William Lane Craig commits classic anti-creation mistake

[Alate_One]

The book in question:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

Ohhh THAT book. I've been through quite a bit of it with Stripe in the past so . . . :doh:

See also Bryan Nickel's video series which goes through the Hydroplate theory in detail:
https://www.youtube.com/user/nnlmt28

I'm sorry but the Hydroplate theory is scientifically beyond terrible and worse than the Genesis Flood book in terms of sense making. It breaks all the rules of physics plus making no sense of any of the biological data. If any of it had actually happened it would have wiped out all complex life on earth.

 

[Stripe]

In the Christian life it doesn't matter whether you agree with me or not. The problem I have is people saying you CAN'T believe like me and be a Christian. I believe that's wrong and is far too common a position in Christian circles but especially this site.

We hear this silly accusation all the time.

Quote someone saying that you cannot be a Christian and hold to evolution what you can't oh that's right because nobody says it.

Grow up. :up:

The only factor regarding salvation is: Do you confess Jesus Christ as Lord and saviour? Yes? Christian. Nothing else matters.

 

[User Name]

Quote someone saying that you cannot be a Christian and hold to evolution what you can't oh that's right because nobody says it.

Grow up. :up:

The only factor regarding salvation is: Do you confess Jesus Christ as Lord and saviour? Yes? Christian. Nothing else matters.

And here we completely agree. YEC is an article of faith, just as the resurrection of Jesus is an article of faith. Neither can be proven scientifically, so what is the point of arguing in favor of either on an allegedly scientific basis? Just believe in both, and rest in Christ.

 

[Stripe]

And here we completely agree.

If you want to agree, you have to say something equivalent to what I expressed.

Hint: I did not say that YEC is an article of faith.

For clarity, YEC is the idea that the world was created by God as described in Genesis 1 and elsewhere in the Bible.

Neither can be proven scientifically.

Nothing can be "proven" scientifically.

What is the point of arguing in favor of either on an allegedly scientific basis?

Because the scientific approach is applicable in every situation, although it might not be as helpful in every scenario.

You clearly have no understanding of what science is.

Just believe in both, and rest in Christ.

You first. Go away and stop spamming our threads. ;up:

 

[User Name]

For clarity, YEC is the idea that the world was created by God as described in Genesis 1 and elsewhere in the Bible.

Nothing can be "proven" scientifically.

:think:

 

[Stripe]

:think:

Yup.

You need to think long and hard on this one. :thumb:

 

[7djengo7]

YEC is an article of faith...

What (if anything) do you even mean when you call something "an article of faith"? And, of what faith are you saying that YEC is an article? Of the Christian faith? Are you saying that YEC is an article of the Christian faith?

If I'm not mistaken, the term "article of faith" has historically been used to indicate something which must be believed by a person, in order for that person to be in the faith. In other words, if X is an article of faith, then, so long as Joe fails to believe X, Joe is not (at least, not entirely) in the faith. So, are you telling us that for a person to not believe YEC is for that person to be not entirely in the Christian faith? If that's what you're saying, why then, commendably, you're saying truth: Anyone who does not believe the Bible truth known as "YEC" is not entirely (if at all) in the Christian faith. YEC is not something extraneous to Christianity; it is (like all other essential parts of Christianity) an essential part of Christianity.

the resurrection of Jesus is an article of faith.

The resurrection of Jesus is, indeed, an article of faith. You don't believe God's word of truth that Jesus rose from the dead? Then you're outside the faith.

Neither can be proven scientifically

By this, what do you mean, if not simply that neither is true? Are you not merely saying that YEC is false? Are you not merely saying that the resurrection of Jesus is false?

Note, also, that you called YEC "an article of faith", rather than "an article of truth". Why is that? And, you called the resurrection of Christ "an article of faith", rather than "an article of truth". Why is that?

Just believe in both, and rest in Christ.

Here, you're recommending that people believe in YEC. I take it, then, that you're a believer of YEC, also. No? Because, I mean, if you are not a believer in YEC, then why would you be telling people to believe in YEC? Why would you be telling people to believe things that you, yourself, do not believe?

