YEC's, answer this...

[Assyrian]

First of all my Bible doesn't say there is a 'solid sapphire firmament' so that should give some credence to why it may not be important; however, it does mention a six day creation.

It doesn't say literal six days either.

Jesus commanded us to perform communion or the Lord's Supper as outlined in 1 Corinthians 11. He did this by asking us to break bread just as He was broken and to eat it in rememberance of Him. In the process of doing so we humble ourselves by reflecting on our relationship with Him. We do this so that we may never forget the wonderful gift He has given us and so that we may never take Him for granted. The bread and wine are symbolic for Christ's body and blood. They are probably the most profound symbols that the world has ever known and do a great job of effectively summarizing the entire Christian faith.

You do realise the reason Catholics believe in transubstantiation is because the take Jesus literally when he said 'This is my body'. Why are YECs right to take the Genesis day literally, but Catholics wrong to take Jesus' own words literally?

What I do have is the authority to speak about what the Holy Spirit and God's Word has impressed upon and convicted my heart on. Now if you or others wish to interpret Scripture contrary to the way I do that is your right and perogative. I in no way wish to silence your voice. God's Word stands firmly on it's own, nothing I or you can say will dilute or corrupt it. I believe when God's Word and His Spirit convicts you of what He is impressing upon your heart that one shouldn't shy away from such conviction, but rather voice it loudly. Does that mean I'm always right, no, but until either the Holy Spirit or God's Word show me to be wrong I will continue to boldly and confidently express my beliefs. I'm certainly not here to exercise any authority other than that which has been given to me by my Lord Jesus Christ.

So it all comes down to your feelings? You feel in your heart God has shown you this is the right interpretation? Now by all means, I agree we should all look to God for understanding and boldly and graciously argue our case. But realise, it is not a question of science verses the word of God, it is science verses your feelings of what the correct interpretation is. And men of God like Luther Calvin and Melanchthon 'felt' their interpretation of what the bible said about science was correct. They believed the sun moved around a fixed earth.

Why are marine fossils found on top of EVERY high peak in the world?

Not on top of Ararat.

It is odd. You argue for very rapid plate tectonics, but ignore the fact that the Himalayas are being lifted up as India pushes north. That is why there are marine fossils there. The Himalayas used to be sea bed.

Incidentally, Psalm 104 is about the creation, not the flood.

 

[EturnaL]

The moon

 

[Jig]

I am a YECist and I'll be the first to admit that there are some wacked out people who also believe in a young Earth and end up spoiling the whole glass of milk.

The evidence you are looking for has been posted before, I've seen it. Maybe it was in one of those long website bombs that you passed over.

We all know the half-life of the isotope Carbon 14. Do some math and you'll see that within a closed enivorment [where no new C14 is coming in] all the isotopes should completely be transformed back to C12 ~ 70,000 years. (Note: I may be off 10,000 years or so, I forget).

This is fact.

[Note: Diamonds are made up of carbon, and would have had an amont of C14 in the beginning of it's creation].

It's funny to me that one is able to do a C14 reading on such diamonds and still find trace amounts of it.

You may not find this interesting intill you do some research and find out how old these diamonds are supposed to be.

3.3 billion??

http://chemistry.about.com/cs/geochemistry/a/aa071601a.htm

 

[jeffweeder]

Incidentally, Psalm 104 is about the creation, not the flood.

