Why Creationism is important.

[mark kennedy]

I am starting to lose interest in the subject of creationism, thinking about moving on. It took a long time to get the Creation/evolution forum out of my system but it's going to happen. I just wanted to give the regulars on here some of my reflections in the hopes that they will find them useful.

I spent a lot of time reading scientific literature and being told I was wrong. The tactic they use is that what ever I write, I'm wrong. One question after another and no matter what the answer is, your wrong. I was open to their arguments for a long time but refused to make an assumption that the human lineage shared a common ancestor with apes. I was also uncompromising on the historicity of Scripture. I would have discarded creationism a long time ago but the real issue has always been the reliability of Scripture.

When I finally lost all confidence in evolutionists to properly present the actual evidence I turned to the Scriptures. It was an attempt to at least establish some common ground with professing Christians, they would either accept it as sound doctrine or I was done. This approach does not work so I'm not interested in pursuing the subject any further.

I have been deeply encouraged by the level of support this forum has provided. I was literally offended that TEs could come in this forum and start debates when I was involved in a rather contentious debate that was disrupting another board (H2C). The temporary measure to keep this forum Creationist specific was a good one but it's anyone's guess if it will last. I'm not upset, I'm not tired, I'm not even irritated with the arguments they throw around. I am simply bored to death.

Creationism is an aspect of Christian Apologetics that will continue to minister to believers for generations to come. It is tied inextricably to the traditional views of the Church and the clear testimony of Scripture. I would encourage anyone interested in pursuing the scientific aspect to remember the only conflict between science and Scripture is an illusion. Here is the short list of questions evolutionist are unable to answer, submitted for your edification and kind consideration.

1) How did the human brain adapt from that of an ape?
2) With the known level of divergence in the DNA of Chimpanzees what would the mutation rate have to be?
3) With so many of our ancestors supposedly having mulitiple fossils where are the chimpanzee ancestors from 2 million years ago at the key transition of the human brain?
4) Were Paul, Jesus, Luke and Moses creationists as evidenced by their clear testimony?
5) Can you believe in a literal interprutation of Scripture in such a way as to be accepted as credible in modern academic and scientific circles?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[FallingWaters]

Excellent post.
Thanks for sharing.
I hope you don't stop coming here altogether.

 

[laptoppop]

I have deeply appreciated your posts. It causes me to rejoice to know of additional problems at the genetic level with evolution.

I recently saw a video of the inner machines inside every cell. AMAZING. We look at a car and see design. We look at something a million times more complicated with a wonderful collection of very specialized mechanisms and structures.... and some fail to see the very hand of God at work as the ultimate Designer.

I hope you continue to poke your head around here once in a while - even as I suspect I will -- but I can sure understand your cutting back. It may feel futile -- but the prime important people are the lurkers, not the posters.

I'm more concerned with the liberal interpretations of Scripture. They seem to reduce it from the word of God to the inspiring words of men. To me, this robs them of glory, power, and meaning. God has assured us that His word will accomplish what He wants -- its has amazing beauty and power.

Lord bless you, bro!

 

[busterdog]

I am starting to lose interest in the subject of creationism, thinking about moving on. It took a long time to get the Creation/evolution forum out of my system but it's going to happen.

Yeah, the debate forum is populated with unbelievers. The fellowship there is apparently why Paul said not to have fellowship as such.

4) Were Paul, Jesus, Luke and Moses creationists as evidenced by their clear testimony?
5) Can you believe in a literal interprutation of Scripture in such a way as to be accepted as credible in modern academic and scientific circles?

You really have to work hard to get around 4). How can you not worry about what Jesus thinks about a global flood and a literal Adam?

Apparently you cannot be taken seriously in you believe literally. Sadly.

I will not soon forget that you brought it all home for me in pointing out that the central issue that divides us on these points is the biblical teaching on death. There is no teaching that lines up logically without a literal understanding of when and how death entered the world according to Paul and Genesis.

 

[FallingWaters]

Besides all that,
isn't it true that Jewish scholars themselves understand Genesis to be an historical account,
not an allegorical one?
I think so.