And what (if anything) do you mean by "rest in Christ"? Or, were you just trying to create a Hallmark moment by saying that?

 

[Stripe]

User name usually just posts links. It becomes clear why when he tries to engage in an actual conversation.

 

[User Name]

What (if anything) do you even mean when you call something "an article of faith"? And, of what faith are you saying that YEC is an article? Of the Christian faith? Are you saying that YEC is an article of the Christian faith?

If I'm not mistaken, the term "article of faith" has historically been used to indicate something which must be believed by a person, in order for that person to be in the faith. In other words, if X is an article of faith, then, so long as Joe fails to believe X, Joe is not (at least, not entirely) in the faith. So, are you telling us that for a person to not believe YEC is for that person to be not entirely in the Christian faith? If that's what you're saying, why then, commendably, you're saying truth: Anyone who does not believe the Bible truth known as "YEC" is not entirely (if at all) in the Christian faith. YEC is not something extraneous to Christianity; it is (like all other essential parts of Christianity) an essential part of Christianity.



The resurrection of Jesus is, indeed, an article of faith. You don't believe God's word of truth that Jesus rose from the dead? Then you're outside the faith.



By this, what do you mean, if not simply that neither is true? Are you not merely saying that YEC is false? Are you not merely saying that the resurrection of Jesus is false?

Note, also, that you called YEC "an article of faith", rather than "an article of truth". Why is that? And, you called the resurrection of Christ "an article of faith", rather than "an article of truth". Why is that?



Here, you're recommending that people believe in YEC. I take it, then, that you're a believer of YEC, also. No? Because, I mean, if you are not a believer in YEC, then why would you be telling people to believe in YEC? Why would you be telling people to believe things that you, yourself, do not believe?

And what (if anything) do you mean by "rest in Christ"? Or, were you just trying to create a Hallmark moment by saying that?

You mad bro?

 

[7djengo7]

You mad bro?

That's your answer???

You fail.

Please stop spamming TOL; please quit being a troll.

 

[7djengo7]

User name usually just posts links. It becomes clear why when he tries to engage in an actual conversation.

Well, if I ever see him TRY to engage in an actual conversation....

So far, I've not seen even that much from him.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You mad bro?

Don't be a troll, User.

 

[Lon]

I tend to stay away from arguments over who believes what or how popular an idea is.

When you lot are interested in OP or even a tangent that is evidence-based, let me know. :up:

Wasn't sure how much leash I had. Thanks.

 

[Stripe]

Wasn't sure how much leash I had. Thanks.

It's not you who has to worry.

 

[Alate_One]

We hear this silly accusation all the time.

Quote someone saying that you cannot be a Christian and hold to evolution what you can't oh that's right because nobody says it.

The whole point of this thread was you attacking WLC as inconsistent for believing in the resurrection and Evolution. Why can't you just give it a rest if it's okay. . .

The only factor regarding salvation is: Do you confess Jesus Christ as Lord and saviour? Yes? Christian. Nothing else matters.

I agree, yet we're still arguing.

 

[Stripe]

The whole point of this thread was you attacking WLC as inconsistent for believing in the resurrection and Evolution.

Yes.

And?

Why can't you just give it a rest if it's okay.

What? :AMR:

I agree, yet we're still arguing.

Feel free to retract your silly accusation. :up:

 

[Stuu]

Bones of Contention was the last book I had, it tried very hard to deal with human fossils, but it was pretty obvious they were trying to shoehorn the data into the categories they WANTED it to fit into.

Bones of Contention was my last one too, lent to me by a work colleague. I thought the first chapter was great: as I remember, an account of the current state of politics of who gets to see hominid fossils and who doesn't. I don't know how true any of it was, but it was quite well written.

Chapter Two onwards is, as Pauli would say, not even wrong.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

Still, Craig is no friend of the Darwinist. He lays out exactly how prevalent equivocation and vagueness are in their propositions.

He really needs to debate a YEC.