RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution
View related threads:
(in this forum
| in all forums)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or ... - 4/3/2008 1:12:20 PM
|
|
|
WesP
Posts: 1503
Joined: 11/28/2005
From: Where God needs me to be
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesSavedByGrace
quote:
Logic dictates that some of these brilliant people would have figured out that all the major assumptions are wrong. The YEC line of thinking requires the suspension of logic.
That is the problem you are experiencing. It does not require abandonment of logic; it requires faith. What is faith?
I'm not experiencing a faith problem or logic problem. Scientific assumptions or theories are evidence based. YEC's must reject the bulk of science for religious purposes. YEC is religion and it's silly to present it any other way.
Sorry. I did not present that well. In no way am I questioning your faith or anyone else's.
In truth, I do not reject all science. I reject science based on conjecture and possibility. If we don't know, then we shouldn't present it as fact. BTW, I am not suggesting that YEC is based on science. I am saying that science is an attempt to understand what has happened. That is the same perception you have I think. The difference is that I cannot accept something that is questionable. What God told and tells us is truth. Anything that goes against that, I reject.
_____________________________
Peace,
Wes
Isaiah 40:31 But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or ... - 4/3/2008 1:13:57 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3108
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Scientific assumptions or theories are evidence based. Wrong, they are based on interpretations of evidence!
quote:
YEC's must reject the bulk of science for religious purposes. Wrong, YECs reject the religion of naturalism because it is totally inconsistent with the bulk of real science!
quote:
YEC is religion and it's silly to present it any other way. Right (finally), YEC is a religion in just the same way naturalistic evolution is a religion and it's ignorant to deny this fact of origins philosophy!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or ... - 4/3/2008 1:17:28 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 393
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
YEC's must reject the bulk of science for religious purposes. Wrong, YECs reject the religion of naturalism because it is totally inconsistent with the bulk of real science!
I must have been reading Cow's post too fast. Good thing, too because if I would have seen that part that you just quoted, WesSavedByGrace might have had to get me another pill.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or ... - 4/3/2008 3:27:09 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3539
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesSavedByGrace
quote:
Logic dictates that some of these brilliant people would have figured out that all the major assumptions are wrong. The YEC line of thinking requires the suspension of logic.
That is the problem you are experiencing. It does not require abandonment of logic; it requires faith. What is faith?
I'm not experiencing a faith problem or logic problem. Scientific assumptions or theories are evidence based. YEC's must reject the bulk of science for religious purposes. YEC is religion and it's silly to present it any other way.
Cow, whether we start with faith and build our interpretations from there, or if we start with the foundation laid in high school and build from there, we all have to have an amount of "hope" or "faith" that science will fill in the gaps. Staunch evolutionists such as yourself have logical fallacies as well, such as the stasis of species seen in the fossil record. You overlook it in favor of the "obvious" gradualism. Well I overlook the examples of gradualism in favor of the "obvious" stasis. We don't believe you when you say that Creationism is strictly religious in nature no matter how many times you say it, and no matter how hard you pound the pulpit (or wave your bible).
You don't have to convince me. You have to convince the scientific community. Or, if you think the idea will fall on deaf ears, perhaps stop whining about the bias against YEC.
_____________________________
Wer weiß, was Übel im Herzen der Männer lauert? Nur der Schatten weiß. Giants 17 Patriots 14.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or ... - 4/3/2008 6:50:51 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 393
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesSavedByGrace
quote:
Logic dictates that some of these brilliant people would have figured out that all the major assumptions are wrong. The YEC line of thinking requires the suspension of logic.
That is the problem you are experiencing. It does not require abandonment of logic; it requires faith. What is faith?
I'm not experiencing a faith problem or logic problem. Scientific assumptions or theories are evidence based. YEC's must reject the bulk of science for religious purposes. YEC is religion and it's silly to present it any other way.
Cow, whether we start with faith and build our interpretations from there, or if we start with the foundation laid in high school and build from there, we all have to have an amount of "hope" or "faith" that science will fill in the gaps. Staunch evolutionists such as yourself have logical fallacies as well, such as the stasis of species seen in the fossil record. You overlook it in favor of the "obvious" gradualism. Well I overlook the examples of gradualism in favor of the "obvious" stasis. We don't believe you when you say that Creationism is strictly religious in nature no matter how many times you say it, and no matter how hard you pound the pulpit (or wave your bible).