 

[busterdog]

Besides all that,
isn't it true that Jewish scholars themselves understand Genesis to be an historical account,
not an allegorical one?
I think so.

In the OT forum, the TEs suggest otherwise. I will accept for the sake of argument that there is a variety of opinion there. They also came up with kabbalah, precluded the possibility of the afterlife (sadducees) and changed the words of the shema (Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God is "achad", or like Adam and Eve, one flesh) to exclude the trinity in the centuries after the resurrection.

 

[FallingWaters]

In the OT forum, the TEs suggest otherwise. I will accept for the sake of argument that there is a variety of opinion there. They also came up with kabbalah, precluded the possibility of the afterlife (sadducees) and changed the words of the shema (Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God is "achad", or like Adam and Eve, one flesh) to exclude the trinity in the centuries after the resurrection.

I guess the Jews have their own liberal scholars.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yeah, the debate forum is populated with unbelievers. The fellowship there is apparently why Paul said not to have fellowship as such.

It's not unbelief, I expect that and even invite it. It's the circular reasoning that has me bored out of my skull with the whole subject. Your more into cosmology and somewhat into physics, don't you wonder why there are not more posts on that?

I don't mind the hard work and extensive reading, it's the fundamental bias that leaves me cold.

You really have to work hard to get around 4). How can you not worry about what Jesus thinks about a global flood and a literal Adam?

Apparently you cannot be taken seriously in you believe literally. Sadly.

I decided long ago that evidence for the flood or human evolution were the only two ways to go. A lot of issues with regards to the reliablity of the New Testament were simply ignored. I chose to look at the life sciences and I was astonished at how fundamental principles became so convoluted it was impossible to make any real progress.

The sign over Modernism says, "No Miracles". It's as simple as that and the philosophy is agnostic at best.

I will not soon forget that you brought it all home for me in pointing out that the central issue that divides us on these points is the biblical teaching on death. There is no teaching that lines up logically without a literal understanding of when and how death entered the world according to Paul and Genesis.

I had to ask a fundamental question, is the clear testimony of Scripture ever a trump card for modern science. You are forever looking for some conclusions that make common ground possible. They simply are not interested, in fact this has become as divisive and contentious as any doctrinal issue I have ever seen.

I'm interested in pursuing the pure sciences for a while, life science without a priori assumptions, math formulas for measuring and ways of measuring physical properties.

I know this, I have engaged evolutionists on the Scriptures for the last time. It's pretty much impossible to do that in a way that does not trample sound doctrine and I will have nothing more to do with it.

I'll still hang around but I'm long past taking the subject seriously.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[FallingWaters]

It's not unbelief, I expect that and even invite it. It's the circular reasoning that has me bored out of my skull with the whole subject. Your more into cosmology and somewhat into physics, don't you wonder why there are not more posts on that?

I don't mind the hard work and extensive reading, it's the fundamental bias that leaves me cold.

I decided long ago that evidence for the flood or human evolution were the only two ways to go. A lot of issues with regards to the reliablity of the New Testament were simply ignored. I chose to look at the life sciences and I was astonished at how fundamental principles became so convoluted it was impossible to make any real progress.

The sign over Modernism says, "No Miracles". It's as simple as that and the philosophy is agnostic at best.

I had to ask a fundamental question, is the clear testimony of Scripture ever a trump card for modern science. You are forever looking for some conclusions that make common ground possible. They simply are not interested, in fact this has become as divisive and contentious as any doctrinal issue I have ever seen.

I'm interested in pursuing the pure sciences for a while, life science without a priori assumptions, math formulas for measuring and ways of measuring physical properties.

I know this, I have engaged evolutionists on the Scriptures for the last time. It's pretty much impossible to do that in a way that does not trample sound doctrine and I will have nothing more to do with it.

I'll still hang around but I'm long past taking the subject seriously.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I don't blame you for feeling the way you do.
I have long been of the opinion that the root cause of belief in evolution is a desire to live without being accountable to God.
There's a lot at stake if you disabuse someone of their paradigm.

