My position-- or lack of one

The source of my belief in creation is the Bible, UTE. I take the Bible by faith. I have given you more than enough BIBLICAL evidence to support creation, but you rejected it - calling instead for natural evidence. You have decided to believe God's Natural World over God's Direct Word.

Romans 1 was written to address this conflict:

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

You believe the interpretation of natural science above the interpretation of holy scirpture. You have 'worshipped the creature more than the creator'.

Data that is interpreted with a atheistic world view does not support creation. However, when the data is correctly interpreted using TRUTH in the scripture (which is infallible ultimate truth) we can see that the data does INDEED support YE creation. You're problem is you are trying to use the evolutionary interpretation of the data rather than the truthful interprtation which is based on the pre-suppositions gained by an exegesis of scripture.

If I believed people should be shunned when they believe lies, would I be talking to you? Their interpretations should not be accepted, but any work they do that is in line with scripture should be supported. That which contradicts scripture should be rejected.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

... And I have given yet more indications that those verses were indeed literal.

It's not meant as a personal attack, but a rhetorical question. Let me show you:

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

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

Your question was wrong - I don't agree with everything ID has to say, but we do have some belief in common - just the same as I don't agree with everything you have to say, but we are both Christians and believe in Jesus.

If that question leads you to doubt your salvation, maybe you should question your beliefs, and make adjustments accordingly. I have stated unequivocally here that creation vs evolution issue doesn't effect your salvation (though a belief in evolution may prevent many from coming to a decision for Christ).

And how many times has Gup20 said he believes in common descent? Why are you asking me if I have come to accept it by supporting the parts of ID that line up with the Bible? I don't accept evolution because it is contradicted by scripture. I accept the parts of ID that line up with scipture. I AM a YE Creationist.

I brought up ID as an example of a movement that is gaining momentum as an idea that goes against evolution.

 

"I brought up ID as an example of a movement that is gaining momentum as an idea that goes against evolution."

Except that many of its leading proponents accept that evolution has happened, including man, but disagree on the mechanisms behind the observed change.

It is very telling that you are forced to cite a movement as against evolution that accepts that evolution has happened!

 

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

You may have to give up on Johnson, too.

"I continue to take no position on either the age of the earth or the origin of the Grand Canyon.[i/]"

http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/17.4docs/17-04-010.html

Since he does not take a YE position he may not be living up to your standards either. You might consider dropping references to ID if you are trying to promote YE.

 

The whole of evolution hangs by a very thin thread... that thread is that there is some mechanism whereby information is gained in a genome. So far, evolutionists have been woefully inadequate at providing a plausible explaination. First, they said it was natural selection - but creationists argued that this was only capable of destruction, not creation. Then they hailed the almighty Mutation... but as creationists are showing now, this ONLY has the ability to discard information or re-arrange existing information... there is no mechanism for increasing information.

For the christian, moreover, there is no getting around Genesis 1-11. This demonstrates without question that evolution DIDN'T happen. It says very specifically what did happen. It says very specifically that there was a global flood. But the so called "christian" evolutionists here choose to ignore the Bible.

And therefore I should accept evolution? What exactly is your point, UTE? He doesn't take a YE position because it would support a religious belief and his movement would have no chance of getting into the public education system.

Let me ask you a question, UTE. Why are you so frightened by ID? Why try so hard to keep it out of the public school system. Why not give all sides of the argument and let the students decide through critical thinking and experimentation which idea to believe?

The answer is that evoution is NOT based on critical thinking or oberservation. It hangs on purely by dogmatic faith. It crumbles easily if you must apply critical thinking and actual scientific observation. This is why the atheist establishment so vehemently fear it. When ID manages to get taught along side evololution it will destroy evolution and with evolution defunked people are liable to believe the alternatives - ID or (gasp!) even Biblical creation! Evolution is one of the Biggest reasons people don't believe the Bible... they see what the Bible says about creation and they learn in school how man has determined evolution to be responsible for our origins. The two obviously don't have anything in common, so they decide not to believe the Bible and never become christians.

You can see the hard facts about this trend by looking at the church of England. Darwin was honored by the church and buried in Westminister Abby. What effect has it had on England? Only 3% of all people in that country attend a Christian church. The church for the most part is dead. Evolution is taught as fact in all the 'formerly christian' institutions which are now, for the most part, entirely secular.

UTE - you should read a book called "The Emerging Church". It has nothing whatsoever to do with Creation vs Evolution, but describes very accurately the current state of the church. We have moved from a "modern" era to a "post-modern" era and now are in a "post-christian" era. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0310245648/qid=1116088102/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-3541384-6933669?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Basically, in the 'post modern' era "seeker sensitive" services filled the pews. Big productions with multimedia. Removal of many typical religous symbols made people comfortable when they came to church. Preaching from a New Testament worked very well. However, more and more churches are finding this just doesn't work at all anymore. Why? Because we are in a post-christian era. Fewer and fewer people go to church. Fewer and fewer people even know what christianity IS.

If you look at the HUGELY successful ministry of Paul you see that he spoke differently to Jews than he did Greeks (gentiles). Jews were aware of the Old Testament. They knew everything about the messiah - paul needed only to show them that Jesus was that messiah. But to the Greeks Paul needed to first explain who, what and why they needed a messiah before he could tell them Jesus was that messiah.

1Cr 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

You see to the greeks preaching about Christ was foolishness because they had no foundation in the Word. How did Paul approach preaching to the Greeks?

Act 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, [Ye] men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead.
32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this [matter].

He basically explained Genesis to them. He told them that God created the World and all things in it. That all men were decended from one man (Adam - "of one blood"). The Emerging Church makes a pretty good point - that people are no longer looking for something etertaining. They are now looking for something authentic. They don't want seeker sensitive... they want the "full monty". They want to be completely immersed in the fullness of Christianity to see if there is anything to it. In other words, they are looking for a genuine, authentic spirituality.

When you get right down to it, UTE, your belief in evolution is a position of fear. You fear contempt by those in academia, you fear criticism from those who are not saved. You wish to harmonize your christian faith and the 'scientific ideas of the day'. Because creation vs evolution isn't critical to your salvation, perhaps you take a little more liberty with 'editing' the scirptures in Genesis than you should. I think you are doing it because you sincerely believe that you will be able to convince more people to come to Jesus if they don't have to accept creation - if they can come to Jesus and accept evolution it might be easier.