You don't have to convince me. You have to convince the scientific community. Or, if you think the idea will fall on deaf ears, perhaps stop whining about the bias against YEC.
I don't have a platform to convince the scientific community, but while we have each other as an audience, we can sharpen one another.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or ... - 4/3/2008 9:18:51 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 306
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
I just cannot fathom this mindset. BTW, the largest and arguably oldest Christian denomination, the Roman Catholic Church disagrees with you.
The Catholic Church isn't exactly known as the standard of proper hermeneutics.
quote:
Literalists claim faulty interpretation for every observation made by any scientist that doesnt agree with a young earth 'theory'
Pushing... my... buttons, man. 
Creationists believe that horses, donkeys, zebras, mules, ponies, and My-Little-Pony dolls all came from two or seven "dozonkimules" or whatever, that disembarked from the ark. In order to believe that, a Creationist must believe most of what is taught in the textbook. We do not picture scientists as red-skinned, horn bearing ne'er-do-wells that made a deal with Satan to achieve a status in the scientific community. Can you acknowledge this? Or are you going to continue to knock over this straw man?
Its no straw man...
Lets be honest... quite a few posters here do view scientists that way, that is extremely clear. It doesn't take long reading through some of these threads to see that. My comment was correct, I believe. YEC'ers, in my personal anecdotal experience, will almost always claim infallible interpretation when it comes to genesis and will absolutely unequivocally refuse to even let the merest hypothetical hint of an idea into their brain that might say otherwise (at least in my experience). But when it comes to science...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or ... - 4/3/2008 9:44:03 PM
|
|
|
Nothingman
Posts: 111
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Scientific assumptions or theories are evidence based. Wrong, they are based on interpretations of evidence!
quote:
YEC's must reject the bulk of science for religious purposes. Wrong, YECs reject the religion of naturalism because it is totally inconsistent with the bulk of real science!
quote:
YEC is religion and it's silly to present it any other way. Right (finally), YEC is a religion in just the same way naturalistic evolution is a religion and it's ignorant to deny this fact of origins philosophy!
Does the fact that it is "interpretation" make it any less valid? I just have a simple question for you; it would clear up alot. Have you ever actually studied the theories, evidence, rationale etc behind the theories of old earth? I'm just curious, since I really sincerely believe that any honest, clear-thinking, unbias individual could not come to any other conclusion. But besides my assertion, I would just like to know, have you ever really looked into WHY the idea of a billion year old planet is posited? Or have you refused because you long gave up on any other interpretation of the Bible...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or ... - 4/3/2008 10:22:11 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 306
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Maybe you should rethink your interpretation. Humans use allegory in order to portray truth as they see it, why can't God? God used allegory innumerable times throughout His Word, drj11. It's actually very easy to identify by literary genre, context and grammatical construction, and original intent of the amanuensis. I can give you dozens of examples, if you're interested. Genesis 1-11 is NOT an example of allegory! It is written in the exact same literary style and for the very same purpose as the rest of Genesis. This is an historical, narrative account of origins - do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Quite a few scientists do have evidence to the contrary.
quote:
Proper hermeneutics leads to proper interpretation of Scripture, not merely adherence to unjustified "literalism". Denominational teachings (no matter how large and old the denomination) do not change the correct reading of God's authoritative, inerrant Word. I just cannot fathom this mindset of yours, drj11!
Wouldn't it be nice to have a faith that wasn't directly dependent with science being completely insufficient? Its only going to get harder for YEC'ers as time goes on, I imagine.
quote:
allegory innumerable times throughout His Word, drj11. It's actually very easy to identify by literary genre, context and grammatical construction, and original intent of the amanuensis. I can give you dozens of examples, if you're interested. Genesis 1-11 is NOT an example of allegory! It is written in the exact same literary style and for the very same purpose as the rest of Genesis. This is an historical, narrative account of origins - do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Perhaps you should also extend that criteria for determining allegory to include direct and irreconcilable contradictions with scientific reality. You're hermeneutics are flawed, which causes your interpretation to be flawed.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or ... - 4/3/2008 10:56:59 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3108
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Have you ever actually studied the theories, evidence, rationale etc behind the theories of old earth? Well, I graduated magna cum laude with a major in Biology and a minor in Anthropology from a prestigious university often referred to as the "Harvard of the Midwest". You tell me if that's enough proof of my study!
quote:
But besides my assertion, I would just like to know, have you ever really looked into WHY the idea of a billion year old planet is posited? That's a no-brainer - doesn't it take zillions of years for random mutations to be naturally selected for?
