Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
Nope. The Bible teaches "six days" and "the whole world." You insist on "billions of years" and "local." Your position is contradictory to the word of God. When you've picked a side, you might be able to join a rational discussion.
Not until you examine the evidence.
Jose Fly
New member
I have and have concluded that young-earth creationism isn't supported by the data. So according to the framework you and 6days have presented, I must therefore reject the Bible and Christianity.
Not really. We have studied the evidence and it shows evolutionism and Big Bang ideology wanting.
Jose Fly
New member
I'm sure you have gone that route, but you're missing the point.
I've studied the evidence and concluded that it shows young-earth creationism to be very wrong. Therefore, according to the framework you and 6days have laid out, I and anyone else who reaches the same conclusion have no choice but to reject Christianity, correct?
Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
Not really. We have studied the evidence and it shows evolutionism and Big Bang ideology wanting.
I'm sure you have gone that route, but you're missing the point.
And this nicely illustrates the damage Stipe and his fellows do to Christianity. And it's not something new. Such people have always been a problem:
Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, ... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do what we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."
Saint Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim
Not really. We have studied the evidence and it shows evolutionism and Big Bang ideology wanting.
I'm sure you have gone that route, but you're missing the point.
And this nicely illustrates the damage Stipe and his fellows do to Christianity. And it's not something new. Such people have always been a problem:
Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, ... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do what we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."
Saint Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim
Nope.
I'm sure you have sold yourself out to your religion, but you're missing the point. I've studied the evidence and concluded that it shows evolutionism and Big Bang ideology false.
Therefore, according to the framework we have laid out, we are justified in what we believe.
Evidence, remember? Evolutionists react to it like a vampire does to sunlight.
Meanwhile, you deny the plain teaching of the Bible.
Jose Fly
New member
Why not? Like I said, I've examined the data and reached a firm conclusion, and according to the framework you've laid out, I have no choice but to reject Christianity.
Right, that's one side of the equation. If you review the evidence and reach the conclusion you describe, then you're justified in being a Christian.
However there must also be another side. If a person reviews the evidence and reaches the conclusion that YEC is wrong, by the same framework that person is justified in rejecting Christianity, correct?
Like I said, I've reviewed the evidence. From both sides even.
Like I said, I've examined the data and reached a firm conclusion, and according to the framework, you should reject evolutionism.
That's a big "if."
Strange, since you never discuss it.
Jose Fly
New member
That's as compelling to me, as me saying "I've examined the data and reached a firm conclusion, and according to the framework, you should reject creationism" would be to you.
Regardless, the question stands. If a person reviews the evidence and reaches the conclusion that YEC is wrong, by the same framework that person is justified in rejecting Christianity, correct?
That's demonstrably false.
everready
New member
"And this nicely illustrates the damage Stipe and his fellows do to Christianity. And it's not something new. Such people have always been a problem:"
And what would you suggest be done to these trouble makers, do like they did with Galileo?
everready
Jose Fly
New member
Is that what you are?
So you are saying your framework only works in one direction. If a person reviews the evidence and concludes it supports YEC, that person is justified in being a Christian.
But if a person reviews the evidence and concludes it doesn't support YEC, that person is not justified in rejecting Christianity.
Does that mean you believe a person can not be a YEC and still be a genuine Christian?
Nope. You have to assess the evidence; testing your ideas against it. You prefer talking nonsense.
Jose Fly
New member
Done (and again, from both sides).
Again, do you believe a person can not be a YEC, but still be a genuine Christian?
Barbarian observes:
And this nicely illustrates the damage Stipe and his fellows do to Christianity. And it's not something new. Such people have always been a problem:
(Augustine describes Stipe-like behavior among foolish people in his day)
We should examine their new doctrines, discuss them, and expose them for what they are. Sunlight is a great disinfectant.
Didn't work so well, did it? Luther and Calvin thundered fire and brimstone at the idea. But they lost. You guys always reach for coercion to settle things. But it's a big mistake.
In the long run, that always happens. God isn't neutral on this, remember. He made it.
And this nicely illustrates the damage Stipe and his fellows do to Christianity. And it's not something new. Such people have always been a problem:
(Augustine describes Stipe-like behavior among foolish people in his day)
We should examine their new doctrines, discuss them, and expose them for what they are. Sunlight is a great disinfectant.
