Scientific Creationism?

Would these be the same christian denominations that find homosexuality, gay marriage, abortion, women preachers...etc in the Bible?

If it is, then they have already proven they don't care what the Bible says. There are a lot of things we don't fully understand in the Gods Word, that is what faith is for. We don't need to use human/secular reasoning to dismiss God, and His Word, so we can treat man as god.

 

Does this mean they do not believe Jesus created the world?

 

First of all, the expression “Scientific Creationism” is a misnomer because there is nothing scientific about it. None of the 24 or 25 men and women who have earned a Ph.D. in a field of science and who advocate for young earth creationism did their doctoral studies in an area related to young earth creationism, and, therefore, they are far from qualified to have an opinion on the subject. Moreover, their arguments are not based upon scientific research because none of them are employed by an institution that has the money to finance a laboratory and the equipment that is required for any kind of real research. Neither do any of them have an education in the exegesis of the Old Testament or even a basic knowledge of the Hebrew Language, and consequently they believe in an old Roman Catholic interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that the Roman Catholic Church and the mainline Christian denominations abandoned decades ago in view of Old Testament research that has incontrovertibly proven the old Roman Catholic interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is fatally flawed. Furthermore, none of that Old Testament research has given us findings that are inconsistent with the theory of evolution.

 

More adhominem and not much else.

 

False. To look at evidences and use different starting assumptions is as much science as what is called science today. I could for example use the same research on any topic, say, for example, the continental drift. I could conclude it was a sudden movement responsible rather than the slow drift that science prefers to accept. They have a world view, a philosophy, a set of beliefs and a way of interpreting evidences. Their method is godless, and cultishly narrow.
As for PHD in any of the two bit fields that involve origins issues, that is about as valuable as a slogan on toilet paper wrap.

 

Yes, if I had a nickel for every time I herd that foolishness.

 

Good for you. Of course I think when you use the word evolution, you are thinking of the Darwinian pond nonsense. I personally do not mind evolution any more, because I simply think of it as something that is a created ability or trait. I think that we could evolve/adapt fast in the former nature also.

 

Well, I can take it or leave it as a fact. If evolving happened, it only happened to created kinds. Now if some fish developed legs to help get around on the migration away from the sea at Eden, fine with me. If some bird lost the power of flight, and got big and fat, and turned into a dinosaur, in adapting to areas of the world, fine with me too. If creatures changed a lot to evolve and adapt to the new nature, fine with me. Evolution as I see it is no threat to Genesis 1. The threat comes when people deny creation, and Genesis and try to use evolving as the source of life.

 

That is fine. I have focused somewhat however, because I have heard the claims from science and wanted to see what was true. I find it would not be a strong position to deny evolution generally, and totally. The problem is that they attribute far too much to evolving, because they have rejected the truth of God.

 

Having been raised and educated in the scientific community, and still being surrounded by it today as a conservative, evangelical pastor and teacher of the Scriptures, I am familiar with science and the thinking of scientists—and I have never met a scientist who, as a scientist, has “rejected the truth of God.” This is due to the incontrovertible fact that science is concerned with science, and it is NOT concerned with religion. Individual scientists may have religious views, but these views are entirely separate from their science.

There are, however, some religious people who, because of their religious beliefs, abuse science to make it falsely appear that science confirms their religious beliefs. That, however, is not science—it is the abuse of science. Evidence from science should be used to evaluate views of science; evidence from the Bible should be used to evaluate views of religion. However, that which is true is true, and that which is false is false—regardless of the source of the concept.

 

Conservative?

 

Part of the truth of God as given in Scripture is that Jesus created it all. That is rejected by science, and I don't care if you are a banker or a pastor, it is what it is.

No idea who they are. I do know science is a set of religious beliefs and methods, that many nominal believers have chosen to swallow.

Whatever it is you are trying to say, why not spit it out?

 

I am a rock-solid conservative evangelical Christian, and no amount of insults from Mitchell will ever change that. I am not, however, a radicalized Christian fundamentalist who chooses, without any biblical evidence whatsoever, what parts of the Bible God intended to be interpreted as an accurate account of historical events, and which parts He did not.

If Genesis 1-11 is an accurate account of historical events, the earth was a flat disc covered by a dome that separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome (Gen. 1:7). Furthermore, if Genesis 1-11 is an accurate account of historical events, nearly all of the water that brought about the Genesis flood came from above the dome. Moreover, if Genesis 1-11 is an accurate account of historical events, after the end of the hundred and fifty days the flood waters returned (שׁוּב) from off the earth; and if Genesis 1-11 is an accurate account of historical events, the only place the waters had to go was back above the dome! On the basis of these facts from the Bible, I choose to believe that what is described in Genesis 1-11 is not an accurate account of historical events.