quote:
Quite a few scientists do have evidence to the contrary. Evidence that casts doubt on the literary genre of Genesis being historical narrative? Bring it on! Or just more fallible interpretations of indirect evidence used to bolster the religion of naturalism? I'm not interested - I read oodles of that every day on these threads!
quote:
Wouldn't it be nice to have a faith that wasn't directly dependent with science being completely insufficient? Wouldn't it be nice to have a science that really made sense when understood through the lens of God's Word, instead of making Scripture insufficient to explain naturalism?
quote:
You're hermeneutics are flawed, which causes your interpretation to be flawed. They're not my hermeneutics, drj11, rather they come from an august group of evangelical scholars and theologians who truly understand the importance of proper handling of God's Holy Word. Maybe you would learn something by reading the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics instead trying to justify worthless science!
< Message edited by drmark -- 4/3/2008 11:03:07 PM >
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or ... - 4/3/2008 11:11:52 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 306
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Have you ever actually studied the theories, evidence, rationale etc behind the theories of old earth? Well, I graduated magna cum laude with a major in Biology and a minor in Anthropology from a prestigious university often referred to as the "Harvard of the Midwest". You tell me if that's enough proof of my study!
Which Harvard of the Midwest would that be? Seems every Midwestern school claims that title, heh.
quote:
That's a no-brainer - doesn't it take zillions of years for random mutations to be naturally selected for?
It's not just evolution that points to old Earth. Cosmology, astronomy, geology... the theory of gravity... pretty much everything actually.
quote:
Evidence that casts doubt on the literary genre of Genesis being historical narrative? Bring it on! Or just more fallible interpretations of indirect evidence used to bolster the religion of naturalism? I'm not interested - I read oodles of that every day on these threads!
Wouldn't it be nice to have a science that really made sense when understood through the lens of God's Word, instead of making Scripture insufficient to explain naturalism?
Fortunately we do. You just wont hear it. We have any number of ways of determining the age of the earth, all the stars, and the universe... All of those dozens of ways are all a misinterpretation according to you?
If God wanted us to take a literal interpretation of Genesis, he wouldnt have given us the ability to reason. People like to say those who dont take a literal interpretation are calling God a liar, but its the literalists who actually do so. The evidence, reality, this world and the universe are God's word and the literalists claim He is lying.
< Message edited by drj11 -- 4/3/2008 11:18:36 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or ... - 4/4/2008 12:10:13 AM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 263
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
But besides my assertion, I would just like to know, have you ever really looked into WHY the idea of a billion year old planet is posited? That's a no-brainer - doesn't it take zillions of years for random mutations to be naturally selected for?
Are you seriously suggesting that an old Earth was first postulated in order to account for the timescales necessary for evolution to occur? There were certainly proto-evolutionary ideas in circulation, but they were far from dominant by the time Benoit de Maillet proposed an age of more than 2 billion years based on Descartes' cosmology. In 1774, Comte de Buffon published Epochs of Nature in which he postulated an age of nearly 3 billion years based on the rate of cooling of a molten sphere. (He assume that the Earth had started molten. Again, probably influenced by Descartes.) The ideas of James Hutton in "Theory of the Earth" (1788), TQW, caused "scientific inquiries provoked by his claims [to push] back the age of the earth into the millions of years."
Charles Lyell published "Principles of Geology" in 1830, in which he popularized uniformitarinism, which also helped popularize the notion that the Earth was old. All of this was before Darwin published "Species."
Darwin, of course, wasn't the first to postulate evolutionary concepts, but he was certainly the one to popularize it.
I think it would be rather more correct to say that evolutionary thought was accepted because the idea that there were timescales available for it to happen in was already in place.
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or ... - 4/4/2008 12:14:01 AM
|
|
|
Nothingman
Posts: 111
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Well, I graduated magna cum laude with a major in Biology and a minor in Anthropology from a prestigious university often referred to as the "Harvard of the Midwest". You tell me if that's enough proof of my study!
Where would graduating with an honours degree fit within the summa/magna cum laude degree ? Just curious; I'm Canadian and not familar with the summa/magna cum laude distinctions...