But all the data indicates this is not the case. Direct observation of the church of England has shown the direct result of comprimising the scripture and allowing parallel faith in evolution and the Bible. What does scripture say?

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.

What you do when you capitulate to evolutionary thought is not a service to people. It actually has a devastating effect as we can see in the church of England. What you are doing is putting science AHEAD of the scriptures. Science has become the ultimate authority, rather than scripture. You have decided that humanism (man) is the master rather than God. It may be more "comfortable", but ultimately it's not real - it's not authentic - and it's harmful. You are basically saying it IS ok for someone to serve two masters. It's a deception that the church of England has paid a severe price for. We should learn from Paul's example, and the example of the church of England.

 

"The whole of evolution hangs by a very thin thread... that thread is that there is some mechanism whereby information is gained in a genome. So far, evolutionists have been woefully inadequate at providing a plausible explaination."

Nope. Mutation, especially when combined with duplication, provides a robust and observed method for generating new and useful genetic sequences. Please see a more detailed and recent response here.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/67/2.html#000016

You claim also ignores that common descent is the only theory capable of explaining the wide ranging set of observations that have led scientists to the conclusion of evolution as being a fact.

"First, they said it was natural selection - but creationists argued that this was only capable of destruction, not creation. Then they hailed the almighty Mutation... but as creationists are showing now, this ONLY has the ability to discard information or re-arrange existing information... there is no mechanism for increasing information."

None of those by themselves are sufficient. But in combination, they have been observed to perform quite admirably in the role of leading to biological innovation.

"And therefore I should accept evolution? What exactly is your point, UTE? He doesn't take a YE position because it would support a religious belief and his movement would have no chance of getting into the public education system."

No, my point is that I find it dishonest for you to have thrown ID out there as supporting your cause when many of its members accept common descent and an old earth.

"Let me ask you a question, UTE. Why are you so frightened by ID? Why try so hard to keep it out of the public school system. Why not give all sides of the argument and let the students decide through critical thinking and experimentation which idea to believe?"

Because in its current incarnation ID is nothing more than an idea, a philosophy. There is no ID science. They have no place at the table. If they start doing science, then we can talk. And it is not fear. It is trying to keep bad "science" out of the science classroom. When they have real scientific objections, then we can talk. They have not raised any yet and have nothing new to offer.

"The answer is that evoution is NOT based on critical thinking or oberservation."

But it is based on observations. Such as the twin nested heirarchy. Molecular and anatomical parahomology. Molecular and anatomical vestiges. Ontogeny. Atavisms. The similarity of independent phylogenies. The known transitional fossils. The correct geological order of the transitional forms. Past and present biogeography. Shared retroviral sequences. Shared pseudogenes. Shared transposon sequences. And so on. Evolution explains and predicts all of these. YE has no means to explain them in a coherent theory without simply being arbitrary and capricious.

"When you get right down to it, UTE, your belief in evolution is a position of fear."

You really ought to understand me better before you make such false charges about my motivations.

I oppose YE because it takes good Christians and makes them spread falsehoods. My fear is that these falsehoods will prevent others from coming to Christ and will drive believers from the church. There are plenty of anecdotes about just this.

I oppose YE because when I was YE and went looking for YE material, I was so shocked by the poor scholarship and outright dishonesty that I gave it up. And this from someone biased to accept what they had to say.

Very few people actually know my position on this issue. None that would think less of me if they thought I was YE. So there is absolutely no basis for your claim that I fear "contempt by those in academia [or]criticism from those who are not saved." I pretty much let people go about there business on the matter instead of stirring trouble. Most of the people who do know my position are YE and like to give me grief over it. But I do not fear them either.

 

I asked for your BEST examples, then I refuted them, showing how they are actually losses or re-arrangements of information. Your claims don't have merit, but are simply FAITH based statements, rather than hard fact.

That's odd... it seems to me that a Creator who created everything in the universe in 6 days could have created the creatures in their original forms. Sure there has been quite some change - just look at the difference between a great dane and a chahuahua - both are still dogs though. There isn't any need for common anscestory, except for seeing the original forms (for example, the master dog kind). As a matter of fact the Bible clearly indicates that all life does not have common ancestory:

1Cr 15:39 All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds.

What you meant to say is that common ancestory is the only HUMANISTIC/ATHEISTIC theory capable of explaining. It's the only one that adheres to your a priori assumption that God doesn't exist, and didn't create the world as Genesis describes.

Fantastic - Please by all means give us half a dozen names of scientists who have direct observations from 4 billion years ago. None? Well maybe a half dozen who were there 4 million years ago. Still none? Well... perhaps you could just point me to the writings of someone who was here 100,000 years ago. Still no one? Wow... not mutch actual observation - yet your statemens keep claiming observation - hrm that's so weird.

All right... fine then... just give me 2 names of scientists with recorded observations from 50,000 years ago. Still nothing? Are you telling me that NONE of these "observations" you are talking about are from the time period under investigation? ALL of these "observations" are current or "present" observations? Wow... one would be pretty mislead to read your statements UTE... you make it sound like we have a lot of actual observations from the past - but here it is we only have observations of the present, and then you make ASSUMPTIONS about the past based on what you see in the present. I think that's called uniformitarianism. According to the evolutionary timescale Man and Dinosaur did not live at the same time. According to evolution, man evolved from Apes much later. So when you say there is observational evidence under your model, I would say that your own theory disproves you.

As I have already shown you, evolution has no direct observation - therefore we could say the exact same thing about Evolution... that it is a philosophy and has no place in science. Moreover, evolution entirely contradicts the Bible. Scirpture is pure truth. The Bible's history is pure truth. So Evolution has really no chance of being viable.

Does ID support your cause? Does it support evolution? If it did, then evolutionists would not fight it so. Moreover, I wasn't listing movements that agreed with creation, I was listing opposition to evolution. You said there was no evidence of gaining movement against evolution, I listed ID as an example. What's so difficult to understand?

Again... name several people who were here 70 million years ago. Your own theory states that man was not here to witness his own origination. Therefore, the origins argument is one of history, not of science. Science is the now - the repeatable and operational. Evolution is a philosophy of history. History is not science - history is exact and actual. Science can only tell us what is possible - history tells us what actually happened out of all the possibilities. The Bible's history is true.

And who was here to witness these processes occurring in the manner you assume? No one. They could just as easily be explained under a Biblical foundation, rather than atheism (aka evolution).