 

[busterdog]

I don't blame you for feeling the way you do.
I have long been of the opinion that the root cause of belief in evolution is a desire to live without being accountable to God.
There's a lot at stake if you disabuse someone of their paradigm.

Just heard Jack Hibbs (CC, Costa Mesa) say that very thing today.

As I refect on the people that are in the OT forum, I would have to say that it would be a harsh word for some. I would have to think about the extent to which that would be deserved.

Am I accountable to God? I want to walk in a way that is pleasing and I think the desire is equal for a number of TEs. A couple may only desire to be suitable worm food some day in the circle of life. Its hard to tell. But, I would say that the desire to walk properly before God is strong in a number of TEs. But I don't and I doubt they want to be accountable to God -- for who shall stand when He appears? I want Jesus to be accountable for me. We look for forgiveness, but try to walk the walk, because we love Him.

I think the fear of accountability is more in the evolutionists who are atheists or agnostics, and for them it is a bit subliminal.

I also believe that the 19th century was filled with the a spirit of Babel, by which men believed they would reign by intellect and strength on the earth. Communism, the industrial revolution, darwinism, colonialism, manifest destiny and host of movements of mixed motivations contained that spirit. Once you are an acheiver, accountability seems less pressing.

 

[busterdog]

It's not unbelief, I expect that and even invite it. It's the circular reasoning that has me bored out of my skull with the whole subject. Your more into cosmology and somewhat into physics, don't you wonder why there are not more posts on that?

A big reason is that I refused to proceed on many occasions.

I don't really have the desire to do al the detail work. Every field that we dispute, there is nothing but the incessant call to answer every proposition with a new rabbit trail to follow.

And, the treatment of some creationist astronomers was so insulting, that the discussion became pointless.

 

[FallingWaters]

Just heard Jack Hibbs (CC, Costa Mesa) say that very thing today.

As I refect on the people that are in the OT forum, I would have to say that it would be a harsh word for some. I would have to think about the extent to which that would be deserved.

Am I accountable to God? I want to walk in a way that is pleasing and I think the desire is equal for a number of TEs. A couple may only desire to be suitable worm food some day in the circle of life. Its hard to tell. But, I would say that the desire to walk properly before God is strong in a number of TEs. But I don't and I doubt they want to be accountable to God -- for who shall stand when He appears? I want Jesus to be accountable for me. We look for forgiveness, but try to walk the walk, because we love Him.

I think the fear of accountability is more in the evolutionists who are atheists or agnostics, and for them it is a bit subliminal.

I probably agree with you on that.
I am unfamiliar with TEs and frankly that fact that they exist frustrates me.

I also believe that the 19th century was filled with the a spirit of Babel, by which men believed they would reign by intellect and strength on the earth. Communism, the industrial revolution, darwinism, colonialism, manifest destiny and host of movements of mixed motivations contained that spirit. Once you are an achiever, accountability seems less pressing.

I'm afraid I can't comment for lack of knowledge,
but those are common replacements for God.

 

[mark kennedy]

A big reason is that I refused to proceed on many occasions.

I don't really have the desire to do al the detail work. Every field that we dispute, there is nothing but the incessant call to answer every proposition with a new rabbit trail to follow.

And, the treatment of some creationist astronomers was so insulting, that the discussion became pointless.

To be honest, I really do but it is tiresome to be run in circles. All those posts on genetics and the evolution of the human brain, it would have been easy enough for them to say we don't know. Then at least we could have discussed possible molecular mechanisms.

Astronomy is a huge field of study and quite possibly the oldest science around. I seen a documentary on Stonehedge once that concluded it was an attempt at a calander. By the time you learned all the important discoveries and detailed observations the thread is usually derailed with the kind of insults you are describing.

Geology could be an interesting one but it all seems so cut and dried to me it's hard to take it seriously. I just don't think that the genuine article of science is the reason for the intensity of the debates.

What I pursued this topic for was not to learn evolution but the study the evolutionist. Bottomline I don't think I share any common ground with a mentality that turns it into a noman's land.

Grace and peace,
Mark