Besides that, did you not learn about evolution? What Biology did you learn?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or ... - 4/4/2008 8:42:26 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3108
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Where would graduating with an honours degree fit within the summa/magna cum laude degree ? University policies differ. At the time I graduated, one's GPA determined the "level of laude" coupled with an honors thesis.
quote:
Besides that, did you not learn about evolution? What Biology did you learn? I learned such a sickening amount about evolution that I see right through its charade of scientism today!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or ... - 4/4/2008 10:10:30 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3539
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Maybe you would learn something by reading the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics instead trying to justify worthless science!
doc, I've pointed out before that the "Chicago Statement" is clearly fundamentalist AND they do not stand on a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account.
_____________________________
Wer weiß, was Übel im Herzen der Männer lauert? Nur der Schatten weiß. Giants 17 Patriots 14.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or ... - 4/4/2008 11:31:17 AM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 393
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
I just cannot fathom this mindset. BTW, the largest and arguably oldest Christian denomination, the Roman Catholic Church disagrees with you.
The Catholic Church isn't exactly known as the standard of proper hermeneutics.
quote:
Literalists claim faulty interpretation for every observation made by any scientist that doesnt agree with a young earth 'theory'
Pushing... my... buttons, man.
Creationists believe that horses, donkeys, zebras, mules, ponies, and My-Little-Pony dolls all came from two or seven "dozonkimules" or whatever, that disembarked from the ark. In order to believe that, a Creationist must believe most of what is taught in the textbook. We do not picture scientists as red-skinned, horn bearing ne'er-do-wells that made a deal with Satan to achieve a status in the scientific community. Can you acknowledge this? Or are you going to continue to knock over this straw man?
Its no straw man...
Lets be honest... quite a few posters here do view scientists that way, that is extremely clear. It doesn't take long reading through some of these threads to see that. My comment was correct, I believe. YEC'ers, in my personal anecdotal experience, will almost always claim infallible interpretation when it comes to genesis and will absolutely unequivocally refuse to even let the merest hypothetical hint of an idea into their brain that might say otherwise (at least in my experience). But when it comes to science...
I accept much of evolution and I love science. I differ with the cosmologies and worldviews of my professors, so when they include it in their lectures, I take notes on them, but I do not accept them. Does that mean that I absolutely unequivocally refuse to even let the merest hypothetical hint of an idea into my brain that might contradict my "infallible interpretation" of Genesis? Or rather, do we have to share YOUR views in order to stay true to scientific fidelity? If punctuated equilibrium became popular, then would we have to believe it to stay true to scientific fidelity? After all, just because the fossil record could be interpreted as gradualism over millions of years doesn't mean that it has to be. Otherwise, why would punctuated equilibrium have been suggested? Perhaps we should stop grouping personal views of the history of the planet with the word "science"?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or ... - 4/4/2008 2:26:08 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3108
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
doc, I've pointed out before that the "Chicago Statement" is clearly fundamentalist AND they do not stand on a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account. Sorry, cow, but your distortion of the Chicago Statement grows feebler with each post of yours. From Article XIV (my bolding):
quote:
WE AFFIRM that the biblical record of events, discourses and sayings, though presented in a variety of appropriate literary forms, corresponds to historical fact.
WE DENY that any event, discourse or saying reported in Scripture was invented by the biblical writers or by the traditions they incorporated.
This article combines the emphases of Articles VI and XIII. While acknowledging the legitimacy of literary forms, this article insists that any record of events presented in Scripture must correspond to historical fact. That is, no reported event, discourse, or saying should be considered imaginary.
The Denial is even more clear than the Affirmation. It stresses that any discourse, saying, or event reported in Scripture must actually have occurred. This means that any hermeneutic or form of biblical criticism which claims that something was invented by the author must be rejected. This does not mean that a parable must be understood to represent historical facts, since a parable does not (by its very genre) purport to report an event or saying but simply to illustrate a point.
From Article XV (my bolding):
quote:
WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text.
WE DENY the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support.
The literal sense of Scripture is strongly affirmed here. To be sure the English word literal carries some problematic connotations with it. Hence the words normal and grammatical-historical are used to explain what is meant. The literal sense is also designated by the more descriptive title grammatical-historical sense. This means the correct interpretation is the one which discovers the meaning of the text in its grammatical forms and in the historical, cultural context in which the text is expressed.
The Denial warns against attributing to Scripture any meaning not based in a literal understanding, such as mythological or allegorical interpretations. This should not be understood as eliminating typology or designated allegory or other literary forms which include figures of speech (see Articles X, XIII, and XIV).