Who was there to witness these animals transsioning from one to another? God was. How do we know God didn't discreetly created them within kinds as the Bible describes? God tells us in His Word how He did it. It didn't involve millions of years and animals evolving from one another. It involved thousands of years, and God creating many distinct and discreet creatures. Fossil transsitions CAN NEVER BE PROVEN to be transsitional because no one observed that. You can continue to make the assumption that one creature is a transsitional fossil, but there is no way you can know for sure because there is no observation of such. It is an assumption.

All of which can be explained - and actually fit better in many circumstances - under a creationist view of history. Why? Because the Bible is truth and creationist view is Bible-based, whereas evolution has a basis in atheism, humanism, and an a priori committment to naturalism, materialism, and unprovable assumption.

Oh? Am I wrong in thinking that you 'used to hold to young earth views until you were unable to provide answers to criticisms, and therefore changed your view'? Is that an incorrect picture of you, UTE? Because if that's remotely accurate, then my statement about your belief in evolution being based on fear is a bullseye. You sold out to humanism because the Bible wasn't good enough to convince your 'so called' freinds or collegues - really, the Bible wasn't good enough to convince YOU.

Luk 16:29 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.

Falshoods like God created the world in six days? Falshoods like Noah's global flood? Falshoods like there was no death before sin? ALL of these are entirely supported by ALL of scripture. Scripture is ultimate truth. However, evolution contradicts scripture. Evolution is a contradiction to Truth. So it is your position that that YE makes Christians spread truth and you don't want to see that happen.

I showed you how your duplicitous approach worked in the church of England. I showed you how our whole culture is seeking authentic, genuine faith. I showed you how each generation pushes the door open further when you comprimise scripture to make it easier to swallow. Fear is simply a counterfeit of faith. Fear is faith, but not in God. You cannot serve two masters, and telling people that it's possible will NOT serve to expand Christianity, but to weaken it. How about give people the Bible - let them believe it in it's entirety. Do your best to show how the scientific data supports scripture and fits within it's framework of history. Instead you contradict the Bible and say that man knows better than God. You say it's OK to disbelieve the Bible. You say it's OK to believe in the Truth, but that the contradiction to that Truth is more believable than the Truth. You may be a Christian, UTE, but the next person to come along may not be convinced to be saved before they decide to believe in Evolution. Even YOU, UTE, believed in the Bible when you were first saved. YOU YOURSELF did not come to have faith in God and be a Christian while believing in Evolution.

Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

You believed when you were saved that Genesis was real and that the Bible was true. But then you were criticised, and while you kept your faith in Jesus, you decided to believe evolution. Now you hope that it will be EASIER for people to be saved if they believe evolution. You don't even realize that YOU YOURSELF disprove your own example! You were MORE THAN WILLING to believe the scirpture was ultimate truth when you made a decision for Christ. THIS is the best and prime condition for making a decision for salvation.

It's like the fool who looks at the way their parents disciplined them. They say - "man that was hard and I didn't like it. I am going to be much different with my children." When that fool has children they go soft on discipline and that kid grows up to be a bad person who doesn't respect authority. They never stopped to realize - "hey, I didn't have as much fun as I thought I should have had, but I turned out to be a pretty great person". All they thought about was how hard it was, or how much better it seemed in 'someone elses house'. They didn't stop to look at the REASON they turned out to be so good was directly BECAUSE their parents took the time to train them and raise them with discipline and a respect for authority.

In the same manner, you aren't stopping to look at the reason you made your decision for christ - because you were willing to see the Bible as infallible and ultimate truth. Without this condition, the Bible is MUCH more easily rejected, and salvation is MUCH more easily rejected. Such is the church of England.

And... you never see that in evolutionary material? For goodness sake, UTE, the whole thing is based on unobserved assumption! The whole thing is based on unobserved view of history! You call that good science? You call that scholarly? Who told you this definiton of honest and scholarly?

Remember the story I told you about the 'Mars rock' found in antartica? Here we have the science channel displaying a rock which a guy picked up off the ground in antartica which he clamed to be a meteor from Mars. He claimed it had chemicals native to mars, proving that it was a Mars rock, but he claimed it also had chemicals necessary for life. He was touting this rock as evidence that life once existed on Mars! You are telling me that THIS SOUNDS HONEST AND SCHOLARLY TO YOU!!? No one observed this rock coming from Mars. No one observed this rock since it "got here". No one knows of the chemicals in the rock were there before it "left mars". No one knows of the chemicals in the rock got there after it "got here". The entire story was a fabrication of the highestest order. It was dogmatic evolutionary assumption at it's best. THIS is the kind of "science" that you would rather believe than Holy Scipture? The science channel had NO PROBLEM running a 1 hour special on this Mars rock (which could very well have been native to earth for all they know), yet I have never once seen a single 5 minute blurb about creation, Intelligent Design, or any other theory that contradicts evolution in any way shape or form on the science channel. But we have a 1 hour special on this Mars rock that's completely 100% based on too many assumptions to count! This is what you call Scholarly and Honest?

 

Well folks, this is the best he's got!

Merely saying the examples presented are false does not really constitute refutation.

That's odd... it seems to me that a Creator who created everything in the universe in 6 days could have created the creatures in their original forms.
</font>[/QUOTE]We're trying to talk about science and scientific explanations.

That verse does not say the ancestry was different, merely that the flesh is currently different. Please don't read into scriptures what they do not say.

You persist in saying that an evolutionist is necessarily an atheist. That makes no sense at all. Don't you realize that even the catholic church, certainly not an atheistic organization, allows for evolution?

Some time go out and view the Great Nebula in Andromeda. You will then be viewing directly an object from 3 million years ago by light that has traveled that long. Lots of astronomers directly view galaxies far older than 4 billion years on a regular basis.

Yes, you too can go to a museum and view dinosaur bones from an animal that died millions of years ago. When you view those bones, will that, or will that not, be an observation. It WILL? Then get off this "no observations" kick.

Whether or not its called uniformiarianism, what's wrong with making assumptions about the past based on what you see in the present?

Did you write to fast? I cannot pick a shred of any reason to go from the stipulated facts to the conclusion presented.

The only reason you can say this is because you discount all the observations that have been repeatedly explained to you. But that is ok, because the greater audience of readers will be reminded again how bankrupt the anti-science posture of the extreme creationists really is.