Psalm 104
The LORD'S Care over All His Works.
1 Bless the LORD, O my soul!
O LORD my God, You are very great;
You are clothed with splendor and majesty,
2 Covering Yourself with light as with a cloak,
Stretching out heaven like a tent curtain.
3 He[1][Lit The one who ] lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters;
He[2][Lit The one who ] makes the clouds His chariot;
He[3][Lit The one who ] walks upon the wings of the wind;
4 He[4][Lit Who ] makes the[5][Or His angels, spirits ] winds His messengers,
Flaming[6][Or His ministers flames of fire ] fire His ministers.
5 He established the earth upon its foundations,
So that it will not totter[7][Or move out of place ] forever and ever.
6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters were standing above the mountains.
7 At Your rebuke they fled,
At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away.
8 The mountains rose; the valleys sank down
To the place which You established for them.
9 You set a boundary that they may not pass over,
So that they will not return to cover the earth.
10 He[8][Lit The one who sends ] sends forth springs in the valleys;
They flow between the mountains;
11 They give drink to every beast of the field;
The wild donkeys quench their thirst.
12 Beside[9][Or Over, Above] them the birds of the heavens dwell;
They lift[10][Lit give forth ] up their voices among the branches.
13 He[11][Lit Who ] waters the mountains from His upper chambers;
The earth is satisfied with the fruit of His works.
14 He[12][Lit Who ] causes the grass to grow for the cattle[13][Or beasts ],
And vegetation for the labor[14][Or cultivation by or service of ] of man,
So that he[15][Or He ] may bring forth food[16][Lit bread ] from the earth,
15 And wine which makes man's heart glad,
So that he may make his face glisten with oil,
And food[17][Lit bread ] which sustains man's heart.
16 The trees of the LORD drink[18][Lit are satisfied ] their fill,
The cedars of Lebanon which He planted,
17 Where the birds build their nests,
And the stork, whose home is the fir[19][Or cypress ] trees.
18 The high mountains are for the wild goats;
The cliffs are a refuge for the shephanim[20][Small, shy, furry animals (Hyrax syriacus) found in the peninsula of the Sinai, northern Israel, and the region round the Dead Sea; KJV coney, orig NASB rock badgers ].
19 He made the moon for the seasons;
The sun knows the place of its setting.
20 You appoint darkness and it becomes night,
In which all the beasts of the forest prowl[21][Lit creep ] about.
21 The young lions roar after their prey
And[22][Lit And to seek ] seek their food from God.
22 When the sun rises they withdraw
And lie down in their dens.
23 Man goes forth to his work
And to his labor until evening.
24 O LORD, how many are Your works!
In[23][Or With ] wisdom You have made them all;
The earth is full of Your possessions[24][Or creatures ].
25 There[25][Or This ] is the sea, great and broad[26][Or broad of dimensions (lit hands)],
In which are swarms without number,
Animals both small and great.
26 There the ships move along,
And Leviathan[27][Or a sea monster ], which You have formed to sport in it.
27 They all wait for You
To give them their food in due[28][Lit its appointed time ] season.
28 You give to them, they gather it up;
You open Your hand, they are satisfied with good.
29 You hide Your face, they are dismayed;
You take away their spirit[29][Or breath ], they expire
And return to their dust.
30 You send forth Your Spirit[30][Or breath ], they are created;
And You renew the face of the ground.
31 Let the glory of the LORD endure forever;
Let the LORD be glad in His works;
32 He[31][Lit The one who ] looks at the earth, and it trembles;
He touches the mountains, and they smoke.
33 I[32][Or Let me sing ] will sing to the LORD as[33][Lit in my lifetime ] long as I live;
I[34][Or Let me sing ] will sing praise to my God while[35][Lit while I still am ] I have my being.
34 Let my meditation be pleasing to Him;
As for me, I shall be glad in the LORD.
35 Let sinners be consumed from the earth
And let the wicked be no more.
Bless the LORD, O my soul.
Praise[36][Or Hallelujah! ] the[37][Heb YAH] LORD!


FLOOD ALSO

 

[Dannager]

The moon

Uhh...no.

 

[vossler]

If you don't have all the answers pertaining to Genesis 1 how can you be so sure that only your interpretation is identifiably The Word Of God and that all our other interpretations are Corruptions of The Word Of God?

What I am sure of is what the Word of God says. It says God created and it took Him six days. It also says He created man from nothing or the dust of the earth. If you come here and say something contradictory to any of those clear biblical statements I will protest. If you wish to delve into areas that are not specifically covered within Genesis and develop your own theories, have at it, speculate all you want. I will enjoy reading anything along those lines.

I certainly do not deny you or anyone the authority to explore, to discuss, to provoke even, but I was speaking of "the authority to decide that there can only be one correct interpretation of such an obscure issue as the historicity as Genesis 1, and that this authentically Scriptural view is YECism". Such authority surely comes about only by complete knowledge of the Scriptures and issues involved, and as such surely you should communicate this knowledge to us poor illusioned TEs so that we may see the error of our ways and conform to the one true and holy interpretation of The Word Of God.

The difference here being that you see ambiguity when reading Genesis 1, whereas I see clear and concise language. What I see isn't clouded by what man through scientific speculation has developed.

If I had to wait until I had 'complete knowledge' on any subject before speaking authoratively well I'm afraid there never will come a time that I will then speak. God never told us or implied that we should develop any sort of complete knowledge, but rather He told us to go out and preach the Gospel, with no qualifiers.

