Before Charles Darwin, most Christians believed in special creation. The fathers of the Church, from studying the Septuagint, estimated that the earth is about 7,500 years old. It should be considered reasonable for a Christian to believe what the Church has traditionally taught, as long as he doesn't attempt to teach it as science. It should be remembered that Creation is a theological concept, not a scientific one. Science and theology each have their own particular sphere and function. Believing the doctrine of Creation doesn't make one a fool, and neither does believing evolution make one any better of a person. There should be no reason to debate, given that faith isn't acquired by argumentation but through God's revelation to the human heart.
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Young earth creation is not an evil
- Thread starter SpyridonOCA
- Start date
- Status
Over 200 years of patiently accumulated and analyzed evidence leading to well-tested and non-falsified hypotheses that work in many practical applications.
It is called the science of geology.
Upvote
0
I should add that by my statement I am not attempting to ascribe blame.
The evil is indicative of the human condition, a sort of blindness that we all experience when the alternative is disconcerting.
The evil is indicative of the human condition, a sort of blindness that we all experience when the alternative is disconcerting.
Upvote
0
The church also traditionally taught that the Earth was the center of the universe, and the sun revolved around it. They even went so far as to excommunicate the scientists of the day for daring to question that view. Should we still believe in a geocentric universe today because of what the church taught?
Upvote
0
At one time, Ptolemy was the prevailing theory in the scientific community. University professors influenced the Roman Church to have Galileo excommunicated.
Upvote
0
Even if what the church has taught is demonstrably false? What about geocentricism?
Is it really reasonable for a Christian (or a non-christian, for that matter) to believe in geocentricism, since it is what the Church has traditionally taught?
The evolution and idea that the Earth isn't only about 7500 years old are scientific concepts, not theological ones.
I agree, but biological origin and the age of the Earth are within the sphere of science and not theology.
Upvote
0
First of all, you didn't answer the question. Should we believe in geocentricism or not?
Second of all, there was no scientific community at Ptolemy's time. At best you can argue it was protoscience. There was no real scientific method or community before (roughly) the 16th century.
Upvote
0
One should consider the limitations of science. Some matters are best left to divine revelation, rather than human investigation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-HiHNhKuJM
Upvote
0
Do I really need to explain this to you? The resistance of germs to antibiotics, the evolution of culex molestus, the observed speciation of fruit flies, the development of vaccines, transitional fossils, the expansion of the universe, the levels of radioactive isotopes in rocks (and the uniformity of the half lives of said isotopes) and much other evidence that proves Genesis wrong is clearly observable and falsifiable.
You can talk about differing interpretations all you want, but you'll have to explain how someone can interpret all that evidence as "God created everything 7500 years ago and evolution doesn't occur".
Upvote
0
The only things best left to divine revelation are those things that cannot be known by any other means.
What can be known through science is best discovered through science, not through revelation. What science is discovering IS the revelation of creation.
Upvote
0
busterdog
Senior Veteran
Well, it is true enough that 90% of debate may be a waste of time.
What God does to the heart is obviously the only means by which people learn anything of value in this area.
As for reason to debate, doesn't the nature of origins bear on the nature of the future? Evolution required death to work in the "garden" to make "Adam." But, death is the final enemy. The coming of Jesus to solve that problem is our "blessed hope" as Paul says. One can still accept (most of) Paul and Darwin at the same time, but aren't these origins issued very important to the nature of our faith? (Lets leave out soteriology for the moment.)
Upvote
0
We can all agree that species change over time, but that doesn't answer the question of how living things came to be in the first place. Why wouldn't an intelligent designer create life forms that are capable of adapting to their environments? I don't want to argue with you, because doing so will not solve anything. I'd recommend reading Faith, Form and Time by Kurt Wise, in which Wise makes clear that to believe and understand what the Scriptures teach regarding the Creation, one must first accept the Scripture by faith and then interpet the natural world accordingly.
Upvote
0
I have not problem with the idea of accepting Scripture by faith in order to understand the teaching of Scripture.
But whose version of accepting scripture should I adopt and why? Why, for example, Kurt Wise's version over that of Augustine, C.S. Lewis, Hugh Ross, Kenneth Miller and a host of other Christians who would disagree that Kurt Wise is accepting what the scriptures teach.
Upvote
0
The naturalistic hypothesis for the origin of life in the first place is abiogeneis, not evolution. I'll contend that there is less proof for abiogenesis than for evolution. However, you're still ignoring all the other evidence that disproves the creation of the universe and the earth 7500 years ago.
Exactly, but that doesn't mean it happened the way Genesis says.
(emphasis mine)
And here is where you go painfully wrong.
If you are already assuming that Biblical creation is true by faith, then logically you must hold everything that disproves it to be false a priori. If you are doing this, you are essentially saying that your internal faith is more valid than your experiences and observations of the external world. When you're confronted with evidence that the earth is not 7500 years old, you ignore it because you already assume Genesis is true on faith.
How is this a valid method of intellectual inquiry? If you were wrong, how would you know?
I, for one, think this is illogical. Should we also interpret the natural world according to scripture when it comes to geocentricism? Why shouldn't I first accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster on faith and then interpret the natural world accordingly?
Without anything else to back it up, your choice of what to have faith in is entirely arbitrary.
Upvote
0
In addition, it is already an assumption that "biblical creation" is equivalent to "young earth" creation. How was that established?
Upvote
0
An odious little man known for his dishonesty lies about the nature of science in a video. It's interesting, but not in the manner that you might hope.
For that matter, JJjayco, the poster of that particular video, seems rather dishonest himself. How is it that creationists can claim to serve the truth with such blatant lies? Why is it that creationists claim that they're the moral ones when they're the ones who support liars?
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