Didn't work so well, did it? Luther and Calvin thundered fire and brimstone at the idea. But they lost. You guys always reach for coercion to settle things. But it's a big mistake.
In the long run, that always happens. God isn't neutral on this, remember. He made it.
:AMR: Again?
1. There is no such thing as a "genuine" Christian. You either are, or you aren't.
2. The only test of a Christian is his confession of Jesus Christ as risen Lord and savior. Nothing else applies.
Meanwhile, you say "billions of years," while the Bible teaches "six days." When you've picked one among the Bible and your anti-Bible notion, you might be able to be part of a rational discussion.
everready
New member
Nothing new about Gods word nothing new about Gods creation. Just today i heard Richard Dawkins say it was Darwinism that converted him to atheism as he explained it to Ben Stein.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g
everready
Dear 6days,
The norm is for TOL conversations to quickly branch off in so many directions some of the essential points often are lost in the resulting morass. I want to maintain a focus on whether or not R. H. Brown’s paper shows scientific support for YEC timelines. Peripheral issues can be picked up later.
You realize that is almost a classic example of undisguised academic circular reasoning. Any bloke with a religious timeline he believes in can do exactly the same thing.
I imagine an anthropomorphic version of nature as the arbiter in how science works. No concerns for feelings, dreams, dogmas, loves, desires – just an absolutely undeviating allegiance to the way nature does in fact work. That’s the world I live in. In the lab, it is cold and impersonal, but I always know where I stand. To the degree that I can’t divest myself of personal biases, my experiments fail. Yours do too. Badly.
The norm is for TOL conversations to quickly branch off in so many directions some of the essential points often are lost in the resulting morass. I want to maintain a focus on whether or not R. H. Brown’s paper shows scientific support for YEC timelines. Peripheral issues can be picked up later.
The article I found is online and free (I linked to it). It is written by the author you named, and specifically deals with how 40,000 year old dates can mathematically made into 5,000 years. If you are willing to declare that your CRS article has crucial data missing from the one I found, then I will tender a subscription to CRS and look at it. Point remains, the article I found by your guy on your subject is a farcical parody of science.
And that is R. H. Brown’s view as well. But that is not science. You don’t get to define the conditions that are guaranteed to give the answers you want at the end. If you want to do science, you take what nature shows, and see where it leads. If it doesn’t fit with your dogma, tough, then abandon the claim that science proves the Bible.
You should be laughing at me, because I am laughing at myself. I was focused on the C-14 date in the coal to the exclusion of remembering why science thinks that C-14 dating of coal is pretty much silly.
So then we agree that in R. H. Brown’s paper at GRI, and likely his paper that you mentioned at CRS, he starts with a set of assumptions favored by YEC folks, and then goes on to do nothing more meaningful than show that the mathematics supports YEC conclusions. And you honestly view that as science?
You realize that is almost a classic example of undisguised academic circular reasoning. Any bloke with a religious timeline he believes in can do exactly the same thing.
The issue I have with YEC use of “worldviews” is shown in this exchange. If you are right, science can’t be depended on to be truly impartial much at all, since every conclusion must be made by someone with an agenda. But in many decades (too many) in science, I have worked side by side with literally thousands of scientists, coming from almost every country, and of widely different religious persuasions, and not a single time have I ever seen one of them pull out the trump card you are trying to play: “We get different answers to the same problem, but I think mine is right to me because I have my prior beliefs.” I wonder how that would have played out when I worked on projects that had to work, or lives were endangered. If someone disagreed with the fundamental ideas we were working with, those ideas were mercilessly examined until there was no divergence of opinion. No allowance was made for “my worldview” or “your worldview”. And, the most convincing part was that even had I (or anyone else there), had a secret “worldview” that differed significantly from the consensus, nature had the final vote. Nature didn’t know and didn’t care about anyone’s “a priori beliefs”. It would have been a bit problematic if, as in your 40,000 years really means 5,000 years case, there was a huge discrepancy. I will let you imagine what would happen if a nuclear test exploded with 8 times the expected yield, just because the scientists involved refused to agree with YEC ideas.
I imagine an anthropomorphic version of nature as the arbiter in how science works. No concerns for feelings, dreams, dogmas, loves, desires – just an absolutely undeviating allegiance to the way nature does in fact work. That’s the world I live in. In the lab, it is cold and impersonal, but I always know where I stand. To the degree that I can’t divest myself of personal biases, my experiments fail. Yours do too. Badly.
- Status