Unless, of course, some creationist's particular interpretation of the Bible is at risk.

All of which can be explained - and actually fit better in many circumstances - under a creationist view of history. Why? Because the Bible is truth and creationist view is Bible-based, whereas evolution has a basis in atheism, humanism, and an a priori committment to naturalism, materialism, and unprovable assumption. </font>[/QUOTE]egad . . . false statements about what evolution is, and a declaration that the transposon sequences, the shared retrovirus sequences, the shared damaged vitamin c making machinery can be explained . . . what is missing from this picture? oh yes THE EXPLANATION. So since these can so readily be explained, WHERE IS THE EXPLANATION? still missing.

 

"I asked for your BEST examples, then I refuted them, showing how they are actually losses or re-arrangements of information."

Nice bit of revisionist history there, but that is simply not true. If I remember correctly, I gave you three examples. In one, a gene was duplicated and then one of the copies mutated until it perfromed a new and different function. That is not a simple loss or rearrangement. I think the second consisted of two genes which were duplicated and then pieces of the two copies were combined through mutation in a new way whci formed a new gene with a new function. That is not a simple loss or rearrangement. I believe the third was case where a retrovirus inserted a gene into a host. It happened to be in a germ line cell and was passed on. Eventually, part of the insertion mutated to become a new and useful gene to a descendant of the former host. That is not a simple loss or rearrangement.

For the first, you waved your hands around and declared it not to be a suitable case without ever exactly telling us why. For the other two, you attempted to debunk other cases and hope no one noticed that you did not actually address the cases I had provided. It was as if I had claimed that the sky was blue and you objected by saying that the grass is actually green.

Here is a link for those who wish to refresh their memory.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/21.html#000001

Then it is also very telling that you have been making you claims about "information" for a while. I showed you how duplication and mutation actually meet even your strained assertions about "information" and you ignored it. You really should attempt to show the error if you plan to keep feeding us that line. You also need to address the objections, such as circular claims and assertions labeled as theorems, in your "definition" of "information." Here is a link to that.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/67/2.html#000016

"1Cr 15:39 All flesh [is] not the same flesh..."

And in letting the Bible be its own commentary, you should look a few verses further. In verse 41 we see "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory." You will see that parallel language is being used here. It is merely pointing out how all things are different. All stars shine through nuclear fusion, but they are all different. In the same token, there are differences in all manner of life. The statement is not one about whether evolution is true or not nor about whether each creature is a separate creation. You are twisting the meaning of scripture here in an attempt to fit your own ends. This should not be done.

"Fantastic - Please by all means give us half a dozen names of scientists who have direct observations from 4 billion years ago. None? Well maybe a half dozen who were there 4 million years ago. Still none?..."

Is that the best you can come up with? THis was a serious response?

So I guess that you think that we should free all criminals who were conficted based on anything other than eyewitness testimony ONLY. Police should give up their forensics investigators. Because, according to you, it is not possible to know anything through evidence. Maybe you should become an expert defense witness. You could help all of those innocent people who are getting convicted of crimes based on anything other than eyewitness testimony.

Hmmm. Maybe that is not such a good idea. We all know that you can often deduce what happened without actually witnessing the act. Yours is a desparate ploy. And a hypocritical one since you claim that the evidence supports a young earth. According to you, we can learn nothing from the evidence. Which is where YEers want us to be; with our collective heads in the sand learning nothing that might disturb their insulated lives.

Let's try a different analogy. Tell me about the life cycle of a redwood tree. I am sure you will tell me that we can never know anything about the life cycle of a redwood tree since no one has been around long enough to see one go through a full cycle. And everyone else we see how silly that is.

"As I have already shown you, evolution has no direct observation."

This makes absolutely no sense. There are thousands and thousands of biologists and people in related fields out there making the observations every day in such areas as genetics and molecular observations and anatomical observations and fossil observations. The observations are direct. Evolution is the theory that explains the observations.

The other thing to remember is that for biologists there is both the fact and the theory of evolution. The observations are so convincing to those who are familiar with them that evolution is considered to be a fact. The theory is the details of how how evolution took place to fill in the observations that have been made.

"I wasn't listing movements that agreed with creation, I was listing opposition to evolution. You said there was no evidence of gaining movement against evolution, I listed ID as an example."

First, many in ID acceptthat evolution has and does happen. It is the propoesed mechanisms to which they object. In this sense, many in ID are much closer to my opinion than they are to yours. Yet you claim them as opposition to evolution.

Second, you still have not supported you claims about increasing opposition. We need details that show a trend with time. You have not provided us with any data points by which to judge.

I did provide you with one data point that showed recently that opposition to evolution was a tiny fraction of a percent of scientists and that most of those were from outside of the biological field. For a second point we can say that before Darwin and Lyell and others of that time that most scientists accepted a young earth. SO from those two data points, it is support for YE that has been slipping.

"All of which can be explained - and actually fit better in many circumstances - under a creationist view of history."

Then do so!

Give us why we should expect to see the observations that lead others to conclude evolution in a YE paradigm. Tell us about the twin nested heirarchy. Molecular and anatomical parahomology. Molecular and anatomical vestiges. Ontogeny. Atavisms. The similarity of independent phylogenies. The known transitional fossils. The correct order of the transitions. Past and present biogeography. Shared retroviral sequences. Shared pseudogenes. Shared transposon sequences.

Put all the pieces together in a manner that "actually fit better." It cannot be done without being arbitrary and cparicious.

"Oh? Am I wrong in thinking that you 'used to hold to young earth views until you were unable to provide answers to criticisms, and therefore changed your view'?"

Yes. You are wrong. YE "science" convinved me all by itself that it was wrong.

"You sold out to humanism because the Bible wasn't good enough to convince your 'so called' freinds or collegues."

You really should stop there. There has never been any pressure from anywhere in my life to to provide support for a YE. Most of my collegues are staunchly YE. I cannot sit here and name any friends of mine who are OE. You should not try and speculate on my motivations without knowing enough about me to have a basis. For that matter, by this point you should have gathered enough data to know that I really don't care what people think about me and I am not broadly succeptible to such pressure.

"So it is your position that that YE makes Christians spread truth and you don't want to see that happen."

My position is that people claim that the data supports a young earth and then attempt to support that position that it cannot be done in a truthful manner. Some deliberately spread flase information and some nievely repeat it. It is still false.

