My position-- or lack of one

Discussion in 'Science' started by Alcott, May 3, 2005.

  1. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,457
    Likes Received:
    93
    The only firm “position” I espouse on the Young Earth Creationist v. Old Earth Evolutionist ongoing debate is that I wish it didn’t exist. Both sides would probably agree with that, but both would still be unwilling to concede one letter.

    Why I am not a young earth creationist: The Bible does not give us the details of creation that YEC’s have a yearning to claim. “God said let there be light, and there was light”… light exists because God said to let it happen. We can’t necessarily conclude that light was inevitable unless He kept it from happening, even though a strict understanding of the wording might suggest that. But we can be quite certain no details about energy production, photons, light’s finite speed and the universal speed limit are included because they are beyond our understanding; certainly of ancient times, but most likely also today if He really told us these things. Maybe even in the world to come to have a grasp of what was really happening in the world we knew may require a doctorate that takes centuries to achieve.

    But at any rate, it doesn’t seem to be hard to accept the “let it happen” explanation in regard to light. So what about life then? “Let the earth bring forth every living thing…” That living things are made up of the same substances of mineral earth is not part of the debate, fortunately, except where the element carbon is involved in its unique natural property of forming large and virtually unlimited compounds which react in unique and virtually unlimited ways. Just as God had determined the properties of light before He said “Let there be light,” He must have determined the chain-forming property of carbon before he said “Let the earth bring forth…living things.” Considering the location of the earth in relation to its main light, the abundance of water, and the tendency of carbon to form large molecules with other abundant elements, perhaps life was also inevitable unless He deliberately kept it from happening. But even with all these qualities present to nurture life and make life forms which depend on other life forms, the “inevitability” question depends on time, and that for me is the essence of this whole topic.

    To think that God created the idea of day with the set figure of what we know as 24 hours (an arbitrary division thereof, at any rate) does not do justice to an almighty creator. Scripture itself disproves that day=24 hours and not more nor less in the story of Joshua’s answered prayer for the sun to remain visible for 22 hours, making that particular day about 34 hours altogether. A day can be anything God determines it to be, and that is not even exclusive of a period of time. I don’t profess to know Hebrew, but the abundance of information appears reliable that “day” does have the multiple meanings of sun appearing to sun disappearing, era, or emphasis. In English it does foster the same connotations… “In my day…”,”There is a new day dawning,.. “—these figures of speech can mean an indefinite time or an era characterized by something in relation to something else. If God has literally all the time in the world, why wouldn’t He use it to create and enjoy His creation? Most of us have seen computer models speculating how mountain ranges and canyons were formed over the eons. If God had a “front-row seat” to watch the real thing actually happening resulting from His own predetermined natural laws and He could just watch it for millions of years, then who are we to say he couldn’t have done that because of His own time scale. That would compare to Moses and Aaron refusing to make that bronze serpent He told them to make because of His own law, “Thou shalt not make any graven image…” Literalism can go amuck if it compels us to limit God by His own laws or His own time.

    Why I am not an old earth evolutionist: While I don’t know if I made any kind of positive impression on the “old earthers” who post in this forum with my explanation of why I am not a “young earther,” this part will unquestioningly make a negative one. My question to young earthers, “Why wouldn’t God take pleasure in enjoying His creation” in a step-by-step way eras and eons before the man/sin/redemption “day” came, can be translated to old earthers as “Why would He…?” Why would He, for instance, create the planet earth and not fast-forward through the first billion or 2 years to see life begin? That’s not to ask why would He not have slow-motioned it either, of course, but why must the earth and it’s life forms be as old as our best dating methods indicate? But perhaps more important, why would He give us in His Word deliberately misleading language about the creation of Adam and the first woman [if man did evolve, it seems nonsense to really believe the first woman was formed of a ribectomy]? And then to include these accounts in conveying the message of salvation to us? As young earthers limit the scope of what God could have done by subjecting Him to His own laws He proclaimed for us, then you limit God by declaring what He must have done because our investigations into the processes thus indicate. Did He create carnivorous predators to eat the comparatively gentle herbivores for no other reason for millions of years but to watch the “show” of His creation? I don’t know. It’s only in recent years that we have come to get a grip on our sympathies for when we watch a coyote chase down and kill a harmless furry rabbit. The explanation of non-theists to this question is simple: nature is indifferent to the wishes or feelings of any being which has them. You have to substitute God for “nature” here if you are “theistic evolutionist.” God simply lets His creatures be violently killed and eaten, or occasionally trapped by rocks or trees or burned to death by a wildfire or a lava flow. On the other hand, He did create the natural violence of this world and He does today treat it with indifference; so the issue of the “justice” or “fairness” of all this is out of scope; if it happens today, it could have happened millions of years ago. But it must not be assumed that it must have thus happened because going that far is out of our scope.