 

[vossler]

It doesn't say literal six days either.

It says that far more clearly and concisely than anything else.

You do realise the reason Catholics believe in transubstantiation is because the take Jesus literally when he said 'This is my body'. Why are YECs right to take the Genesis day literally, but Catholics wrong to take Jesus' own words literally?

First of all, I do wish that you and other TEs quit twisting the words of YECs. No where have I ever read a single YEC state that every word of the Bible is to be taken literally. Yet you and others here, in a not so subtle effort to paint us with your brush as ignorant fools, continually come back to that argument when you have nothing substantive to say. What I will say for the Catholics, in their defense, is that at least their interpretation is based solely upon the text of the Bible and not a man derived theory which has no biblical basis what-so-ever. With that said, I believe my signature line states very eloquently what my (I suspect many other YECs) belief or approach is when reading God's Holy Word, His Bible.

So it all comes down to your feelings? You feel in your heart God has shown you this is the right interpretation? Now by all means, I agree we should all look to God for understanding and boldly and graciously argue our case. But realise, it is not a question of science verses the word of God, it is science verses your feelings of what the correct interpretation is. And men of God like Luther Calvin and Melanchthon 'felt' their interpretation of what the bible said about science was correct. They believed the sun moved around a fixed earth.

No, it definitely does not come down to my feelings, it comes down to what the Word of God says, period! Yes it is a question of science vs. the Bible. Men of God will always make mistakes, Luther, Calvin and myself are not excluded. Given that, I'm glad that Luther and Calvin stood up for what they believed and boldly proclaimed it, every word. I believe God too is pleased. At least when they were wrong they had a biblical case to be made, evolutionists don't.

 

[LightHorseman]

It's funny to me that one is able to do a C14 reading on such diamonds and still find trace amounts of it.

Except there is no reason to think diamonds have been extant since the begining of the Earth. Diamonds are created through volcanic processes.

Further, everytime things get heated, the carbon in them moves around. Carbon is also the end product of other atomic decay, and arriving from cosmic dust fall all the time... so to say it would have all converted lon ago isn't really the way these things work.

 

[LightHorseman]

jeffweeder... if sea creature fossils on mountains are evidence for the flood... what are terrestrial animal frossils found on former sea beds evidence of?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Yet you and others here, in a not so subtle effort to paint us with your brush as ignorant fools, continually come back to that argument when you have nothing substantive to say.

i have no desire to paint anyone as a fool, i have those people on ignore and don't customarily even read their postings here unless someone quotes them. The reason for the issue is that it (1)shows the failure of the hermeneutic to solve very important issues, (2)it shows that historically people have decided to "share the space" of being Christians and have not treated Roman Catholics for transubstantiation or paedobaptists (most YECists are credo) like they treat theistic evolutionists, (3)that there really is a hierarchy in importance, the origins issue is not as important as the sacraments.

just as the issue of Galileo is important to how the visible church solves the origins issues. just as the extraordinary failure of the protestant literal hermeneutic to solve the issues of slavery in the American unCivil War points to a exegetical and hermeneutical problem. the issue of the divisiveness of the sacraments points to how issues are solved in the church. that is why we keep bringing up the same issues, the lessons are not being learned.

Men of God will always make mistakes, Luther, Calvin and myself are not excluded. Given that, I'm glad that Luther and Calvin stood up for what they believed and boldly proclaimed it, every word. I believe God too is pleased. At least when they were wrong they had a biblical case to be made, evolutionists don't.

this is my point. the right way to begin to solve the problem is to admit that there exist theist evolutionist who are Christians, who make a Biblical case for evolution, that look at the Bible as well as you do. until i see this attitude i am going to bring up the issues of credo v. paedo baptism. There is a legitimate difference of opinion here. There are Christians with a committed and knowledgable worldview on both sides of the "who to baptise" issue. It is not an issue of us v. them. it is an issue of us v. us. YECism is deathly wrong in not understanding that there exist good strong conservative Biblical Christians who also see evolution as a legitimate and useful scientific theory. just as a Baptist will admit (well a few anyhow) that i as a Presbyterian baptised my kids (well half of them anyhow) and i am not going to hell for it.

when YECist can admit that analogously to the sacraments issue, evolution is NOT a crucial salvation issue that condemns people to hell just for believing it, i will continue to point out the problems with the divisiveness of denominationalism.

