What evolutionists have to say

[SBG]

YEC's could be dismissing it because many opponents against God have tried very hard to make sure the Big Bang is an exclusion of God. YEC's probably take that as insulting, talking God's work and dismissing God from the work. Just a thought.

 

[Vance]

One reason that I've seen is that the order of events differ from what is in Genesis (ie. sun first, then earth). This sounds to me that these people have thought about it and disagreed with it. This wasn't hard to find either. So I'm baffled as to why you would characterize this as "a knee jerk reaction".

So you think most YEC's reject the Big Bang based on it not fitting within the strictest of the strict literal readings, and I agree completely. They do not reject it based on the science, but on the theology. And this is why I am so amazed, because so many other Christians, as you point out, USE the Big Bang as a form of proof of God's creative work. It fits so well, that it just seems "cutting off your nose to spite your face" to reject a notion that fits so well with Creationism as a whole on theological grounds.

 

[tryptophan]

No worries, friend. If I were to hold something against you, then God should hold my sins against me. Lord knows I need forgiveness and I cannot get that unless I forgive.

It is refreshing to see that you are honest about what you believe of evolution.

Thank you.

 

[Remus]

So you think most YEC's reject the Big Bang based on it not fitting within the strictest of the strict literal readings, and I agree completely. They do not reject it based on the science, but on the theology.

I thought you were better than this Vance. You have resorted to putting words in my mouth. Very nice.

I've seen some disagree with it on scientific grounds. Are you going to turn that into me saying "most" instead of "some" again?

And this is why I am so amazed, because so many other Christians, as you point out, USE the Big Bang as a form of proof of God's creative work. It fits so well, that it just seems "cutting off your nose to spite your face" to reject a notion that fits so well with Creationism as a whole on theological grounds.

You think they should accept something that they disagree with or believe to be false?

 

[Vance]

No, of course they should not accept something if they don't believe it. You are not getting my point. My point is that I am surprised that a Creationist would so strictly hold to a literal reading so as to reject a theory which so dramatically supports their view of origins in every other way, even a literal reading which is not so strict.

They should believe what they believe. My surprise is that their insistence on strict literalism is of such high personal value as to cause this rejection.

 

[Remus]

You are not getting my point.

Ah, ok. I thought your point was "that many YEC's have a knee jerk reaction against the Big Bang". Glad we cleared that up.

 

[Vance]

Ah, ok. I thought your point was "that many YEC's have a knee jerk reaction against the Big Bang". Glad we cleared that up.

Oh, I do think that a lot of them do. I do think a lot of them reject it because they think it is a scientific explanation that excludes God, and that is all they need to know. My own pastor, for example, and my father for a long time (he was also a Pentecostal minister for 25 years). But of course not all of them, some of them base it on the fact it would cause two verses to be in the wrong order.

Either way, my point is that the rejection of such an incredibly Scripture-supporting scientific discovery for either reason (or any other reason YEC's might reject it) is just amazing.

 

[SBG]

So you think most YEC's reject the Big Bang based on it not fitting within the strictest of the strict literal readings, and I agree completely. They do not reject it based on the science, but on the theology. And this is why I am so amazed, because so many other Christians, as you point out, USE the Big Bang as a form of proof of God's creative work. It fits so well, that it just seems "cutting off your nose to spite your face" to reject a notion that fits so well with Creationism as a whole on theological grounds.

Why do you insist that because Genesis 1-3 is read literally, that one is a strict literalist?

Are you under the assumption that because Genesis 1-3 is read literally, that those who do so, don't ever read the Bible recognizing figures of speech, songs and poetry?

To me, your insistence on a strict literalist is rather much like name calling. Instead of saying one reads it literally, you call them a strict literalists, even when they don't read everything literally.

I think you often like to over embellish your points, it helps you in your attack. Sets up a nice, hard to see, strawman though.

 

[Vance]

Why do you insist that because Genesis 1-3 is read literally, that one is a strict literalist?

Are you under the assumption that because Genesis 1-3 is read literally, that those who do so, don't ever read the Bible recognizing figures of speech, songs and poetry?

To me, your insistence on a strict literalist is rather much like name calling. Instead of saying one reads it literally, you call them a strict literalists, even when they don't read everything literally.

I think you often like to over embellish your points, it helps you in your attack. Sets up a nice, hard to see, strawman though.

No, you misunderstand me. My point is that it requires an incredibly strict literalistic approach to Genesis 1:1-3 to insist that it is inconsistent with the Big Bang theory. I did not say anything about how that same person might read other Scripture. It is the reading of this Scripture so strictly alone that I find amazing. It would not surprise me at all if that same person read Song of Solomon non-literally, as figurative for Christ and the Church, for example.

 

[Remus]

I think you often like to over embellish your points, it helps you in your attack. Sets up a nice, hard to see, strawman though.

This thread does make this painfully obvious doesn't it?

 

[Vance]

No, the problem is that which YEC's so often complain about. There are YEC's all over the board on so many of these issues, that if I talk about some of their claims, then others will claim strawman. That is why I try to qualify it with "many" or "some", but the point is still valid with the qualifier. A strawman is when you set up a false or misleading position and then assert that it is THE position. We see YEC's do this with great regularity over in the other forum.

In this thread, I said I was surprised that so many YEC's oppose the Big Bang. This is a simple statement of two truths. Many DO oppose it, and I am, indeed, surprised. I never said, or implied, that most oppose it. Here is what I said:

" But what I still don't understand is why ANY creationist would be opposed to the Big Bang. The only major problem it had from the beginning was that it was an "out of nothing" event, which seemed so . . . supernatural. It fits perfectly with God's Creation, and why any Christian would argue against it just baffles me. But many do."