"I showed you how your duplicitous approach worked in the church of England."

You made an unsupported assertion that did not even warrent a response. You provided no evidence of a causal link and still have not.

"And... you never see that in evolutionary material?"

Oh yes, there are things published in mainstream science that are later found to not be true and even outright lies. But science is self correcting. If you try and pulll the wool over your peers eyes, you WILL be exposed. If you do bad science, it will be discovered and corrected.

Not so with YE. No matter how many times the various claims are shown to be false, they are rarely if ever removed from circulation. I guess it is the old addage that a lie repeated often enough may eventually become truth. Even when shown blantent mistakes by your own sources, it is like pulling teeth to even get you to admit a deficency.

"Remember the story I told you about the 'Mars rock' found in antartica?..."

And your point?

First off, your lack of knowledge concerning science is shown by your inability to comprehend how they determined that the rock was from Mars.

Second, as pointed out above, science is self correcting. When those guys made the extraordinary claim of finding fossil Mars life, they were put in the spotlight. They whithered because their work was not good enough. Don't be fooled by what you may see in popular culture. News and entertainment tend to overreact looking for the latest story. It all eventually played out correctly when the process was allowed to run its course.

Now let's see the same thing from your side. Give us your theory that explains the items above. See if it can stand up to scritiny. On a broader picture, let's see your side start to do some real science. Put some data out there and let the experts judge it. Make predictions about future observations and discoveries. You want to be called "science" then act like it!!!

 

A few more things...

"It's the only one that adheres to your a priori assumption that God doesn't exist."

If this were USENET that would have gotten you killfiled.

When have I ever, ever claimed "that God doesn't exist?" You should withdraw that statement and apologize. What is it, you just have a pile of phrases you cut and paste to make an argument? Did you forget you were talking to a Christian, a Baptist on a Baptist board?

"You make it sound like we have a lot of actual observations from the past - but here it is we only have observations of the present, and then you make ASSUMPTIONS about the past based on what you see in the present. I think that's called uniformitarianism."

And you have never been able to tell us with what is wrong with uniformitarianism as practiced by science. You have written planty about the problems with the YE caricature of it. But since that caricature is not based on reality, it really cannot be applied to the question. You have given us no reason to suspect that physical laws were different in the past or that a cause today will yield a different result than the same action in the past.

 

Actually, you are trying to use science to derive history. Thing is, science can only give you probabilities about history, whereas the Bible's history is 100% accurate and true. Science is the observable. What you are doing is observing the present and trying to extrapolate that back to the past. That might work IF you have enough historical information to demonstrate everything is as it was at the foundation. However, we know for certain the Bible describes a global flood - and catastrophism can indeed produce the same effects in thousands of years that we assume happened under the uniformitarian mindset over billions of years.

Nearly every culture on earth has some historical or mythical re-counting of a global flood on earth. This matches perfectly with the Bible's accurate history. Such a catastrophe is unaccounted for in modern geology.

On the contrary - lineage is EXACTLY the context of the verse. Look at verse 37 & 38:

1Cr 15:37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other [grain]:
38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

It's talking about kinds reproducing after their own kind - wheat has a seed of wheat, not some other grain. It's talking SPECIFICALLY about ancestry and reproduction.

1Cr 15:39 All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds.

I call a spade a spade Look at the fathers of evolution - James Hutton who's geology provided the millions of years for Darwin's theory, and Darwin himself. Hutton was a lawyer and in historical archives of his private letters we can see that he planned and conspired to systematically remove all mention of God and divinity from history and science. We can look at Darwin, who was a believer until the death of his daughter by illness. He decided that there could not be a God who could allow such suffering, so he determined to write a theory of life without God. The foundations of evolution on all sides is perpetrated by atheistic attitudes and the will of evil men to rid science of God. Science was FOUNDED on the principle that God created an orderly world that could be studied and observed to behave the same in repeated experiments. It was the very idea that there was creator (read "Designer") that lead these men to study the design.

Rom 11:16 For if the firstfruit [be] holy, the lump [is] also [holy]: and if the root [be] holy, so [are] the branches.

We see the root of evolution in atheism and humanism. We can see humanism demonstrated in Genesis when the serpent told eve she could know right and wrong for herself outside the word of God. That is exactly what Charles Darwin decided to create - a theory of life without God that is contrary to His Word.

Do you know how distance is measured to extra-terrestrial bodies? It is measured based on light. That's it. That's ALL they measure. The rest is speculation, as no one has ever traversed that distance to make an actual "observation" and tell us if this assumption is correct. Specifically the red shift of light is measured. There are currently many theories which contradict the current conventional thinking that more redshift = greater distance. For example ARP has some interesting theories. Moreover, Setterfield has some interesting theories about zero point energy that lead to questions about starlight time. Not to mention Humphries work on a creationist model involving a universe with a center and an edge. Things may not be as they seem... and I am sure time will show us the truth about those things as they have with biology, geology, etc.

This is yet again, an observation of the present, not a valid historical record of how things were in the past. Science can only show you the NOW in those fossils - it's still not observation, but assumption based on observation of the present. We have to make assumptions, extrapolations, and guesses about the past based on what we see in the present. It's still not science - which is observation.

It most certainly is an observation - of the present, however, not the past. You can only gain the most basic of information about the past. That dinosaurs existed, for example. Any ideas regarding their breeding habits, mutations, etc cannot be gained without observation. Applying this information is in essence imposing your worldview upon the observation to "fill in the gaps". Again, this is assumption, and it's an assumption that contradicts scripture, so it's incorrect.

Well for starters, your assumptions could be wrong. A uniformitarian assumption can ONLY stand if there is nothing to suggest that it was ever any different. The Bible clearly gives us more than enough cause to reason that things were indeed very different. Moreover the BIble describes a global catastrophe that is unaccounted for by the uniformitarian.

More simply stated, how could any make an observation of a dinosaur if your theory of evolution suggests that there was no people who lived contemporary with dinosaurs. You say people came millions of years after dinosaurs, therefore there was 'no one around to observe the dinosaurs' is true by default.

While I would certainly argue that the Bible, and Christianity is not anti-science (for example see above where I stated science was founded BECAUSE there is order and design), I think the good folks here can see for themselves that it is actually evolution which is anti-science - which is anti-observation. The whole of it is not based on observation, but assumptions based on fossils. There is no 'actual' observation to what is said.

