Where do Christians stand?

[AV1611VET]

And they mean a lot to those that do hold them...so why oh why didn't the very first Christian creeds state anything about young-earth 6-day Creationism?

Creeds can take a hike.

All they are is the Reader's Digest condensed version of one's particular flavor.

Sola Scriptura!

 

[theFijian]

Creeds can take a hike.

All they are is the Reader's Digest condensed version of one's particular flavor.

Dispensationalism (or your particular flavour) can take a hike

Sola Scriptura!

Sola Scriptura and Creeds are not and have never been mutually exclusive

 

[AV1611VET]

Dispensationalism (or your particular flavour) can take a hike

What was that all about? Supralapsarianism (sp. ?), can take a hike too then.

Sola Scriptura and Creeds are not and have never been mutually exclusive

Who cares? Creeds are for those who are too lazy to read.

 

[theFijian]

What was that all about? Supralapsarianism (sp. ?), can take a hike too then.

The Rapture can take a hike too

Who cares? Creeds are for those who are too lazy to read.

Clearly you care enough to pass comment on it, or are you annoyed that we weren't talking about you?

 

[AV1611VET]

The Rapture can take a hike too

So can TULIP.

 

[Split Rock]

Creeds can take a hike.

All they are is the Reader's Digest condensed version of one's particular flavor.

Sola Scriptura!

Who cares? Creeds are for those who are too lazy to read.

And Sola Scriptura is for those who are too lazy to understand the context of scripture.

 

[tyronem]

And they mean a lot to those that do hold them...so why oh why didn't the very first Christian creeds state anything about young-earth 6-day Creationism?

Because everyone believed it, everyone believed the earth was young, gap theorists and day age theorists have only come about in recent history, they are not historical throughout the Church.

Also everyone believed God made the Heaven and Earth in 6 days because that is exactly what the Bible says it does. Now there were exceptions such as "I've forgotten his name " that believed in creation happening all in one day but he definitely believed in a young earth.

Also everyone could read genealogy so they had no reason to question age of the earth.

The fathers of the Church definitely believed in a young earth and 6 literal days

The Ante-Nicene Fathers including the epistle of Barnabas,
Ó Irenaeus against Heresies Book
Theophilus To Autolycus Book
The Book of Origen against Celsus

And much much more.

..and yet they said nothing about young-earth 6-day Creationism, clearly it was never an essential belief, unlike the authority of scripture

They had lots to say about 6 day creation if you read Church history, however they never needed a creed because everyone believed it.

Why would anyone who didn't have to contend with what they thought was good science entertain anything but exactly what the Bible says?

 

[Bex.]

Why would anyone who didn't have to contend with what they thought was good science entertain anything but exactly what the Bible says?

Because the Bible is horribly flawed in many people's opinion.

 

[tyronem]

Because the Bible is horribly flawed in many people's opinion.

In fact, it's not and I know this because it is not opinion it is proven through science. However, your statement is a fallacious appeal to popularity

That aside, you missed the point. The Church fathers believed in the absolute authority and accuracy of scripture. So in light of that why would they have any other interpretation of scripture other than exactly what it says. Especially given they felt no need to appeal to a then non-existent popular thought that the earth is old.

 

[tyronem]

Creeds can take a hike.

All they are is the Reader's Digest condensed version of one's particular flavor.

Sola Scriptura!

Amen Brother

 

[Non sequitur]

Because the Bible is horribly flawed in many people's opinion.

In fact, it's not and I know this because it is not opinion it is proven through science.

Science has proven the Bible isn't flawed?

 

[Bex.]

In fact, it's not and I know this because it is not opinion it is proven through science. However, your statement is a fallacious appeal to popularity.

My statement is not fallacy. The fact I share that opinion has little to do with the fact that more people on this planet think the Bible is fantasy than those who don't. Now that's a fact.

It's amusing that you are happy to indulge scientific evidence when it suits you, but not when it doesn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

My statement is not fallacy. The fact I share that opinion has little to do with the fact that more people on this planet think the Bible is fantasy than those who don't. Now that's a fact.

I never thought I would hear myself use this term, but don't they call your rebuttal an argumentum ad populum, or something like that?

It's amusing that you are happy to indulge scientific evidence when it suits you, but not when it doesn't.

Perhaps he has standards.

And speaking of that, what do you do with scientific evidence that doesn't suit you?

Better yet, what does any scientist do with scientific evidence that doesn't suit them?

 

[Non sequitur]

And speaking of that, what do you do with scientific evidence that doesn't suit you?

Accept it.

Better yet, what does any scientist do with scientific evidence that doesn't suit them?

No idea.

Not a scientist.

 

[Bex.]

I never thought I would hear myself use this term, but don't they call your rebuttal an argumentum ad populum, or something like that?

Irrelevant. I wasn't making an argument. It was a statement of fact.

And speaking of that, what do you do with scientific evidence that doesn't suit you?

Better yet, what does any scientist do with scientific evidence that doesn't suit them?

I accept it. The scientific method demands scientists do the same.

 

[LOCO]

But that's the thing, he's not interpreting the Bible in a vacuum. He's interpreting the Bible in the light of modernist scientific rationalism which tells him that any truth claim must be verified in a empirical scientific manner for it to be valid. Creationists bemoan the scientific method as being atheistic but they seem to not realise that it's this same rationalist movement that gave rise to modern Creationism.

Spot on Fijian, I wish I thought of that argument.

Ironically, the same atheistic scientific methods are used to rationalise YEC science as is used for Evolution science.

No-one from the scientific or religious community knows the entire process, and there is nothing wrong with saying "we don't know for sure". We have several theories of which YEC is one.

Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them.

At this stage, an evolutionary process is the best explanation we have. It may change in the future.

Blessings

 

[AV1611VET]

Better yet, what does any scientist do with scientific evidence that doesn't suit them?

I accept it. The scientific method demands scientists do the same.

And what of those scientists who don't accept it? ever heard of peer review?

 

[tyronem]

Science has proven the Bible isn't flawed?

Papyrology, Archeology, History, Geology, Biology among much else

 

[LinuxUser]

At this stage, an evolutionary process is the best explanation we have. It may change in the future.

Bull turds.What we have is foolish people who think they are smarter than God so come with a stupid theory called evolution. Evolution is The worst piece of bovine excrement ever!

 

[Non sequitur]

Bull turds.What we have is foolish people who think they are smarter than God so come with a stupid theory called evolution. Evolution is The worst piece of bovine excrement ever!

Oh, that's just sad...