    I see scientific theories never as facts, but as useful foundations. It may not be true that an electrical current flows negative to positive, but that is a useful foundation of so many implements that we use daily. Newton’s gravitational theory is another useful foundation, even though modern physics requires a bit of an adjustment thereto. The theories of the development of the universe, the solar system, the earth and our life forms are all useful. They can serve us to perform many useful endeavors. But we still may have them wrong; certainly in the way God ‘engineered’ them. There could literally be “nothing new to discover” if all things were within our understanding. But “man’s wisdom is foolishness to God.” That’s what I believe on that.

    In summary (and I hope this short concluding paragraph is not the only part read by many in this long post), both young earthers and old earthers underemphasize the power of God. What did happen can happen, but what can happen did not necessarily happen; but what can’t happen still may have happened with an all-powerful God. This is why I have no definitive position on this matter, and why I wish there were not such a conflict.
     
  2. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    Personally, I am glad for the debate. It helps me to see both sides of the argument, compare them both to scripture, and come away with a greater degree of faith and understanding in God's Word.

    I think the heart of the debate isn't the science (though that's often the subject of the dabates). I think the debate centers around the question - "Who is God?" People want to know Him... people want to understand Him... people want to answer the general questions - why are we here, what is our purpose. I think the old earth/young earth debate isolates key aspects of the character of God.

    For example, is God sitting up there unconcerned with the day to day operation of the earth and it's inhabitants, or is he actively participating? Is God a personal God with whom we can have a personal relationship, or is he distant - shaping only the overall progress or direction of our planet?

    For me, one of the biggest factors that has contributed to my believing the young earth position is the notion that God is Good. That there is no evil in Him. That death, disease, struggle, etc do not come from Him. I hear a lot of theologans and preachers disagree. I hear a lot of people blaming God for every bad thing that happens in their lives, and I don't think that's the God the Bible describes.

    For the creationist, we can look at some tradgedy like 9/11 and see that this is a result of sin and death that Adam chose. It's not God's fault. He didn't send some evil maniac to prey upon us to teach us a lesson.

    The Bible says that every good and perfect gift is from above, and that when evil comes DON'T EVEN SAY that it was God.

    Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

    Jam 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

    So I think the debate has A LOT to do with the character of God... and how we interpret the Bible. Did God lie to us? Does God consider death and struggle good? These are indeed important questions that effect the whole of our faith - and at the heart of the matter is creation science / evolution science. The place where the spiritual and the observational supposedly meet. The place where most people look to judge for themselves the varacity of scripture to the building up or tearing down of their faith in God's Word.
     
  3. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    At this point I don't expect to "win" or "lose" the debate in our churches. The debate is already settled in the sciences. What I expect is for both sides to tolerate the other in our churches and not bring unwarranted accusations one against the other, in the same way that we tolerate each other's views on eschatology or Calvanism.
     
  4. Mercury

    Mercury
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Alcott, I'm going to respond to a number of sentences in your old-earth section. Please keep in mind that I'm not trying to argue with you (I don't think that was your purpose with this thread), but I'm giving the answers I've come to accept to some of the questions you raise.

    A lot happened before life began on earth. There's many mysteries in the stellar realm that we are just discovering. And, it's really hard to ask time questions of God. How long would be a reasonable time for God to enjoy this stage of his creation? A second? A year? A millennia? It's all very subjective, because we're bound to use our own attention span and interests in deciding what would be reasonable for God.

    This is probably unsatisfying, but my answer would be the same as why God waited at least thousands of years before the incarnation: because that's what God chose to do. I don't see any reason why those things would need to have been done at those points in time, but I accept the evidence that says when they occurred.