By all means, lets discuss the Bible - and AT LAST! The evolutionists here have discounted God's Word entirely, stating that the Bible has nothing to say about the origin of man or the beginning of the universe or the earth. Moreover, they claim that the Bible's history is fable, as they don't believe the flood actually happened. Yet countless other verses quote the flood as an actual event.

Surely you jest. The explanation is that God created everything perfect as the Bible says. Then man sin and death entered the world as the Bible says. Then there was a global flood as the Bible says. Since then everything has been running down, not building up. Most fossils are from the flood (perfect conditions for laying down rock layers and creating fossils). Every creature reproduces after it's kind like the Bible says. - are you noticing a common theme to any of this theory? It's all "like the Bible says". I don't see anything in evolution that matches what the Bible says. The two are contradictory.

 

As I showed PauloE, the context of 1 Cor 15:39 does indeed show the verses are talking about ancestry.

1Cr 15:37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other [grain]:
38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
39 All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds.

Verse 40 changes the subject -

1Cr 15:40 [There are] also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial [is] one, and the [glory] of the terrestrial [is] another.

It moves from talking about terrestrial bodies to talking about celestial bodies. That is the context of verse 41.

The ridiculousness of your position should be exposed with an answer equal to the task.

Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Let me ask you a question - has 1 innocent person ever been convicted even when the forensic evidence pointed to them? Would an honest eye witness outweigh forensic evidence? Forensic evidence really has only an ability to tell us if something was possible - it has no ability to determine what actually happened. Moreover, the forensic evidence must be interpreted to mean anything. Only an eye witness can tell us what actually happened... and then only if that eyewitness is telling the truth. In the Bible we have an eyewitness account - God's own testimony - of how and what happened. Best of all, that eyewitness is trustworthy - God never lies.

If you didn't know someone who knew when the tree started growing, you could only guess based on forensic data. That guess may or may not be accurate - it depends on the unknown conditions which caused the specific forensic data you observed. It comes down to whether or not your assumptions about the unobserved variables is correct or not. For example, you could say "this tree is 150 years old" We count 150 rings and it's currently growing at 1 ring per year. But then someone opens a history book and finds that the whole area was destroyed by fire 60 years ago. They knocked down every tree, loaded the area with fertilizer, and planted many seeds for trees. You find that shortly after that there was an enormous growth spurt of vegetation because of the fertility of the area was abnormally high. You know that the tree can't be any more than 60 years old, yet here you see 150 so-called yearly rings. Your only conclusion is that something must have accelerated the ring growth so that more than 1 ring per year was formed. You set about trying to find out if more than one ring per year is possible, and lo and behold you find out that in a lab scientists have observed more than one ring under specific environmental conditions. Your assumptions change from a uniformitarian one to one of 'catestrophism' and you adopt the assumption that the conditions over the last 60 years must have been something similar to the lab conditions which produced accelerated tree ring growth. Your assumptions change to fit the data with what you know about history from written records or eyewitnesses. Then we can see fully that the evidence didn't change - the tree is still the tree and it still has 150 rings. But our interpretation of the evidence is different because we have adopted a different set of assumptions.

You have adopted an atheistic/humanistic world view (set of assumptions) and interpreted all the data within that framework. Creationists have adopted the Bible as our set of assumptions. The bible implicitly states that the world is ~ 6000 years old. Therefore, this eyewitness historical account (actual observation) trumps our assumptive interpretive process. We must, therefore, work to find conditions wherein this history is possible, and then adopt those conditions as our framework for the interpretation of data. For example, the RATE group has seen billion fold radiometric decay in the lab. Based on the eyewitness historical account of the Bible, the earth is ~6000 years old. Therefore the dates given by radiometric dating of millions of years are wrong. We can see conditions in a lab that suggest an acceleration of decay rates is possible, therefore we adopt this as part of our assumptive framework - rather than adhering to a uniformitarian mindset. See how that works? Just like the scientist who looks at his history book and it tells him that his 150 ring tree wasn't there 60 years ago.

So you are in favor of allowing ID to be taught side by side in public schools, and agree that the separation of church and state argument has no bearing on the issue?

Your problem is not that the data does not support creation, but that you adopted the wrong assumptions with which to interpret the data. NOW, you refuse to go back to the Lord because you feel you are entrenched in your position.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar (which I know you are not) with Answers in Genesis' section called "Arguments Creationists should not use".
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Clearly there ARE INDEED arguments which are removed from circulation, therefore your claim is soundly refuted.

That is the evolutionary 'party line' for "yes, we didn't observe what we claim, but we want it to be true sooooo much!". You guys immediately attack the dissenter as having a "lack of knowledge" or not being as "learned as you"... or some similar ad hominem meant to avoid the fact that you DIDN'T actually observe anything.

Like piltdown man, java man, Nevada man, mars rock - just another in a long list of propaganda meant to convince hearts and minds of this large body of supporting evidence. Like the rest they are later refuted in the science journals where most people don't read. From generation to generation the "proofs" of evolution change. But the Bible has never changed. In 6000 years the story remains the same story - true as ever. You can go read it in Genesis 1-11 if you want. And then you claim it was inconsistency and lies that lead you to believe in evolution over creation? You contradict yourself at every turn, UTE.

Are you trying to threaten me with physical harm here? That's a violation of the message board rules.

I didn't say that you claimed that God didn't' exist... my statements were directed toward evolution - YOU meaning "evolutionists". Had you the ability to read within context that might have been more clear. For example, when I say that "the creation vs evolution debate doesn't effect your salvation" - salvation being defined as belief in Jesus - I think that's pretty clear. Therefore within context of the rest of my statements you can see that it is your assumptive framework I was attacking, not you personally.

Actually I have been saying it over and over, but in true UTEOTW fashion you have been ignoring it. The problem with that is when you have an unaccounted for variable, such as a catastrophe, that it is not included in the assumptive framework. The Bible clearly and definitely records a global flood. An event of this magnitude would have had a profoundly significant impact on the uniformitarian framework, but it is ignored.

-------------------

I noticed you didn't have much to say about the fact that you believed the Bible was true when you were saved (YE), as opposed to coming to the Lord as a result of the ease of believing both scripture and evolution. I can only hope that this made some impact with you to realize that co-mingling light and darkness, good and evil, is not the proper method for effective evangelism. I hope you saw that even YOU made your decision within the framework of a literal creation - and I submit that you cannot, and should not argue that it would be better another way when you yourself are evidence to the contrary. It's like that parent thinking they should change the way they raise their children when they themselves turned out great as a result of their parents method.