 

[vossler]

this is my point. the right way to begin to solve the problem is to admit that there exist theist evolutionist who are Christians, who make a Biblical case for evolution, that look at the Bible as well as you do.

To be perfectly honest, I've never seen a biblical case for evolution.

YECism is deathly wrong in not understanding that there exist good strong conservative Biblical Christians who also see evolution as a legitimate and useful scientific theory.

If they, as you say, exist I haven't come across them yet.

when YECist can admit that analogously to the sacraments issue, evolution is NOT a crucial salvation issue that condemns people to hell just for believing it, i will continue to point out the problems with the divisiveness of denominationalism.

I for one don't see evolution as a crucial salvation issue, never have. I certainly don't believe it condemns people to hell for believing it. There may be one or two that do, but they are certainly the minority.

 

[shernren]

The difference here being that you see ambiguity when reading Genesis 1, whereas I see clear and concise language. What I see isn't clouded by what man through scientific speculation has developed.

If I had to wait until I had 'complete knowledge' on any subject before speaking authoratively well I'm afraid there never will come a time that I will then speak. God never told us or implied that we should develop any sort of complete knowledge, but rather He told us to go out and preach the Gospel, with no qualifiers.

points down ->

No, it definitely does not come down to my feelings, it comes down to what the Word of God says, period! Yes it is a question of science vs. the Bible. Men of God will always make mistakes, Luther, Calvin and myself are not excluded. Given that, I'm glad that Luther and Calvin stood up for what they believed and boldly proclaimed it, every word. I believe God too is pleased. At least when they were wrong they had a biblical case to be made, evolutionists don't.

Again, where have you obtained such complete knowledge of The Word Of God that you are qualified to identify your interpretation of it as the sole valid interpretation to be accepted by all who truly wish to completely honor God? Why do things demonstrated by clear sensory experience not enter then into this complete knowledge?

The reason produced for condemning the opinion that the earth moves and the sun stands still in many places in the Bible one may read that the sun moves and the earth stands still. Since the Bible cannot err; it follows as a necessary consequence that anyone takes a erroneous and heretical position who maintains that the sun is inherently motionless and the earth movable.

With regard to this argument, I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth-whenever its true meaning is understood. But I believe nobody will deny that it is often very abstruse, and may say things which are quite different from what its bare words signify. Hence in expounding the Bible if one were always to confine oneself to the unadorned grammatical meaning, one might; fall into error. Not only contradictions and propositions far from true might thus be made to appear in the Bible, but even grave heresies and follies. Thus it would be necessary to assign to God feet, hands ans eyes, as well as corporeal and human affections, such as anger, repentance, hatred, and sometimes even the forgetting of` things past and ignorance of those to come. These propositions uttered by the Holy Ghost were set down in that manner by the sacred scribes in order to accommodate them to the capacities, Of the common people, who are rude and unlearned. For the sake of those who deserve to be separated from the herd, it is necessary that wise expositors should produce the true senses of such passages, together with the special reasons for which they were set down in these words. This doctrine is so widespread and so definite with all theologians that it would be superfluous to adduce evidence for it.

Hence I think that I may reasonably conclude that whenever the Bible has occasion to speak of any physical conclusion (especially those which are very abstruse and hard to understand), the rule has been observed of avoiding confusion in the minds of the common people which would render them contumacious toward the higher mysteries. Now the Bible, merely to condescend to popular capacity, has not hesitated to obscure some very important pronouncements, attributing to God himself some qualities extremely remote from (and even contrary to) His essence. Who, then, would positively declare that this principle has been set aside, and the Bible has confined itself rigorously to the bare and restricted sense of its words, when speaking but casually of the earth, of water, of the sun, or of any other created thing? Especially in view of the fact that these things in no way concern the primary purpose of the sacred writings, which is the service of God and the salvation of souls - matters infinitely beyond the comprehension of the common people.