    I tried to give a partial answer to this in my "Parable about condescention" [sic] at the end of [this post]. Another thing to consider before answering this question is that this "problem" goes far further than just Adam and Eve. Does Genesis 30:25-43 give misleading information about genetics? Why doesn't this text make clear that it was a miracle that led to Jacob's prosperity, and not his mistaken notion that striped branches would influence the coats of the young goats? Maybe that example isn't as important as Adam and Eve, but the principle is similar.

    And, I do admit that this influences how I interpret the New Testament too. I'm not willing to bet that the New Jerusalem will literally have walls and streets of pure gold (and not just because I'm not the betting type). Scripture does clearly say this, but I think it may be another case where something beyond our imagination or understanding is related in terms we can appreciate.

    The Bible is full of pictures. Some are clearly stated to be pictures, while others aren't. Often the Bible contains both pictures and factual descriptions, such as how God is described as a fire, spring, shepherd, warrior, protective bird as well as spirit, invisible and not a man. Perhaps much of Genesis 1-11 is summarized by the more prosaic text in Romans 1:18-32. If our faith is based on the historical accuracy of certain pictures, then such a discussion can be troublesome. But, if our faith in Jesus isn't primarily based on how historically accurate these pictures are, then we can accept a picture he gives us as true in what it is meant to communicate even if we find that it is not literal.

    Back to Adam and Eve, I don't think it's too important how the human species started, aside from the fact that God made us in his image (which I do not take to be a physical image). I don't have a fixed perspective on how literal the story in Genesis 2-3 is: I'm open to the ideas that Adam and Eve could have been individuals, representative of a population, or representative of humanity as a whole. If it's one of the latter two options (I lean to the middle one), I don't think this means God lied to us. It is true that human males and females are made of the same material whether or not the first human female came from a male rib (or male side, since the material taken from Adam seems to have included both flesh and bone). So, the truth of male and female both being human does not depend on a literal reading.

    About the only theological consequence of this ambiguity is how I view Original Sin. Instead of the more common Augustinian idea of it being hereditary (which is problematic if Adam and Eve were not individuals), I think human sin infected the world and poisoned the environment we live in (a sin culture rather than a sin gene). Because all of creation has been placed under our feet (Genesis 1:26-28, Psalm 8:4-8), this means that all of creation has been subjected by God to be under a corrupt ruler, but one day this curse will be undone (Romans 8:20-25). A result of this is that Jesus experienced the effects of original and ongoing sin all around him the same as we all do, but without sinning himself (see Hebrews 2:14-18, 4:15). Anyway, this is probably a topic for another thread, but in my opinion, the one area where how I read Genesis has significantly affected my theology has resulted in a change that makes other parts of the Bible make more sense.

    As a final note, this is of course only my view. There are theistic evolutionists who still keep Adam and Eve very literal (and so have no problem with the traditional view of Original Sin) while still accepting the evidence that shows our genetic similarity to other animals. One of the more fleshed-out explanations of this is [Glenn Morton's view].
     
  5. Mercury

    Mercury
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would agree with this. One of the main issues in the creation debate is how we look at natural processes. If we can find a law or theory that explains how something works, does this mean God is not involved? If so, then we limit God's involvement in the world to when it was created, perhaps 6,000 years ago, with the exception of a few supernatural interventions since then. The new scientific discoveries that are accepted are seen as constantly shifting things that used to be God's domain and moving them to nature's domain.

    This is partly why I found the theistic evolution outlook to be such an eye-opener. It allowed me to once again praise God for all his creation, including what he is still doing in creation. I can praise God for his power when lightning fills the sky, even though I know a bit about the natural processes at work. God is seen as both the creator and the sustainer of nature, so nothing is outside of his domain.

    All those places in the Bible where people were in awe of God's power in nature once again have the power to awe me too -- I no longer see it as just "poetic" when God is said to bring rain or make flowers grow or provide prey for young lions or cause lightning. Our scientific knowledge doesn't negate God's involvement but rather describes what God has given this world the power and mandate to do. Our further understanding of nature just increases the majesty and grandeur of it!