 

"Thing is, science can only give you probabilities about history, whereas the Bible's history is 100% accurate and true."

But no man's interpretation of the Bible is complete. Including yours.

"That might work IF you have enough historical information to demonstrate everything is as it was at the foundation."

Non starter since no one argues that everything is as it was.

"Catastrophism can indeed produce the same effects in thousands of years that we assume happened under the uniformitarian mindset over billions of years."

This is not true. If so, please give an example.

You have tried to say the flood could have produced the fossil record, yet you flee and hide when asked to provide the mechanism in detail that sorted the living fauna as we see. The fossils, as arranged in the geologic record, as sorted such that only a very narrow range of creatures are found in a given layer. And these groupings are not related in size, density, shape or any other characteristic that would allow for the hydraulic sorting that you claim.

You have claimed that Mt. St. Helens formed canyons that are like those that geologists tell us were formed over long periods of time. Yet when challenged, you cannot point to specific features that supposedly take a long time to form in the canyon formed by the volcano. And you cannot explain specific features of old canyons, such as angular uncomformities and meanders.

Fossil fuels take an extremely long time to make. Yes you have posted data that shows that something resembling coal can be made in weeks at very high tempertures and pressures. Yet you ignore the chemistry that tells you the maximum temperature to which a given coal seam has been heated. Specific chemical changes happen at various temperatures and you can definitively place an upper limit on the temperature during the formation of the coal. And that temperature is much below your rapid coal-like formation conditions. YOu also ignore questions to explain how mutliple coal seams can be formed in situ and the same location.

The idea of explaining every observation with the flood is an easy one. Making it stick is not possible. That is why you flee and hide when pressed to give details.

"It's talking about kinds reproducing after their own kind - wheat has a seed of wheat, not some other grain. It's talking SPECIFICALLY about ancestry and reproduction."

THis is an excellent example of YEers missing the forest for the trees. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to go read all of the surrounding verses IN CONTEXT to see what is being discussed. It is not creation. But YEers get so in the habit of twisting meaning that it become habitual.

"We can look at Darwin, who was a believer until the death of his daughter by illness. He decided that there could not be a God who could allow such suffering, so he determined to write a theory of life without God."

Ummm. Didn't Darwin's father actually start down the road to the theory? Wasn't he sort of following in his father's footsteps?

Haven't you tried to tell the opposite story in the past, the one where you attempt to trace evolution all the way back to the Greek chain of being?

Let's not let facts get in the way of a good story.

"That is exactly what Charles Darwin decided to create - a theory of life without God that is contrary to His Word."

Yes, let's see you support the assertion that Darwin set out to consciously make a theory that could eliminate the need for God.

(Even if true, such would have no relevence on whether the theory is correct or not!)

"Do you know how distance is measured to extra-terrestrial bodies? It is measured based on light. That's it. That's ALL they measure."

Wow! Deep! Did you know I am not really reading your words but there are these photons streaming out of my monitor which impact on my eyes and form an image in my brain. Just what is the point of this? You cannot make a really objection so you hand wave a meaningless statement and hope no one thinks about it too hard?

"The rest is speculation, as no one has ever traversed that distance to make an actual "observation" and tell us if this assumption is correct. Specifically the red shift of light is measured."

YOu really have no idea, do you? You betray your lack of a scientific grounding to make good judgments on what is and is not believable in these debates.

Here is a good primer on how distances are actually determined.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/distance.htm

The distance to M31 is most definately not determined by red-shift. You may also want to read up on the other ways to determine distance to see how the distance by red-shift, when used, is calibrated.

When you find some real objections to these real methods of measurement, let us know. I look forward to you re-writing the standard stellar model on how stars work.

This is a good example of how YEers must build up a strawman to knock over. The real science does not fall so easily so they make a caricature of it and hope no one notices. Lucky for you, most people do not understand science. Unlucky for you, some of us do.

"For example ARP has some interesting theories."

Any of them involve a young earth? Didn't think so.

"Moreover, Setterfield has some interesting theories about zero point energy that lead to questions about starlight time."

Just like a YEer to throw out mutually contradictive theories and claim to make a point.

Did you know that Setterfield accepts the distances to the distance galaxies?

Did you know that simple observations that could tell you he is pointed in the right direction are not observed? For instance, the change in light speed should make doppler measurments of galaxy rotational speeds essentially zero. They measure to hundreds of kms per second. This would imply that galaxies truely rotate at nearly the speed of light for nearby galaxies and much greater than c for more distant galaxies.

"Not to mention Humphries work on a creationist model involving a universe with a center and an edge."

Except that light falling into a gravitational well would be blue-shifted and not red-shifted.

"Science can only show you the NOW in those fossils - it's still not observation, but assumption based on observation of the present."

That does not even really need comment. "It is not an observation it is an observation." Cute.

"Any ideas regarding their breeding habits, mutations, etc cannot be gained without observation."

You really are showing your lack of knowledge on how real science works. You really need to sit down with some of the relevent literature and see how lifestyle can be determined from fossil evidence. You do not seem to have clue about what real scientists do.

"A uniformitarian assumption can ONLY stand if there is nothing to suggest that it was ever any different. The Bible clearly gives us more than enough cause to reason that things were indeed very different. Moreover the BIble describes a global catastrophe that is unaccounted for by the uniformitarian."

YOu have never given us reason to believe that physical laws were different in the past.

You have never given us reason to think that a global flood in the past should be expected to leave a different set of evidence that what a geologists would expect. (Which makes your claims that the data really does show an old earth even stranger if you are claiming that a cause could give a different effect today than in the past. You then have nothing to stand on, either, by your own standard. Not really thinking these things through, are you?)

You have only ever given us your caricature of uniformitarianism which is completely unlike real geology. Some might think this means you do not have even a basic grasp of geology to be used in determining the validity of arguments you come across.

"More simply stated, how could any make an observation of a dinosaur if your theory of evolution suggests that there was no people who lived contemporary with dinosaurs."

Fossils. Fossils. Fossils.

"The whole of it is not based on observation, but assumptions based on fossils. There is no 'actual' observation to what is said."

