When is it time to abandon a sinking ship? (YEC?)

[Jase]

You know I keep hearing this, primarily here at CF, but I've yet to see it play out in any real sense where I live. For example, I've spoken with two biology teachers and neither in any way shape or form are firm believers in evolution. I find it interesting that those who are supposed to know better aren't even convinced, don't you?

I would question their credentials as to actually study biology then. The entire field of biology is based on evolution. You can't even discuss microbiology and disease without utilizing evolutionary theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

BTW, Hi AV - glad you decided to come up to the OT forum

My pleasure, sir --- check ur reps!

 

[vossler]

So demonizing someone by saying that they are the "thoughts of men" is simple mud slinging and little more. Your 6 day interpretation is a "thought of man".

Was I demonizing anyone?

As for the six day interpretation, that's as much a 'thought of man' as Jesus rising from the dead.

 

[Mallon]

I would question their credentials as to actually study biology then.

Keep in mind we're talking about biology teachers, and not biologists, per se. You don't need to fully understand something in order to teach it. I've had biology teachers teach me math in grade school, and I've had chemists teach me physics.

 

[vossler]

I would question their credentials as to actually study biology then. The entire field of biology is based on evolution. You can't even discuss microbiology and disease without utilizing evolutionary theory.

You missed my point. I don't doubt their credentials, I know they've studied biology and have the proper degrees and background. They've just chosen to go along with the flow in order to do what it is they enjoy. Lots of folks do that all the time.

 

[hithesh]

Are you saying their ideas were not the thoughts of men?

Well, the idea that the Genesis account is to be taken as "literal", is just as much the "thoughts of men", as it is to take the account as "allegorical. " The bible does not tell you to think either way, because the word of God knows that the object is not important, as relevance, as I had pointed out in my previous post.

I don't argue science because I'm not trained or educated sufficiently in it to do so. However I am able to discern when something is being presented as fact when there is little or no evidence to support it.

Hum, quite a curious position? I am curious as to what you mean by there is "no" evidence for evolution? Hum, so is there evidence for 6 day creationism? And the Bible is not evidence for it, anymore so than the Bible is evidence that snakes can talk.

 

[hithesh]

Perhaps I can enlighten you on AV, since I've had numerous encounters with him in the Crevo debate forum. AV is about as fundamentalist as you get when it comes to the Evo debate, although he doesn't call himself a YEC, he made up some other name so it looks like it doesn't fit into that "silly" crowd of normal YECs. He takes the 1611 King James Bible as the only authorative source of scripture, and even claims it's more accurate and trustworthy than the original Hebrew ( I believe he's stated in the past, if the Hebrew disagrees with the KJV, it's wrong).

He uses random Bible verses to support the ridiculous notion that scientific concepts such as electricity and strong forces were well known in the Bible. In fact I believe his signature used to say something about Jesus being the bind that holds nuclear forces together, or something like that.

He even went so far as to suggest at one time, that in order to re-enact the global flood, we should fill a baby swimming pool up with dirt, throw in a bunch of ants, drown the pool with water, and then ask the ants what the end result was. Needless to say this got laughs for weeks to come.

In short, you can't win with AV - evidence means absolutely nothing to him, and he's always right.

BTW, Hi AV - glad you decided to come up to the OT forum

Well, if AV as quasi-YEC, finds the YECs to be too "silly" for his taste, I wonder what that says about the YECs?

 

[crawfish]

Then why did Jesus believe in it?

[bible]Mark 10:6[/bible][bible]Mark 13:19[/bible]

Not to mention Paul:

[bible]Romans 1:20[/bible][bible]Romans 8:22[/bible]

...and Peter:

[bible]2 Peter 3:4[/bible]

You are aware that NONE of these verses implies a specific, literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3?

Even we non-creationists believe that God created the world and created us male and female.

 

[vossler]

Hum, quite a curious position? I am curious as to what you mean by there is "no" evidence for evolution? Hum, so is there evidence for 6 day creationism? And the Bible is not evidence for it, anymore so than the Bible is evidence that snakes can talk.

What most folks call evolution I call adaptation, while defining evolution more specifically as the process of species changing into other species.

As a Christian how do you eliminate the Bible as a proof text?

 

[crawfish]

Do they know it?

ymssra...

 

[theFijian]

You might find this hard to believe but...yes! BTW, no offense taken, nor given.

As I've said before, it's not about being ignorant or not understanding the evidence. It's about epistimology and finding the correct synthesis. It just happens that the Creationist epistimology is wrong.

 

[theFijian]

You don't know me very well, Mallon --- I'll cut you some slack.

