Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

Flare3 -> Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution (3/31/2008 11:26:04 PM)

Hey all,
I was wondering what your beliefs are on Creationism. I'm not exactly sure what I believe about Creationism (and I'm not a scientist and don't know alot about the science behind it, so if I believe in evolution I'm putting my faith more in the scientists) so I wanted to get some input from other Christians. What and why are you a young earth Creationist, old earth Creationist, or a Theistic Evolutionists?

Peace



Ps103 -> RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution (3/31/2008 11:42:09 PM)

Moving this from Doctrine to Science and Origins.



1love1God1way -> RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution (3/31/2008 11:49:33 PM)

I'm a young earth, but I give enough elbow room for there to be a few extra thousand years or so.



ManimalX -> RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution (4/1/2008 1:05:50 AM)

I believe that if you take the Bible by itself, there really is no way to escape a young earth conclusion.

But, when you try to remove God from the picture and begin down the evolutionary road, you have to start doing silly things to make the Bible fit modern science, things like making up a gap of millions of years between creation days, or making creation days be millions of years instead of the literal days they plainly are.

I have a hard time trying to make the Bible fit the latest "fact" to come down the science pipeline, and will happily remain a believer in a 10,000 year-old or younger earth.



Flare3 -> RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution (4/1/2008 1:36:02 AM)

Its hard for me to believe in a young earth when mostly every single scientists believes in a 4.5 billion year old earth (and a 15 billion year old universe). While I'm not a scientist it seems some of the evidence the Biologists and Astronomers present make theistic evolution (or naturalistic evolution) make more sense. For instance the light from distant stars and galaxies took millions of years to reach us. If it hadn't then we would not see the light from them. Also you can see the remains of celestial bodies in the universe that never formed into planets (such as the left over debris from the astroid belt). Biologists also have some convincing evidence from ancient primates showing tool making primates and ancient primates with the comprehension of a 4 year old human.



unclemonkey -> RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution (4/1/2008 2:30:01 AM)

ORIGINAL:Flare3
quote:

Its hard for me to believe in a young earth when mostly every single scientists believes in a 4.5 billion year old earth (and a 15 billion year old universe). While I'm not a scientist it seems some of the evidence the Biologists and Astronomers present make theistic evolution (or naturalistic evolution) make more sense.

Do you believe the following conversation literally occurred? If not then please explain why not.
“And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee. And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay.” – Numbers 22:29-30



Flare3 -> RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution (4/1/2008 3:26:45 AM)

I also wanted to mention how you guys can believe in a 10,000 year old earth or older than 6,000 years when your basing your calculations of the earth on the bible. According to the geneologys of the old and new testament the year of creation took place in the year 4004 b.c., which is about a 6,000 year old earth. I'm just wondering why you add a couple thousand years or believe it happened 10,000 years ago. It seems if you're gonna be a young earth creationist, then the earth has to be 6,000 years old.



Flare3 -> RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution (4/1/2008 3:29:36 AM)

unclemonkey-maybe if it was in modern english I could understand it better, and if I knew the context it was being used in. I'm having trouble understanding what the verse is supposed to imply.



cow451 -> RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution (4/1/2008 10:18:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flare3

unclemonkey-maybe if it was in modern english I could understand it better, and if I knew the context it was being used in. I'm having trouble understanding what the verse is supposed to imply.


There are at least six good one-liners that are against TOS. Go to the Bible, check a couple of translations (KJV and NIV, for example). Look at it in context. Does omnipotent God require a talking ass to make a point?

YEC starts with the assumption that the Bible and science are supposed to match stride-for-stride. It's a faulty assumption from which additional assumptions are made, thereby rendering those assumptions faulty as well. Scriptures are for religious/spiritual guidance, not for explanations of natural phenomenon. YEC requires a very brittle scripture and a God that operates as a magician.



drmark -> RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution (4/2/2008 7:05:03 PM)

quote:

YEC starts with the assumption that the Bible and science are supposed to match stride-for-stride. It's a faulty assumption from which additional assumptions are made, thereby rendering those assumptions faulty as well. Scriptures are for religious/spiritual guidance, not for explanations of natural phenomenon. YEC requires a very brittle scripture and a God that operates as a magician.

Theistic evolution starts with the assumption that the Bible says nothing meaningful about science. It's a faulty assumption from which additional assumptions are made, thereby rendering those assumptions faulty as well. Scriptures are for religious/spiritual guidance, but God's Word is worthless if it lies about explanations of natural phenomenon. Theistic evolution requires a very impotent scripture and a God that deceives us in His Word.



cow451 -> RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution (4/2/2008 11:26:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

YEC starts with the assumption that the Bible and science are supposed to match stride-for-stride. It's a faulty assumption from which additional assumptions are made, thereby rendering those assumptions faulty as well. Scriptures are for religious/spiritual guidance, not for explanations of natural phenomenon. YEC requires a very brittle scripture and a God that operates as a magician.

Theistic evolution starts with the assumption that the Bible says nothing meaningful about science. It's a faulty assumption from which additional assumptions are made, thereby rendering those assumptions faulty as well. Scriptures are for religious/spiritual guidance, but God's Word is worthless if it lies about explanations of natural phenomenon. Theistic evolution requires a very impotent scripture and a God that deceives us in His Word.