So nice try, cow, but historical narative is just that - historical narrative!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or ... - 4/4/2008 2:57:37 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3539
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
doc, I've pointed out before that the "Chicago Statement" is clearly fundamentalist AND they do not stand on a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account. Sorry, cow, but your distortion of the Chicago Statement grows feebler with each post of yours. From Article XIV (my bolding):
###edited for brevity###
So nice try, cow, but historical narative is just that - historical narrative!
OK, you made me do it:
From Article XXII
"The article left open the question of the age of the earth on which there is no unanimity among evangelicals and which was beyond the purview of this conference.'"
_____________________________
Wer weiß, was Übel im Herzen der Männer lauert? Nur der Schatten weiß. Giants 17 Patriots 14.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or ... - 4/4/2008 3:02:20 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3539
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
doc, I've pointed out before that the "Chicago Statement" is clearly fundamentalist AND they do not stand on a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account. Sorry, cow, but your distortion of the Chicago Statement grows feebler with each post of yours. From Article XIV (my bolding):
###edited for brevity###
So nice try, cow, but historical narative is just that - historical narrative!
OK, you made me do it:
From Article XXII
"The article left open the question of the age of the earth on which there is no unanimity among evangelicals and which was beyond the purview of this conference.'"
For clarity, The Chicago Statement is about fundmentalist hermeneutics, which is only one of several ways of approaching scripture. Needless to say, I don't subscribe to it.
_____________________________
Wer weiß, was Übel im Herzen der Männer lauert? Nur der Schatten weiß. Giants 17 Patriots 14.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or ... - 4/4/2008 3:50:05 PM
|
|
|
Nothingman
Posts: 111
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Where would graduating with an honours degree fit within the summa/magna cum laude degree ? University policies differ. At the time I graduated, one's GPA determined the "level of laude" coupled with an honors thesis.
quote:
Besides that, did you not learn about evolution? What Biology did you learn? I learned such a sickening amount about evolution that I see right through its charade of scientism today!
Cool...what was your honour thesis about?
So did you refute the biological theory that you learned about or did you just go along with it, in the back of your mind not believing what you were forced to right down?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or ... - 4/6/2008 9:19:53 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3108
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
The effects of human interventions on the ecological niches of various mosquito populations and the resultant elimination of malaria in those environments.
I was a "nominal Christian" during my college years and truly found the Lord after my marriage while in medical school. It has only been the last 10 years or so that I have objectively realized the deceptive folly of evolutionary theory and its complete unsupportability by the scientific methods I use daily in my medical/research practice.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or ... - 4/6/2008 6:48:25 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 393
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
The effects of human interventions on the ecological niches of various mosquito populations and the resultant elimination of malaria in those environments.
I was a "nominal Christian" during my college years and truly found the Lord after my marriage while in medical school. It has only been the last 10 years or so that I have objectively realized the deceptive folly of evolutionary theory and its complete unsupportability by the scientific methods I use daily in my medical/research practice.
Hurray for us abnormal Christians!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or ... - 4/7/2008 10:45:07 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3539
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Hurray for us abnormal Christians!
Just remember you said it, not me.
_____________________________
Wer weiß, was Übel im Herzen der Männer lauert? Nur der Schatten weiß. Giants 17 Patriots 14.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or ... - 4/7/2008 3:44:38 PM
|
|
|
car2ner
Posts: 1867
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: just south of Atlanta GA
Status: offline
|
IMHO I hold out that I don't know what I don't know. There are issues, like the new studies on plasma, that change the outlook on what we thought we knew. I do find it hard to collaborate everything in the bible with everything the science community is preaching.
But they don't know everything and never will this side of heaven. What we really have are some darn good guesses. Some that back up the Word of God beautifully and some that don't. I would prefer to err on the side of God.
_____________________________
the journal of selling my wonderful home http://www.car2ner.2ya.com (my blog)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or ... - 4/7/2008 4:51:04 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3539
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: car2ner
IMHO I hold out that I don't know what I don't know. There are issues, like the new studies on plasma, that change the outlook on what we thought we knew. I do find it hard to collaborate everything in the bible with everything the science community is preaching.
But they don't know everything and never will this side of heaven. What we really have are some darn good guesses. Some that back up the Word of God beautifully and some that don't. I would prefer to err on the side of God.
No, you err on the side of a literal interpretation of the first chapters in Genesis.
_____________________________
Wer weiß, was Übel im Herzen der Männer lauert? Nur der Schatten weiß. Giants 17 Patriots 14.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
