christian; though obviously they don't seem to populate the narrow little corner of fundamentalism you seem to inhabit (I'd like to see you find any Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Anglican creationists for instance. Certainly, the Pope isn't one. The Catholic Chruch at least learnt from having its fingers burnt by the Gallileo incident.)

 

[Andy D]

The problem is, Andy, it's very easy to fool people who don't know anything about science. But it's not so easy to fool people who do; and when people find out that the creationist case is largely lies, self-deception, strawmen arguments, misinformation, bad science and worse theology, I can't honestly blame any of them for just walking away.

This, for instance, is most definitely not true. There is more evidence supporting the theory of evolution than there is evidence for the theory of gravity. The sheer weight of evidence alone is enough to convince at least 99% of all scientists in its truth. Many of those scientists, of course, will be Christian; though obviously they don't seem to populate the narrow little corner of fundamentalism you seem to inhabit (I'd like to see you find any Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Anglican creationists for instance. Certainly, the Pope isn't one. The Catholic Chruch at least learnt from having its fingers burnt by the Gallileo incident.)

Well I cant comment on the denominations you listed because I dont agree with many of the theological stands of them so that doesnt and never will hold water for any fundamental creationist that these denominations dont agree with creation.

My mind is narrow..and so is the way to heaven. But I am suprisingly open to many things. Also I dont know of any Christians who walked away from Christianity after studying evolution, who were brought to the Lord through the creation story so I cant argue that one either.

I was lying in bed last night thinking about how TE's very often use the theory of gravity to back up an argument of theirs. It is that we YEC's believe in the theory of gravity and it is a man made theory, so why not evolution which also is a theory based upon evidence man has come up with? For a start, the theory of gravity doesnt contradict anything in the Bible that I know of...doesnt mean having to re-interpret the Bible a different way or cause division amongst brethren.

Also, how do you know the theory of gravity is correct? Have you studied qantum physics....atoms being attracted to each other...maybe the theory of gravity is not correct???? Maybe it is more to do with particles that we have not yet studied on a high enough level to understand yet that draws objects together. God holds it all together.

The same could be said about evolutionary theory...yeah..brilliant theory...definately we can all learn a lot from any of it's studies...because we will discover many new things...but it doesnt mean it is correct...maybe in 50 years time we will have gone to a new level that means needing a new theory because theories on gravity and evolution have been superceeded by new ones....

The creationist argument is not lies, it is based on the book of Genesis and also many other verses within the Bible. I have a feeling that many people dont understand it that is all. Btw, I couldnt care less what the Pope believes...nor the general Anglican church...the archbishop, i read in a news article today has been changing parts of the Bible to read as the church sees fit. They even get rid of references to homesexuality so that makes it easy to argue there is nothing wrong with it doesnt it....and they added the book of Thomas...it seems they have an agenda to keep up with social standards...well sorry, but the pharisees in Jesus time added all their own stuff to the law too but it didnt get them into heaven.

 

[1denomination]

First off let me start by giving andy a pat on the back. Keep up the good work brother, and second it dosnt surprise me any that there is a smaller percentage of people who belive Genesis 1and 2 as pure truth. As my good friend Jesus once said "Strait is the way and narrow is the path that leadeth unto life and few there be that find it"


Of course as you guys have already discussed, not many people belive that either. Maybe i should belive them too?
God bless

 

[Vance]

First off let me start by giving andy a pat on the back. Keep up the good work brother, and second it dosnt surprise me any that there is a smaller percentage of people who belive Genesis 1and 2 as pure truth.

Why do YEC's keep saying this? Don't you realize that all of us accept the Bible as pure truth? Even if we don't read it literally.

YEC's find it comforting to reduce this to a "do you believe the Bible or not?" question, since there is only one good answer to that question.

But, really, we all believe the Bible. The only difference is what we believe the Bible says.

 

[GodSaves]

Why do your posts always look upset? Why do you never think better of your brother? Do you really think we are trying to put you down? No. We are trying to correct bad teachings. And this is obvious that they are because now you are arguing that Jesus really wasn't even the Son of God and the Bible doesn't teach that He is.

You know Vance if none of us didn't care about you or others, we wouldn't even waste our time on this board.

 

[Vance]

Why do your posts always look upset? Why do you never think better of your brother? Do you really think we are trying to put you down? No. We are trying to correct bad teachings. And this is obvious that they are because now you are arguing that Jesus really wasn't even the Son of God and the Bible doesn't teach that He is.

You know Vance if none of us didn't care about you or others, we wouldn't even waste our time on this board.

I get upset when people perpetuate false statements about what we believe. This is damaging to the public perception of Theistic Evolution and, thus, could prevent some from considering this alternative who otherwise would. This, in turn, could create a crises of faith in someone which need not occur. This is why it is essential to prevent these false statements from being told over and over.

If you would like to combat a false teaching, then do it without misrepresenting what the other side says. You say we believe X, we tell you that we don't. Then you go right ahead and say that we believe X again! The first time might just be a inadvertent misrepresentation. The second time is an intentional misrepresentation.

And this post is a prime example. I have never once argued that Jesus was not the son of God. Yet, you say that I do. This is a misrepresentation, and since I credit it you with being able to read and understand what I am saying, an intentional misrepresentation.

We, on the other hand, do NOT misrepresent what you are saying. We do not need to resort to this type of tactic.

If you cared about anyone on this board, you would never intentionally misrepresent their position. Since you do, then you must not.