    And, it also guards against the danger of personifying nature or attributing moral values to it that only make sense when applied to moral agents. It is not evil when a star explodes in a supernova. It is not evil when wind and waves erode rocks. Even things that appear cruel in the animal world, such as ostriches that neglect their young, are part of a natural system that God not only set up and sustains, but seems to take pleasure in (see Job 39:13-18).

    As for animal death, there's a separate thread for that. I think a reasonable case has been made for not lumping it in with human death.
     
  6. mareese

    mareese
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Alcott, your position is typical of current changes in how people believe nowadays. We're turning toward accepting or at least lending a sympathetic ear towards what once were black and white beliefs.
    To a point, I see this leading towards a type of unity that isn't healthy. While striving towards understanding and unity in and of itself isn't a bad thing, it can go too far when we begin to erase more and more lines that separate believers from unbelievers.
    In the creation/evolution portion of this, you can already see that evolution is becoming quite acceptable and common as a tolerated belief in our churches today. This has only served to begin closing a gap between Christians and unbelievers, as Christians in the past have normally held to creation while unbelievers have held to evolution. Now the only thing separating us in that regard is the belief that a higher power started or didn't have involvement in it.
    This debate is only one example of many changes taking place. If it was the only one it would still be cause for concern, but it isn't. More and more, Christians are giving the opposition more and more room, conceding on more points, and often excusing it with the idea that it somehow helps our witness to the unbelievers when we have more in common.
    Christianity calls for us to embrace the differences we have with the world. We want unbelievers to see what's different about us, if we are identical to them we have nothing desirable to them.
    I do hope your tolerance of both sides of the issue isn't caused by a desire for acceptance from both sides. To sit in the middle is to be in confusion, and while both sides may accept you and you may benefit in your mind from whatever it is you gain from that acceptance, neither side will have a thing to gain from you and you will have accomplished nothing. We should always strive to be the ones to accomplish, to be able to give.
     
  7. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    Mareese, I disagree: You wrote:
    They will know we are Christians...

    ...by our young-earth creationist beliefs.

    ...by our closed minds.

    ...by our argumentative spirit.

    ...by our strict adherence to discordant doctrines.

    ...John 13:35 We don't need to try to be different by holding to certain beliefs about our origins... we are different by WHO we are! Children of the Most High God.

    You also wrote...
    We don't need to "accomplish" anything, that's not our goal.
    Alcott, It's okay to be a fence-sitter. The best place to be in this debate is to be open-minded to truth.
    Keep striving toward godliness: the little things (like the issues surrounding the HOW of our origins) may never be completely clear till we reach eternity.

    If you read the history of the origins debates you will find that BOTH sides have often had to perform major overhauls on their beliefs and foundations.

    Today’s origins debates are a work in progress and who know where it will lead. I'm convinced that when things are ultimately revealed we all will be amazed at our awesome God who created it all.

    God bless

    Rob

    [ May 08, 2005, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: Deacon ]
     
  8. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    I don't know what gives you that impression? It was "settled in the sciences" as everyone believed in young earth and literal creation shortly before the days of darwin. After darwin, the majority changed over to evolution. However, the momentum is shifting back again as the church recovers it's footing in this "post christian" era. I would say that this debate is far, far from being settled in the sciences.

    Amo 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

    Many christians try to do anything for unity. Even comprimising their beliefs.


    Pro 29:27 An unjust man [is] an abomination to the just: and [he that is] upright in the way [is] abomination to the wicked.
    2Cr 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
    Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

    Strive for unity - but not unity with the World. When asked what his reasoning for wanting to belive the days in creation were anything other than the ordinary days they seemed to be in Genesis 1, progressive creationist Hugh Ross said that it was very important that our views be seen to have unity with secular ideas of an old earth. It's sad when Christians would rather believe evolution and old earth - which clearly contradict scripture - just so that their views will be accepted by atheists and sinners.

    There is evil in this earth folks... and it's not of God, nor is it from God.

    Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

    The Bible tells us who uses these tools:

    Hbr 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
    Hbr 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
    Jhn 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have [it] more abundantly.
    Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
     
  9. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "However, the momentum is shifting back again as the church recovers it's footing in this "post christian" era. I would say that this debate is far, far from being settled in the sciences."