This being granted, I think that in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin not from the authority of scriptural passages but from sense experiences and necessary demonstrations; for the holy Bible and the phenomena of nature proceed alike from the divine Word the former as the dictate of the Holy Ghost and the latter as the observant executrix of God's commands. It is necessary for the Bible, in order to be accommodated to the understanding of every man, to speak many things which appear to differ from the absolute truth so far as the bare meaning of the words is concerned. But Nature, on the other hand, is inexorable and immutable; she never transgresses the laws imposed upon her, or cares a whit whether her abstruse reasons and methods of operation are understandable to men. For that reason it appears that nothing physical which sense experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called in question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages which may have some different meaning beneath their words. For the Bible is not chained in every expression to conditions as strict as those which govern all physical effects; nor is God any less excellently revealed in Nature's actions than in the sacred statements of the Bible. Perhaps this is what Tertullian meant by these words:

"We conclude that God is known first through Nature, and then again, more particularly, by doctrine, by Nature in His works, and by doctrine in His revealed word."
​

From this I do not mean to infer that we need not have an extraordinary esteem for the passages of holy Scripture. On the contrary, having arrived at any certainties in physics, we ought to utilize these as the most appropriate aids in the true exposition of the Bible and in the investigation of those meanings which are necessarily contained therein, for these must be concordant with demonstrated truths. I should judge that the authority of the Bible was designed to persuade men of those articles and propositions which, surpassing all human reasoning could not be made credible by science, or by any other means than through the very mouth of the Holy Spirit.


- Galileo, 1615

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I for one don't see evolution as a crucial salvation issue, never have. I certainly don't believe it condemns people to hell for believing it. There may be one or two that do, but they are certainly the minority.

awhile back i decided to keep track of how many times people on the two origins forums on CF said that Christians could not be evolutionists. it averaged 6 times per week.

in fact, between abortion and evolution you have the two litmus tests for salvation in the fundamentalist community. I haven't seen a YECist here that publically said that Christians could legitimately differ on the issues of origins and that evolutionists could be just as committed a Christian with a valid hermeneutic. The closest i've personally seen is the admission that there are Christians who are evolutionist but they are not very consistent because they accept evolution. My point is that you can be a "good" Christian and accept evolution just like you can be a credobaptist and be a real true Christian. i think credobaptists are wrong but it is a legitimate point of difference not a deficient, truncated or inconsistent faith.

To be perfectly honest, I've never seen a biblical case for evolution.

then you are looking in the wrong places
part of the problem is the insularity of the YECist community. apparently they don't get out much *grin*
read:
the language of god by collins
Paradigms on Pilgrimage: Creationism, Paleontology and Biblical Interpretation
Evolution from Creation to New Creation: Conflict, Conversation, and Convergence by Ted Peters
The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse
Bridging Science and Religion (Theology and the Sciences) by Ted Peters
The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross by George L. Murphy
Perspectives on an Evolving Creation by Keith B. Miller
God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution by John F. Haught
When Science and Christianity Meet

or anything from:
Stanley Jaki
Michael Polanyi
John Polkinghorne
A. R. Peacocke

on the interpretation of Genesis read:
The Fourth Day: What the Bible and the Heavens Are Telling Us About Creation by Howard Van Till
Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview by Meredith G. Kline
The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science by M. Conrad Hyers
In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis by Henri Blocher
The Genesis Debate : Three Views on the Days of Creation by J. Ligon, III Duncann

YECism is deathly wrong in not understanding that there exist good strong conservative Biblical Christians who also see evolution as a legitimate and useful scientific theory.


If they, as you say, exist I haven't come across them yet.

if i were a lawyer i would now rest my case. you see no way to be a Christian and to be an evolutionist. atheism==evolution. the party line for AiG, ICR and YECism in general.

 

[vossler]

Again, where have you obtained such complete knowledge of The Word Of God that you are qualified to identify your interpretation of it as the sole valid interpretation to be accepted by all who truly wish to completely honor God? Why do things demonstrated by clear sensory experience not enter then into this complete knowledge?

Again, I've never stated I have complete knowledge and for you to continually claim that I in some way have, when I repeatedly have stated I don't, is disingenuous and is beginning to become tiresome to repeat.

I've also never claimed or implied that I had the sole valid interpretation of anything, much less Genesis. I've also not said that 'clear sensory experience' shouldn't be included in our knowledge base. Your getting pretty good at attributing things to me I've never said, maybe you should focus on what it is I actually did say.

I'd really like for someone to provide a 'clear sensory experience' that would support millions of years or evolution. As long as I've been here I've yet to come across it.

As much as I could accurately digest what Galileo said, I very much enjoyed reading it. Thanks for posting it.

 

[vossler]

awhile back i decided to keep track of how many times people on the two origins forums on CF said that Christians could not be evolutionists. it averaged 6 times per week.

I'd like you to point out those YECs, who post with any regularity, believe what you say. If they exist, like I said they are most definitely the minority.

in fact, between abortion and evolution you have the two litmus tests for salvation in the fundamentalist community.