Overwhelming evidence for evolution can be demonstrated through observations in the present without ever considering the fossil record. Think of things like molecular vestiges. Genetic parahomology. Atavisms. Shared psuedogenes. Shared transposons. Shared ERVs. And so on. YOu still have never told us how to better explain all these observations in your world though you continue to claim that such things can be better explained. You lack of a factual response makes your claims ring very hollow.

 

"Let me ask you a question - has 1 innocent person ever been convicted even when the forensic evidence pointed to them?"

I'll take that as meaning you do think we should free criminals who were convicted on forensic evidence. What a joke.

"We count 150 rings and it's currently growing at 1 ring per year. But then someone opens a history book and finds that the whole area was destroyed by fire 60 years ago."

Unless you can document this, you have just wasted a lot of words avoinding the subject with a fanciful story. But I do take from this that you do not think that we can truely know the story of the redwood since they live so long. You may find yourself alone on that island.

"Your problem is not that the data does not support creation, but that you adopted the wrong assumptions with which to interpret the data. NOW, you refuse to go back to the Lord because you feel you are entrenched in your position."

Put you words where your claims are. Quit asserting it and show it to be true.

"Perhaps you are unfamiliar (which I know you are not) with Answers in Genesis' section called "Arguments Creationists should not use".
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Clearly there ARE INDEED arguments which are removed from circulation, therefore your claim is soundly refuted."

How long do you think it would take me to find half a dozen current claims for each of those items?

"Like piltdown man, java man, Nevada man, mars rock"

Piltdown - Exposed by science.

Java Man - You can not tell us what is wrong with this find. YOu have been asked to, however.

What is Nevada Man?

What are your objections to how the rock was determined to be from Mars and where do you think the rock came from?

"Are you trying to threaten me with physical harm here?"

YOur first time on the internet? A killfile allows you to automatically block posts from an individual.

"I didn't say that you claimed that God didn't' exist."

Lie.

You said that I had made an a priori assumption that God did not exist. The reader id free to examine the statment from Gup on the previous page.

"The problem with that is when you have an unaccounted for variable, such as a catastrophe, that it is not included in the assumptive framework."

That is your caricature of uniformitarianism. You have not told us why you would expect that such a catastrophe would not leave signs or would leave signs different than what one would expect.

"I noticed you didn't have much to say about the fact that you believed the Bible was true when you were saved (YE), as opposed to coming to the Lord as a result of the ease of believing both scripture and evolution."

You do not listen, do you?

Saved. Then YE. Then examined YE. Then no longer YE.

 

This is true for Gup20 with regard to evolution only. Other statements of the Bible he chooses to reject as not literally true.

Statements, for example, that indicate it is the movement of the sun around the earth, rather than the rotation of the earth, that accounts for day and night. The passage in Joshua where it is the sun that stands still - and others - clearly set a literal message that Gup20 rejects.

In this he is violating the rule he sets and fulfills the words of Christ when He accused the lawyers of setting heavy burdens on others they would not lift themselves.

 

Show me where it explicitly states that. All of the passages you have shown me have implicit implications rather than excplicit statements.

Genesis 1 is not implicit when it says Six Days. It is overtly explicit. There is a huge difference between reading something into an implicit passage, or reading something out of an explicit passage (exegesis). When it gives geneologies with years and ages, that is explicit history. When it says creation was in six days, that is explicit. When it says on this day, then the evening and morning came, then on this day.... it leaves Absolutely no question as to the meaning.

 

What I mean is that you subscribe to a theory who's a priori assumption is that God doesn't exist. Chareles Darwin imagined a world devoid of the Creator because his daughter died and he wanted to invent a world where God didn't exsit.

Censorship isn't my cup of tea - but it's the only game in town if you are an evolutionist.

Since YE is generally verbatim with Genesis 1-11 (in fact that is the YE texbook), can we assume that you examined the scriptures and found them lacking in a viable explaination of how the world came to be? What exactly did you examine, and what exactly did you disagree with in scripture?

What were you before you were a YE? What did you believe about the origin of man when you made a decision to get saved? Were you more inclined to believe Genesis 1-11? It sounds like it since you became a YE when you were saved. Therefore, I would say that the decision to believe EXERTED AN EFFECT on your YE/OE stance. Therefore, even for you the two are connected. Decision for Jesus = YE, even in your case. And rightly so, your decision to accept Jesus resulted in a decision to accept YE as well because the two go hand-in-hand. Yet you have now rejected YE. However, you now ask me to believe that it would be better for people to do what YOU YOURSELF COULD NOT - that is exept Jesus more readily yet reject scripture, reject YE. You accepted Christ, then accepted YE. Now you say - don't accept YE, but accept Christ.

You cannot serve two masters, for you will love the one and hate the other. You are asking future generations to do something you yourself didn't even do - yet you expect them to come to the same decision as you? This is foolish. Why would anyone choose to believe the Bible, when you don't believe the whole Bible. People are looking for authentic faith. They seek a real, genuine experience. That is the 'whole package' not the part and parcel universalism, or pluralism. Telling people they can believe in evolution and be saved undermines both beliefs. However, you predetermine which will win in their lives (no one can serve two masters) by telling them that Science is absolute truth, and the Word of God is only allegorical fairy tale.

 

Incidentally, the only way to keep from undermining yourself if you are a christian and believe evolution is to say that the Bible and evolution are compatible in some way. You have attempted to do that by saying that the Bible is silent as to man's origin (which it clearly is not). This position is easily refuted... just read genesis chapter 1 and 2.

The other method of avoiding and undermining that would lead to the end of the chrsitian's faith is to propose that God used evolution. However, as I have shown you in the past, theologically, that brings us to assigning evil and death to the characteristics of God - which they are not. Today, we see many denominations stating one of these two positions (those who don't take Genesis literally, I mean). Polls say that 45% of those polled think that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and man was created as you see him today. (*) So roughly half of US population don't believe in evolution.

(Gallup polls since 1982 have consistently shown that about 45 percent of the U.S. population believes that God created humans in their present form sometime within the past 10,000 years. taken from http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050522/NEWS01/505220367 )

 

Fortunately, it is not necessary for me to clear my theology with Gup20.

 

No, you've asserted this in the past, but when a [thread] was opened to deal with this issue, you quickly lost interest in it. You seem to shy away from threads that deal with actually studying what the Bible says.

 

Why is it that some young-earth creationists repeatedly use phrases like "only allegorical fairy tale" to describe Scripture, and yet TEs don't?