    Can you support this claim? The reading of the current publications in the sciences would indeed lead one to believe that the debate on whether evolution happens has been settled. Can you point to anything to support your assertion that the debate is "far, far from being settled in the sciences." I just do not think that statement to be true. The only debate on the matter is from outside the sciences. It is the stirrings of a narrow religious view, not shared by all members, that has no basis in science but on the interpretations of a group of fallible humans.
     
  10. mareese

    mareese
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Yes, but who we are affects our beliefs and actions and makes that noticeable difference. Unless you have an unearthly illumination you are no different from other Christians, and who you are will be completely indefiniable unless who you are changes what you are and how you live and what you believe.

    No, it's not okay to be a fence-sitter. You can be undecided, but never settle for it as an answer.
     
  11. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    This is pretty typical of those old earthers out there... content to completely ignore those they have already decided are wrong. However, that means the "scientific community" is having to ignore an increasingly large segment of scientists.

    Just look at how much Intelligent Design is causing a stir, for an example. Liberal activist judges throwing out the constitution to rule that you can't put a sticker on an evolution book that says "evolution isn't a proven fact and should be looked at critically with an open mind". Now that liberals and evolutionists are admitting to their dogmatic bias, such as is the case in that example, more and more duped scientists are waking up to realize the impossibility of darwinism.

    For another example look at the hugely increasing number of scientists that are joining organizations like Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research. Creation vs Evolution is becoming a hot button issue all around the country.

    And is it any wonder? I was watching the science channel the other day and they had some guy on there claiming to have found PROOF that there was life on Mars. This person had found a rock laying on the ground in antartica. They decided that this was a meteor and it had come from mars. They also decided that there were chemical compounds on the rock indicitive of life. It's VERY typicall of the level of work done by an evolutionist. They assumed the rocks origins without observing it come from there... then they assumed that the chemicas were from living organisms. Then they assumed that they were present in the assumed place of origin and didn't "contaminate" the rock once it got here. Yet this rock is herald as PROOF of life on Mars.

    More and more scientists are starting to come to the conclusions that darwinian evolution is just far too infathomable - and breaks too many laws of nature.
     
  12. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gup20: The number among scientists is not increasing. However, the fact that this line has been stated for over a hundred years continues to be one of the amazing disconnects with reality that the creationists display. I personally have heard your line repeated all my 62 years of my life and it hasn't happened yet.

    Your Mars example has nothing to do at all with who accepts what about evolution. It proves that some scientists are eager to find life on Mars. And who refutes them but other evolutionistic scientists?
     
  13. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    So the answer, in way too many words, is that you cannot support your claim.

    There is no evidence of a backlash against evolution amoung scientists who are actually knowledgable in te actual science. Instead you point to a bunch of lawyers and engineers and evrything else but biologists who join such groups as AIG. YOu cannot point to a ground swell of actual biologists against evolution. You can point to a few biologists who oppose evolution, but the numbers are miniscule and there is no evidence that they are growing. I would predict that if you were to find a way to investigate the change with time in the percentage of biologists who oppose evolution over the last century, you find find the numbers going from very small to very, very small.

    ID causes such a stir becuase bad ideas being falsely caused science should cause a stir. Folks claiming to be Christian who cannot make an honest argument should cause a stir.

    It is becoming a hot button issue of things like DI's wedge strategy, not because they have any science. They have none.
     
  14. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Speaking of Intelligent Design, did you happen to catch Dembski, perhaps the leader of the ID movement, on Nightline Monday where he reaffirmed his opinion that the evidence supports universal common descent?

    Surely you as a "good" YEer do not wish to hitch your cart to such a heretic movement as ID, do you?

    Or is this the typical YE tactic of picking and choosing what you accept?
     
  15. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    How many scientists ascribed to the Intelligent Design movement 62 years ago? Would you say that the number of scientists involved in that movement is more or less than it was 62 years ago? Now let me pose the same question regarding young earth organizations like Answers in Genesis. Do organizations such as this have more scientists, as members of their organizations now than they did 62 years ago? We're talking "market share" here... not actual numbers - percentage of the whole.

    If they have more now than they did before, then I submit for your consideration that the movement toward design rather than evolution is gaining momentum.