As a fundamentalist and one who regularly reads their propaganda , I've never once come across anything resembling a 'litmus' test, like you speak of, for salvation. I personally wish to challenge you on this and produce something that will back this claim up.

I haven't seen a YECist here that publically said that Christians could legitimately differ on the issues of origins and that evolutionists could be just as committed a Christian with a valid hermeneutic.

You almost had me agreeing here, except for the last four words. I haven't come across a valid hermeneutic for evolution. If it exists I'd like to see it. Maybe you could post it.

then you are looking in the wrong places

part of the problem is the insularity of the YECist community. apparently they don't get out much *grin*

Instead of referring us to books, why don't you begin a thread here that summarizes a biblical case for evolution here? That certainly would go a long, long way to validating the TE claim.

YECism is deathly wrong in not understanding that there exist good strong conservative Biblical Christians who also see evolution as a legitimate and useful scientific theory.


If they, as you say, exist I haven't come across them yet.

if i were a lawyer i would now rest my case. you see no way to be a Christian and to be an evolutionist. atheism==evolution. the party line for AiG, ICR and YECism in general.

Is that what I said? I said I haven't come across any strong conservative biblical Christians. If they exist, please point one out to me.

My view is based on my many discussions here at CF. I have found that the lines are pretty clear between those who are conservative and those who are not. Through the many polls and other means of distinction it has been made very apparent.

How all this relates to your assertion that one can't be a Christian and an evolutionist confounds me. True, many if not most evolutionists are either atheists or agnostics but that doesn't exclude an evolutionist from being a Christian.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I'd really like for someone to provide a 'clear sensory experience' that would support millions of years or evolution. As long as I've been here I've yet to come across it.

i think the best evidence is certainly radioactive dating. but past testimony from YECist-->OECist people say that their persuasive evidence was often supernovas

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/

an interesting paper on the issue is at:
http://www.geocities.com/vr_junkie/thebibleandscience.htm

i think that a single person's journey from YECism to OECism is more persuasive than any other type of writing. i think that is why i recommend _paradigms on pilgrimage_ so often. it is written from the heart and reflects the tension and pain that they went through to move their ideas.

In this book it was the depth of the fossil record, in particular footprints that got through to him as the idea of deep time.

As a fundamentalist and one who regularly reads their propaganda , I've never once come across anything resembling a 'litmus' test for salvation. I personally wish to challenge you on this and produce something that will back this claim up.


i asked at:
http://www.christianforums.com/t3975078-abortion-and-evolution.html#post28125915

here is my idea.

I think that membership in fundamentalist churches has a litmus test of anti-abortion and anti-evolution, a litmus test being a quick and handy guide to who is inside and who is outside.

i'm not here to debate the issues. what i would like to do is ask people about their emotions about the issues. to ask people about how important psychological and for unity of the fundamentalist community these issues are.

the problem is that i can read definitions of fundamentalism, like the one given in this forum FAQ. but that doesn't tell me how people really identify brethren in say a casual conversation with a visitor after church.

so with this background what i am asking is:

how important to fellowship and trust as a fellow fundamentalist or Christian are the issues of abortion and evolution? Can a Christian genuinely support abortion or be an evolutionist? if someone you didn't know talked to you after church and you found out that they supported legal abortion or were an evolutionist would this be more important than the fact that they could subscribe to the list of things that make a fundamentalist in this forums FAQ? simply put, does either a pro-abortion or evolutionist stand trump the doctrines for membership in fundamentalist churches?

thanks.

i'll x-post it in a few places.

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?p=209588#post209588
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1692935#post1692935

so let's see what people say about this litmus test idea.

My view is based on my many discussions here at CF. I have found that the lines are pretty clear between those who are conservative and those who are not. Through the many polls and other means of distinction it has been made very apparent.


i'm still not sure about all these issues. do you remember a thread that talked about the distinction that would be particularly useful?

 

[vossler]

i think the best evidence is certainly radioactive dating. but past testimony from YECist-->OECist people say that their persuasive evidence was often supernovas

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/

an interesting paper on the issue is at:
http://www.geocities.com/vr_junkie/thebibleandscience.htm

I'm not a scientist or a scientifically minded person so talkorigins won't work, at least for me. Besides that, they are not a Christian organization and would have a strike against them just for that. Rather than present some in-depth scientific 'evidence' that is supposed to overwhelm me with its technical brilliance, why not just give me the cliff notes in an easy to digest way?

i think that a single person's journey from YECism to OECism is more persuasive than any other type of writing. i think that is why i recommend _paradigms on pilgrimage_ so often. it is written from the heart and reflects the tension and pain that they went through to move their ideas.