Then I said:

"My bafflement is that many YEC's have a knee jerk reaction against the Big Bang, possibly because it is accepted by modern science and can be explained without referring to God. This seems to be enough to reject it out of hand, since very rarely do they provide any scientific opposition to it. And this is the irony, since they are rejecting one of the scientific theories about origins that seems tailor-made for Creationists!"

I do not see any strawmen there. This is a simple statement from my personal experience on these boards and in my own church. I did not in anyway indicate that most YEC's oppose the Big Bang. It would be an interesting poll question for YEC's though.

 

[Remus]

No, the problem is that which YEC's so often complain about. There are YEC's all over the board on so many of these issues, that if I talk about some of their claims, then others will claim strawman. That is why I try to qualify it with "many" or "some", but the point is still valid with the qualifier. A strawman is when you set up a false or misleading position and then assert that it is THE position. We see YEC's do this with great regularity over in the other forum.

In this thread, I said I was surprised that so many YEC's oppose the Big Bang. This is a simple statement of two truths. Many DO oppose it, and I am, indeed, surprised. I never said, or implied, that most oppose it. Here is what I said:

" But what I still don't understand is why ANY creationist would be opposed to the Big Bang. The only major problem it had from the beginning was that it was an "out of nothing" event, which seemed so . . . supernatural. It fits perfectly with God's Creation, and why any Christian would argue against it just baffles me. But many do."

Then I said:

"My bafflement is that many YEC's have a knee jerk reaction against the Big Bang, possibly because it is accepted by modern science and can be explained without referring to God. This seems to be enough to reject it out of hand, since very rarely do they provide any scientific opposition to it. And this is the irony, since they are rejecting one of the scientific theories about origins that seems tailor-made for Creationists!"

I do not see any strawmen there. This is a simple statement from my personal experience on these boards and in my own church. I did not in anyway indicate that most YEC's oppose the Big Bang. It would be an interesting poll question for YEC's though.

You forgot one:
"So you think most YEC's reject the Big Bang based on it not fitting within the strictest of the strict literal readings, and I agree completely."
emphasis added

 

[SBG]

No, you misunderstand me. My point is that it requires an incredibly strict literalistic approach to Genesis 1:1-3 to insist that it is inconsistent with the Big Bang theory.

I disagree with you here. It isn't necessarily Genesis 1:1-3 that is the problem, it is the what the Big Bang says and what the Bible says (Genesis 1-2). The order of creation is off.

These so called 'strict literalists' you like to refer to, prefer to follow what is written in Genesis as the chronological order of creation and the 'how' of creation, rather than what scientists have yet to offer.

Also, conviently, the Big Bang is used to show a universe created without God. It may not have been the intent upon the creation of the theory, but it is widely used and widely accepted as the theory to counter God creating. Much like evolution is. You see that differently in your view, but that doesn't make it not so. I have encountered many who use evolution, abiogenesis and the big bang to counter there being an actual God.

Ultimately, the theories are just that. It is Christ who saves and it is Christ all need to hear.

 

[Vance]

You forgot one:
"So you think most YEC's reject the Big Bang based on it not fitting within the strictest of the strict literal readings, and I agree completely."
emphasis added

Oh, yes, I do think most YEC's who reject the Big Bang do so for Scriptural reasons. I did not say that most YEC's reject the Big Bang, although I can see how you read it that way.

But, really, I would suspect that most do reject it. We should do a poll on that one some day.

 

[Remus]

Oh, yes, I do think most YEC's who reject the Big Bang do so for Scriptural reasons. I did not say that most YEC's reject the Big Bang, although I can see how you read it that way.

After rereading this thread and following it through its many twists and turns, I must ask a question. Can you give me any reason that I shouldn't conclude that you are saying that basing opinions on Scripture when it disagrees with science equates to a "knee jerk reaction"?

But, really, I would suspect that most do reject it. We should do a poll on that one some day.

I don't recall this being in dispute, but feel free to do the poll.

 

[Vance]

No, I think the knee-jerk reaction is against any scientific theory which is presented without an explicit reference to God.

 

[Vance]

I started the poll over in the C&E forum, and here are the first couple of responses from YEC's:

"I don't know of a single YEC who would accept the big bang. I may be wrong."

"Whatever made you come up with a ridiculous poll like this?"

 

[Remus]

I started the poll over in the C&E forum, and here are the first couple of responses from YEC's:

"I don't know of a single YEC who would accept the big bang. I may be wrong."

"Whatever made you come up with a ridiculous poll like this?"

WOOHOO.. look at the knees flying all over the place. Can I vote too?!?!! I have two knees that just can't wait...

 

[SBG]

Ok, I am having a bit of trouble understanding this reasoning Vance. You posted this poll in the area for all Christian and non-Christian to post, yet you were speaking to Christians only. Unless there are young earth creationists that aren't Christians that I am unware of, I don't see why you posted the poll there, rather than here.

Usually, when I see such a tactic, it is to have the atheists jump in and get a good laugh at the creationists. I am assuming you had another reason other than this for putting it there, maybe more creationists go there than here?

 

[Vance]

Ok, I am having a bit of trouble understanding this reasoning Vance. You posted this poll in the area for all Christian and non-Christian to post, yet you were speaking to Christians only. Unless there are young earth creationists that aren't Christians that I am unware of, I don't see why you posted the poll there, rather than here.

Usually, when I see such a tactic, it is to have the atheists jump in and get a good laugh at the creationists. I am assuming you had another reason other than this for putting it there, maybe more creationists go there than here?

The reasoning is very simple: this will expose the poll to more YEC's in order to get a wider sample. There are many YEC's who post or visit there who do not seem to come here. But most of the one's here seem to visit there.