    So your answer in way too many words is that you are still not listening, waving your hands around yelling "I can't hear you... I can't hear you!"

    What I choose to accept or believe is the Bible. This has not changed. When ANYONE - be it an ID, and evolutionist, or whomever says anything that agrees with God's Word I can agree. I choose to except everything that agrees with God's word, regardless of who brought it up.

    It's far better than aligning with atheists and supporting evolution - a DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO SCRIPTURE.
     
  16. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    Err... brain is mushy today... working too much lately. Accept, not except is what I meant to spell.
     
  17. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "So your answer in way too many words is that you are still not listening, waving your hands around yelling "I can't hear you... I can't hear you!""

    Errr.... No, I am waiting for you to support your assertion. So far, no support.

    How about this. "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." [Newsweek, 1987-JUN-29, Page 23.] So about 1/1oth of 1%. Impressive numbers there.

    "What I choose to accept or believe is the Bible. This has not changed. When ANYONE - be it an ID, and evolutionist, or whomever says anything that agrees with God's Word I can agree. I choose to except everything that agrees with God's word, regardless of who brought it up."

    YEers like to pick and choose what parts they accept. They will hold up some source as authoritive in some specific area while ignoring that the source is completely at odds with their opinions on the whole. Here you throw out ID while ignoring that many of its leaders accept universal common descent, the very thing you are attempting to argue against.

    And please quit equating your interpretation of the Bible to be the same as the truth. It is fallacious.

    "It's far better than aligning with atheists and supporting evolution - a DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO SCRIPTURE."

    So if an ID person says that they accept universal common descent but they assert the God must have been an active player at every step, that is fine with you. But if I take that one step farther and suggest that God created perfect laws that carried out His will to create then I am aligning myself with atheists? Please justify that one. Right after you justify your claims about evolution being increasingly rejected.

    Also, another personal attack there by suggesting that if I do not agree with you then I am aligning with atheists. Please!

    Are the ID leaders who accept universal common descent aligning themselves with atheists?
     
  18. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's continue down the path of exploring whether you truely think that ID has a place at the table or whether it was a mistake for you to bring it up.

    Tell me what you think of the following statement.

    "For Ruse to characterize intelligent design as “creationism lite” needs therefore to be viewed as a further exercise in damage control. Intelligent design is compatible with Ruse's “fact of evolution” as well as his requirement that science not invoke miracles. What’s at issue is not whether evolution has occurred or the degree to which it has occurred but whether the role of intelligence in the evolutionary process is both indispensable and empirically detectable, thus bringing intelligent design squarely within the fold of science."

    from Dembski in "The Science Community's Myopia Over Intelligent Design." See the full article here. http://www.beliefnet.com/story/121/story_12183_1.html?rnd=48 Emphasis added.

    SO, do you agree with this leading proponent of ID when he states that there is no question that evolution is a fact and that he has no dispute with whether evolution occurred or the extent to which it occurred?

    Do you realize that a fair number of the ID proponents, including leaders such as Behe to add another, say only that the supposed mechanisms of evolution are incomplete but they do not doubt that it has occurred including universal common descent which includes humans?

    Can you live with this? It so, then my position is not too far from these guys. I merely take it one step further and suggest that the laws God created were sufficient to carry out His will in this area. So why do you so vehemently disagree with me?

    If you cannot accept this, then why did you throw out ID if you do not agree with its proponents?

    I think this question deserves an answer. Do you repudiate the views of ID since it accepts common descent, including that of man, or do you find it to be a worthy subject?
     
  19. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    Actually, we YE'ers constantly hold up the BIble as our source, but that is never good enough for people like you, UTE. You always say things like "Yes, but show us some scientific evidence" or "Yes, but our scientists say this".

    Jer 35:15 I have sent also unto you all my servants the prophets, rising up early and sending [them], saying, Return ye now every man from his evil way, and amend your doings, and go not after other gods to serve them, and ye shall dwell in the land which I have given to you and to your fathers: but ye have not inclined your ear, nor hearkened unto me.