In this book it was the depth of the fossil record, in particular footprints that got through to him as the idea of deep time.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not very interested in reading a book on one person's journey from YEC to TE. I'm not the biggest reader to begin with and already have stacks of books that are far more interesting to me to read without finding another one to add to it.

i asked at:
http://www.christianforums.com/t3975078-abortion-and-evolution.html#post28125915

i'll x-post it in a few places.

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?p=209588#post209588
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1692935#post1692935

so let's see what people say about this litmus test idea.

Unfortunately you've changed the question posted from the one presented here. Here you said abortion and evolution were a litmus test for salvation, there you asked if it was a litmus test for membership. Quite a different question that will bring potentially a completely different response.

i'm still not sure about all these issues. do you remember a thread that talked about the distinction that would be particularly useful?

I remember many of these discussions, now I'll have to see if I can find one that will effectively dramatize it.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

'm not a scientist or a scientifically minded person so talkorigins won't work, at least for me. Besides that, they are not a Christian organization and would have a strike against them just for that. Rather than present some in-depth scientific 'evidence' that is supposed to overwhelm me with its technical brilliance, why not just give me the cliff notes in an easy to digest way?

my problem is that i am not trained in astronomy, i can't read journals in the field and don't have the competence to criticize the field. i can see people report that the supernova data is compelling and essentially is the wedge into their YECism, but i myself do not experience astronomy in this way.

my science interest is in molecular biology, that is where i spent significant years studying and as a result have a feeling for the field. i personally find the union of chimp 2p and 2q chromosome to form the human 2, the HERV's forming a 3rd independent clade and pseudogenes as plagarism compelling and instrumental elements in my movement from PC to TE. but OTOH i have never seen anyone online find this compelling or important data, it appears to be the overall system that is important not the data but how it fits.

most of my thinking in this has to do with what does it take to convince and persuade people. how do people change their minds about big things? why do people convert to different religions?

it appears to look a lot like Kuhn's paradigm shifts, what happens is that there is extraneous data that doesn't fit into your intellectual system and the more you look at this data the more the system appears to be at fault not the data.

thinking in these terms leads me back to testimonies from YECists who have left the fold, becoming OEC (mostly) over the issues of the age of the earth. Those are the people who can sympathize and argue most effectively about these wedge issues. i personally have never been YEC and lack the insight that they have about the issues.

when i argue here with the scientific evidence for evolution i am painfully aware that it is not a simple argument nor something that can be summed up easily, it just requires too much background.

for example, on the chimp 2q+2p=human 2 chromosome issue, i find the backwards internal teleomeres really persuasive but it would take pages to explain why.

 

[vossler]

my problem is that i am not trained in astronomy, i can't read journals in the field and don't have the competence to criticize the field. i can see people report that the supernova data is compelling and essentially is the wedge into their YECism, but i myself do not experience astronomy in this way.

But you've got a scientific background in biology and that will assist you in understanding the data better than someone who doesn't. I liken it to a person who is athletically gifted and plays basketball regularly. He will be better at football than someone who is gifted and spends his days working behind a desk with limited physical activity.

most of my thinking in this has to do with what does it take to convince and persuade people. how do people change their minds about big things? why do people convert to different religions?

I believe it has very little to do with the actual scientific evidence and more to do with how humble and contrite someone is willing to be.

when i argue here with the scientific evidence for evolution i am painfully aware that it is not a simple argument nor something that can be summed up easily, it just requires too much background.

Yes it does require a lot of background. Here's the thing, anyone (talkorigins, AiG, etc) can present their scientific findings and in the process promote their worldview. There are no biblically based evolutionary organizations so from a Christian perspective organizations such as talkorigins are already operating from behind. When professed Christian organizations such as AiG, ICR etc., say they have the scientific evidence to support a young earth and I as a layman look at it and find myself convinced that it is adequate, guess what, I'm going to believe it.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

There are no biblically based evolutionary organizations so from a Christian perspective organizations such as talkorigins are already operating from behind.

http://www.asa3.org/
http://www.ctns.org/
http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_online/index.asp