I eat "scientists" for lunch.

Hubris and arrogance are not fruits of the spirit.

 

[AV1611VET]

lol, if you're a Theistic Evolutionist, by definition you believe "God created."

I'm a Biblical Earth Creationist --- I believe God created the universe in six days, as He stipulated in writing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, if AV as quasi-YEC, finds the YECs to be too "silly" for his taste, I wonder what that says about the YECs?

I've never said that.

In fact, my exact remark is: I'm not a YEC, but I'm the next best thing to one.

I'm much closer to YEC than OEC.

 

[Jase]

What most folks call evolution I call adaptation, while defining evolution more specifically as the process of species changing into other species.

Adaptation is a mechanism of evolution. What you and other creationists don't seem to understand is you create this non-existant barrier between adaptation and "macro-evolution" in order to protect your Biblical interpretation, despite none of you actually being able to explain what the barrier is, and what prevents a species from crossing it. Tell me Vossler, what prevents a population from adapting so many times that it can no longer reasonably be considered the same species as it was before ( due to geographic isolation for example)?

As a Christian how do you eliminate the Bible as a proof text?

This is a difficult question for any rational thinker, and has led many people down the path to disbelief. There isn't a whole lot of external evidence supporting the validity of the Bible, and saying the Bible is true because the Bible says so is circular. I've often asked myself why should I hold any more validity to the Bible than the Iliad or the Baghavad Gita, when they all are similarly lacking in the external evidence department.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are aware that NONE of these verses implies a specific, literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3?

No, I'm not aware of that. CREATION is the antithesis of EVOLUTION, and by speaking of The Creation, I get the impression they are meaning a literal six-day creation.

Even we non-creationists believe that God created the world and created us male and female.

Huh?

If you're talking about Theistic Evolution, let me ask you this:

At the exact moment of Creation, was the amount of mass/energy a constant?

In a six-day creation, the amount of mass/energy is zero, then increases to its current amount over a six-day period.

This is exactly how Genesis 1 describes it.

 

[vossler]

Adaptation is a mechanism of evolution. What you and other creationists don't seem to understand is you create this non-existant barrier between adaptation and "macro-evolution" in order to protect your Biblical interpretation, despite none of you actually being able to explain what the barrier is, and what prevents a species from crossing it. Tell me Vossler, what prevents a population from adapting so many times that it can no longer reasonably be considered the same species as it was before (due to geographic isolation for example)?

Could it be that the barrier exists because we can observe one and not the other?

How about they (population) don't have the information available to do so.

This is a difficult question for any rational thinker, and has led many people down the path to disbelief. There isn't a whole lot of external evidence supporting the validity of the Bible, and saying the Bible is true because the Bible says so is circular. I've often asked myself why should I hold any more validity to the Bible than the Iliad or the Baghavad Gita, when they all are similarly lacking in the external evidence department.

Thanks for the honest answer. We obviously see this entirely different.

 

[plainswolf]

I'm still on the fence, as so to speak. I certainly don't rule out theistic evolution but I also don't rule out young earth creation either. I have a love of paleontology simply because I find the creatures themselves utterly fascinating, not so much where they came from or when or how they became extinct, etc.. - I usually don't enter into debates such as this. But I've come across some info lately and thought I'd toss it out there. And speaking of those in a feild to know, I ran across this article Young Earth Paleontologist




+Mark

 

[hithesh]

As a Christian how do you eliminate the Bible as a proof text?

If one were to search the Bible for science, they would come up empty, if one were to search the bible to understand our spiritual being, they would come up quite full.

If you want to say that the Bible is the scientific "proof" for 6 day creation, than the bible is also the scientific "proof" of talking snakes, talking assess, Samson killing an army with a donkeys jawbone etc.

So tell me, is the bible "scientific" proof of the existence of such things? And if so, why is the bible "scientific" proof of the existence of such things, but greek mythology is not the "scientific" proof of the existence of "Atlas", or "Sirens"?

What you seem not to understand is, what qualifies as "scientific".

 

[vossler]

If one were to search the Bible for science, they would come up empty, if one were to search the bible to understand our spiritual being, they would come up quite full.

How about if one were to search the Bible for Truth, regardless of type, we would come up quite full.

If you want to say that the Bible is the scientific "proof" for 6 day creation, than the bible is also the scientific "proof" of talking snakes, talking assess, Samson killing an army with a donkeys jawbone etc.

I don't need scientific proof for a 6 day creation any more than I do for Jesus' resurrection.

What you seem not to understand is, what qualifies as "scientific".

No, I would say what qualifies as proof is the issue.