    Luk 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
    28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
    29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
    30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
    31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

    These verses are describing you, UTE. God has given you His Word, yet you STILL do not believe Him. How would you believe the word of men if you wouldn't believe even God in His own Word? Yet God in his mercy has raised up good men and women to do the work of science so that this request can be fulfilled. But you still choose not to listen. You have to realize that YE quoting whomever lines up with our beliefs is FOR YOUR BENEFIT, not for ours. Since you are hung up on the word of man - even when that word contradicts God's Word, we show you when the word of man agrees with God's Word.

    No... when an ID says things are too complex to have had an other origin besides being designed, that is fine with me. Why? Because it does not disagree with God's Word. However when someone says man came to be by millions of years of death and struggle I do have a problem with that because it contradicts God's Word.

    Yet you have been altogether unable to demonstrate why my interpretation is wrong. Moreover we YE here have demonstrated overwhelmingly that you are not using ANY interpretation of scripture as a basis for your claims - claims which we have shown conclusively to be in contradiction to scripture. You continue to assert that Genesis is SILENT on the creation of man, when it is CLEARLY not silent. Therefore your claims are rejected, and our interpretation stands firm as unrefuted.

    If you refuse to believe Genesis 1-11, why do you claim to be a christian and believe other parts of scripture? Why would you believe Matthew Mark Luke and John regarding Jesus Christ when you won't believe the other parts of scripture? Why would you disbelieve Jesus' own words as He supports Genesis 1-11 as actual history?

    It is because you are influenced not by God's Word, but by your fear of man and what they think about you. You would rather have man's academic acceptance than believe the Word of the Almighty God.

    I have very little trust in your interpretation of anything. As far as I was aware the ID movement is headed by Philip Johnson, not Dembski. Dembski is perhaps a contributor. I disagree with all ID ideas that disagree with scripture, I agree with all ideas that agree with scipture. The same can be said of Evolution - however there is very little of evolution that agrees with scripture - therefore ID is the less of the two offenders. The point is not that I am trading in my YE creationist views for ID views... but that evolution is indeed a theory (more like a conjecture) that is in crisis. This can be seen in the incresasing number of movements against evolution of which ID is an example - not the model I aspire to, but an example of increased resistance to the deception of evolution.
     
  20. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Actually, we YE'ers constantly hold up the BIble as our source, but that is never good enough for people like you, UTE. You always say things like 'Yes, but show us some scientific evidence' or 'Yes, but our scientists say this'. "

    If you would quit claiming that the evidence supports you then I would quit asking you to support your assertions. Don't complain about being asked to support your position.

    I have often made it clear that I have no ojection whatsoever with those who hold to a young earth based on their faith. My problem is with those who take it a step farther and claim that the data supports them, too. This I have a huge problem with. Put you facts where your claims are. Either support your claims or just say that you take a young earth on faith and you don't need any facts.

    "No... when an ID says things are too complex to have had an other origin besides being designed, that is fine with me. Why? Because it does not disagree with God's Word. However when someone says man came to be by millions of years of death and struggle I do have a problem with that because it contradicts God's Word. "

    Another specific for Gup.

    Should IDers who accept common descent be shunned as being no different in essence from other Christians who accept evolution?

    "Yet you have been altogether unable to demonstrate why my interpretation is wrong."

    Various people have shown you various indication why it appears that those verses you cite were not meant to be literal. In addition, you interpretation is at odds with reality and that makes it unlikely to be the correct interpretation.

    "If you refuse to believe Genesis 1-11, why do you claim to be a christian and believe other parts of scripture? "

    Personal attack. I have answered this question from you many times. It is obvious that you do not honestly ask the question because you want an answer. You dishonestly ask it, not in order to get an answer, but in order to slander me and to publically doubt my salvation. What a terrible thing to be doing.

    "As far as I was aware the ID movement is headed by Philip Johnson, not Dembski. Dembski is perhaps a contributor."

    If you are going to tell me what I said in the future, please quote and paraphrase me honestly. I called Dembski a "leading proponent of ID," which he is. Who is the leader, I don't know. But if you were to ask people to name IDers, I would expect that the first three off their tongues would be Johnson, Dembski and Behe. And I am not sure of the order. I might expect Behe to be the first name that is stated. And of these, Dembski and Behe have said many times in unequivical language that they accept common descent including humans. I do not know Johnson's position.
     

Share This Page

Loading...