How original[;)]



drj11 -> RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution (4/2/2008 11:48:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

Theistic evolution starts with the assumption that the Bible says nothing meaningful about science. It's a faulty assumption from which additional assumptions are made, thereby rendering those assumptions faulty as well. Scriptures are for religious/spiritual guidance, but God's Word is worthless if it lies about explanations of natural phenomenon. Theistic evolution requires a very impotent scripture and a God that deceives us in His Word.


I just cannot fathom this mindset. BTW, the largest and arguably oldest Christian denomination, the Roman Catholic Church disagrees with you.

Literalists claim faulty interpretation for every observation made by any scientist that doesnt agree with a young earth 'theory', but never admit to the possibility that the literal interpretation of the creation story could be the wrong one. There is nowhere near the same kind of consensus between Christian denominations over the interpretation of the creation story and even other aspects of the Bible that the theory of evolution can boast.

Maybe you should rethink your interpretation. Humans use allegory in order to portray truth as they see it, why can't God?



drmark -> RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution (4/3/2008 9:08:44 AM)

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?

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!



unclemonkey -> RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution (4/3/2008 9:30:23 AM)

ORIGINAL:Flare3
quote:

unclemonkey-maybe if it was in modern english I could understand it better,

KJV is written at the 4th grade level. The only real difference between the English used the KJV and modern English is that modern English has been dumbed down.

quote:

and if I knew the context it was being used in.

I fail to see where that should be a problem unless you don’t have a Bible. Is that the case?

quote:

I'm having trouble understanding what the verse is supposed to imply.

Maybe that is because you are looking for something that just isn’t there. What I see in the quote I presented is a man having a conversation with his donkey.
I believe that discussion literally took place. Do you?



WesP -> RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution (4/3/2008 9:43:10 AM)

quote:

I just cannot fathom this mindset. BTW, the largest and arguably oldest Christian denomination, the Roman Catholic Church disagrees with you.


You are arguing truth based on number of adherents? There are more Muslims than Catholics. Hmmmm.... [&:]

quote:

Maybe you should rethink your interpretation. Humans use allegory in order to portray truth as they see it, why can't God?


God can and does. Read Revelation. The problem with your interpretation is that it is just that: your interpretation. It may be supported by evolutionary theories, but they are all derived by making numerous assumptions. YEC is based on the knowledge that God is truthful and open to His children.



DanJames -> RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution (4/3/2008 9:52:39 AM)

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?



WesP -> RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution (4/3/2008 9:55:20 AM)

quote:

Pushing... my... buttons, man.


ROFL!! Relax, Dan! [;)]



cow451 -> RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution (4/3/2008 10:50:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WesSavedByGrace

quote:

I just cannot fathom this mindset. BTW, the largest and arguably oldest Christian denomination, the Roman Catholic Church disagrees with you.


You are arguing truth based on number of adherents? There are more Muslims than Catholics. Hmmmm.... [&:]

quote:

Maybe you should rethink your interpretation. Humans use allegory in order to portray truth as they see it, why can't God?


God can and does. Read Revelation. The problem with your interpretation is that it is just that: your interpretation. It may be supported by evolutionary theories, but they are all derived by making numerous assumptions. YEC is based on the knowledge that God is truthful and open to His children.

The only problem is that YEC is a religious doctrine. No scientific theory should be based on a religious doctrine. Scientific theories should be based on evidence and modified as new evidence comes along. If Genesis 1-11 was scientifically accurate, the evidence would be consistent. It is not. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that Genesis 1-11 is not meant to be viewed as a scientific account.



WesP -> RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution (4/3/2008 11:10:57 AM)

quote:

If Genesis 1-11 was scientifically accurate, the evidence would be consistent.


cow,

That statement is itself based on several assumptions, and I do not accept those assumptions. Therefore, there is no inconsistency.



cow451 -> RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution (4/3/2008 11:39:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WesSavedByGrace

quote:

If Genesis 1-11 was scientifically accurate, the evidence would be consistent.


cow,

That statement is itself based on several assumptions, and I do not accept those assumptions. Therefore, there is no inconsistency.


The assumption that scientific evidence (geology, astronomy, physics, mathmatics, chemistry, biology, etc.) is more accurate than inaccurate is perfectly reasonable. Your assumption that the greatest minds in these fields are mostly inaccurate is quite unreasonable. 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.



WesP -> RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution (4/3/2008 11:46:29 AM)

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?



Real_Solitude -> RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution (4/3/2008 11:48:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WesSavedByGrace
That statement is itself based on several assumptions, and I do not accept those assumptions. Therefore, there is no inconsistency.


I do not accept your rejection, therefore the assumptions are correct. [;)]



WesP -> RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution (4/3/2008 11:50:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude

quote:

ORIGINAL: WesSavedByGrace
That statement is itself based on several assumptions, and I do not accept those assumptions. Therefore, there is no inconsistency.


I do not accept your rejection, therefore the assumptions are correct. [;)]


Now that we got that straight.... [:D]



cow451 -> RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution (4/3/2008 11:51:45 AM)

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.



DanJames -> RE: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution (4/3/2008 12:55:04 PM)

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).



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI