[_ Old Earth _] Big Bang ?

[Edward]

The question is not that tough. You either believe God is Creator or you don't. You put your faith in one or the other, not both. You can only serve one. There is no room for two.
.

Christianity 101

 

[Rick W]

Guys, I'm a Creationist.
That being said and in all fairness a Theistic Evolutionist, a "TE" for short, does believe God is the Creator. Just not at the same point in time.

 

[Rick W]

Again, to all,

After reading what has been posted after my last post this is yet another opportunity to make my position here very clear.
Judgment of another whether spiritual, intellectual or anything in between is not evidence or an argument to support a case. I'm quite sure we all know who the target of those judgments/opinions may be though nobody is directly saying so attempting to circumvent the rules.I'm human too who has also through life honed those skills to a fine edge. I know the ploys when I see them.

Sooner or later I'm going to come to the decision enough time and effort has been spent highlighting the ToS and the agreement accepted for access and begin enforcing those policies.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Thus, evolution is a complete world-view, an explanation of origins and meanings without the necessity of a personal God who created and upholds all things. Since this philosophy is so widely and persuasively taught in our schools, Christians are often tempted to accept the compromise position of "theistic evolution", according to which evolution is viewed as God's method of creation. However, this is basically an inconsistent and contradictory position. A few of its fallacies are as follows:


http://www.icr.org/article/53/

The article explains how evolution and scripture, directly, contradict one another.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Thus, evolution is a complete world-view, an explanation of origins and meanings without the necessity of a personal God who created and upholds all things. Since this philosophy is so widely and persuasively taught in our schools, Christians are often tempted to accept the compromise position of "theistic evolution", according to which evolution is viewed as God's method of creation. However, this is basically an inconsistent and contradictory position. A few of its fallacies are as follows:


http://www.icr.org/article/53/

A further quote;
The article explains how evolution and scripture, directly, contradict one another.[/
A further quote from this article;
But the most serious fallacy in the day-age theory is theological. It charges God with the direct responsibility for five billion years of history of purposeless variation, accidental changes, evolutionary blind alleys, numerous misfits and extinctions, a cruel struggle for existence, with preservation of the strong and extermination of the weak, of natural disasters of all kinds, rampant disease, disorder, and decay, and, above all, with death. The Bible teaches that, at the end of the creation period, God pronounced His whole creation to be "very good", in spite of all this. It also teaches plainly that this present type of world, "groaning and travailing in pain" (Romans 8:22) only resulted from man's sin and God's curse thereon. "By one man sin entered into the world and death by sin" (Romans 5:12). "God is not the author of confusion" (I Corinthians 14:33).

 

[Barbarian]

But the most serious fallacy in the day-age theory is theological. It charges God with the direct responsibility for five billion years of history of purposeless variation, accidental changes, evolutionary blind alleys, numerous misfits and extinctions, a cruel struggle for existence, with preservation of the strong and extermination of the weak, of natural disasters of all kinds, rampant disease, disorder, and decay, and, above all, with death. The Bible teaches that, at the end of the creation period, God pronounced His whole creation to be "very good", in spite of all this. It also teaches plainly that this present type of world, "groaning and travailing in pain" (Romans 8:22) only resulted from man's sin and God's curse thereon. "By one man sin entered into the world and death by sin" (Romans 5:12). "God is not the author of confusion" (I Corinthians 14:33).

This boils down to "I don't see why God would do it this way, so it can't be true." Relying on your own wisdom, when confronted with God's wisdom, is not a good idea.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I'll answer in Bold in your quote again.

Please don't reply within my quote, you can separate quotes and reply to them. I can show you how to do this if you need assistance.

Do you mean besides the bible?

The Bible is not a science textbook.

Oh come on Doulos, you can do better than this, lol. Ok. Yes I suppose since I didn't know or see George Washington that I take it on faith that he existed. But it's NOT the same. There is a LOT of written documented history about Washington as it was happening. There's portraits of him, letters and stuff that he wrote. The same is NOT true for evolution. We don't find fossilized footprints and say hey this proves Washington lived. Eh?!

Right, there are historical documents which claim he existed and was President. These are a form of evidence, but the same is true that you cannot directly observe his existence. Science goes off of other evidence provided by Paleontologists and biologists to understand now extinct life forms and the evidence they left behind.

I was using a simple illustration to get my point across. I'm sure you know how illustrations work. I wasn't claiming you take his existence on faith despite you not observing, but you rely off of historical evidence. You made my point.

No, just common sense. It may prove that the item is old, but can't "prove" much else. It suggests things and good minds theorize what it may be, how it may fit in to other existing theories and knowledge and so forth like that. You don't have to be a scientist to have a little common sense. In fact I've even heard crdible scientists make the statement that, that's what they do, and what the fossil does...it suggests possibilities.

I'm confused with how common sense relates to your knowledge of fossils and geology?

Ok, that's what I said, and there's nothing wrong with that. We all do that, human nature. Let me ask you a question though, Christian brother...Ok, so you're also a Christian. How does this compelling evidence fit in with your beliefs of the bible and our Lord and what He has said? You have posted under your name that you are Christian, and yet...you hardly make mention of the Lord. Don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning your faith or anything of the sort, but you haven't mentioned how these theories of evolution fit in with your beliefs in God and His Word, so I find myself curious. Do you believe that God created man and earth & animals and so forth? I'm just curious brother.

Not sure what this has to do with the topic, but I mainly post here in the science forum to discuss matters of science. I used to be a very frequent poster in the Apologetics forum and would mention the Lord all the time as it related much more to the discussion at hand. I believe that God has used natural means as a mechanism for his creation. I don't think he just zaps things and poof they exist.

No, it's fallacious at all. It's skepticism coupled with the knowledge that we are in a spiritual war and deception is the enemies primary tool. Scripture say do not trust any man, but look to God in everything. There's a lot of evidence for God also.

I referenced this as a fallacy in regards to citing as an argument that scientists are wrong about certain things. This has no bearing as to whether or not they are right about evolution, and it is a fallacy to cite this as an argument.

Sure enough, and we do know a lot of things for fact. We also know things about the universe that we were wrong about at first, but now know the truth of the matter...yet they still teach the lie in schools. Like about the constants of the universe not being constant.

Why do you keep bringing up universal constants?

Well it largely is my opinion. I came to this conclusion over time after reading many different things and putting them all together for myself. A lot of compelling evidences brought together.

I guess we will agree to disagree on this one.

In no way did I say that, and you sir are putting words in my mouth there. I'm just saying that there's more going on than we realize and it behooves us to be careful. That's all.

You said that scientists are causing people to believe things that will cause them to not be redeemed. This statement had strong implications so I asked for clarification.

Uhh, what? My best answer to that is I like chocolate. We're not talking about sports, we're talking about God, Creation, and evolution, so your question is inane. (I'm not lying about liking chocolate either lol)

My question is pointing out that not everything deals directly with God.

I like chocolate.
A better on topic question would be, where did that rock come from? Created by God, or evolved out of natural processes?

Since they all have different ages, that would seem a pretty easy one to answer.

Mmmm, yeah. We're trying to. It's an admirable endeavor also. But we have to be careful because mistakes are easily made. In a long journey, a very slight deviation from the flight path, say .5% may take one thousands of miles off course in the long run. So we should be willing to make in flight adjustments.

If a mistake has been made, it will be corrected. Peer review ensures self-correction within the different fields of science.

Actually, it's established fact. And in all actuality, that Satan wants to stop us from knowing God is what the world and even this site is all about. We're Christians fighting the enemy and seeking God. Praise God that we have this site to be able to discuss these things and edify each other. Everyone should find God and know His ways and get to live. God bless you all here!

Certain questionable sources claim it to be a fact. How do you define what is an "established fact."

 

[Drew]

From the ICR web page:

Furthermore, the idea of the "survival of the fittest", whereby the stronger animals eliminate the weaker in the "struggle for existence" is the essence of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, and this whole scheme is flatly contradicted by the Biblical doctrine of love, of unselfish sacrifice, and of Christian charity.

I will point out that the Old Testament contains multiple accounts where God orders the extermination of entire peoples - men, women, children, animals. So I think we need to be careful about the kind of argument presented above. Clearly, you cannot have it both ways: if God instructs his people to commit genocide, it does not seem that He (God) is always acting in what appears to us to be a loving manner - I see no less apparent "Christian charity" in evolution than in some of these Old Testament accounts.

 

[Edward]

I politely suggest this is the case here - to argue that God is a loving God and yet orders mass exterminations seems to border on the non-rational. Look: I am a Christian and I take the Bible very seriously, but the often facile explanations people give for the Old Testament genocides are really not that helpful.

Do you want the non-facile answer to that question? Because I have it, lol. Nobody hardly wants to believe it but it is what scripture says even though it's not very nice...Seriously. It does explain it too.

 

[Drew]

Do you want the non-facile answer to that question? Because I have it, lol. Nobody hardly wants to believe it but it is what scripture says even though it's not very nice...Seriously. It does explain it too.

Alright, what is your take on those accounts of genocide (assuming the mods will allow this little diversion - I fully understand if they don't)?

The only two answers that I can accept are these:

1. For some mysterious reason, God had no choice but to order these exterminations in service of some greater good that could not be accomplished otherwise. Kind of like how a doctor has no choice but to give unpleasant chemotherapy in the interests of ultimately saving he patient. Note how this possibility entails commitment to the notion that God is not really omnipotent in the sense we normally understand (since He has no choice but to do something He would never do if He had a choice.

2. These accounts are not really factual and are meant as allegories that express God's ability to help us win victory in our personal struggles.

The one explanation I do not accept is that God is "judging" these people. After all, Jesus does not call us to exterminate evildoers, He calls us to love them. How could God do any less?

 

[Edward]

Alright, what is your take on those accounts of genocide (assuming the mods will allow this little diversion - I fully understand if they don't)?

The only two answers that I can accept are these:

1. For some mysterious reason, God had no choice but to order these exterminations in service of some greater good that could not be accomplished otherwise. Kind of like how a doctor has no choice but to give unpleasant chemotherapy in the interests of ultimately saving he patient. Note how this possibility entails commitment to the notion that God is not really omnipotent in the sense we normally understand (since He has no choice but to do something He would never do if He had a choice.

2. These accounts are not really factual and are meant as allegories that express God's ability to help us win victory in our personal struggles.

The one explanation I do not accept is that God is "judging" these people. After all, Jesus does not call us to exterminate evildoers, He calls us to love them. How could God do any less?

It's not any of those answers.

 

[Gary]

The only two answers that I can accept are these:

Why do you choose to limit your understanding?