-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
APOLOGETICS AND HONESTY
- Thread starter Charles Meadows
- Start date
I find it absolutely facinating, amazing, and unreal that the OEC, & Evolutionists claim that we are "INTERPRETING" scripture, (when all we're doing is accepting it AS WRITTEN), and that we simply don't understand that Moses & God wrote the narrative to a "scientifically ignorant" society.
All God needed to say (if the current version is not literal) is that He created the heavens & earth. End of story, no details, no misinformation, nothing to indicate the process He used-------.
Instead He told us many details, & you either accept His word, or not; your choice.
Charles Meadows
New Member
Scott,
Let's back up a bit...
3 points!
1. It is my opinion that the earth is old. I cannot prove it.
2. It is my opinion that Genesis 1-11 was not intended to be literal. I cannot prove that either.
3. It is a fact that the second law of thermodynamics does not disprove evolution. That is obvious to anyone who understands this law. It neither supports nor refutes evolution.
Regarding #1: I'll be happy to debate that with you - but I do respect your views since mine are purely an educated guess.
Regarding #2: I'll likewise debate that with you! But once again I am left short of any proof. I have reasons for believing this - but you have reasons too.
Regarding #3: This one just isn't debatable. 2LOT is referring to molecules in a closed system. It doesn't disprove evolution - and asserting that it does only harms the credibilty of the YEC stance.
There is no justification for compromising biblical truth to accommodate a strongly held but false opinion.
I'll agree with that. But if you cite "biblical truth" as your reason why are you compelled to back it up with "science"?
Let's back up a bit...
3 points!
1. It is my opinion that the earth is old. I cannot prove it.
2. It is my opinion that Genesis 1-11 was not intended to be literal. I cannot prove that either.
3. It is a fact that the second law of thermodynamics does not disprove evolution. That is obvious to anyone who understands this law. It neither supports nor refutes evolution.
Regarding #1: I'll be happy to debate that with you - but I do respect your views since mine are purely an educated guess.
Regarding #2: I'll likewise debate that with you! But once again I am left short of any proof. I have reasons for believing this - but you have reasons too.
Regarding #3: This one just isn't debatable. 2LOT is referring to molecules in a closed system. It doesn't disprove evolution - and asserting that it does only harms the credibilty of the YEC stance.
There is no justification for compromising biblical truth to accommodate a strongly held but false opinion.
I'll agree with that. But if you cite "biblical truth" as your reason why are you compelled to back it up with "science"?
Personally JWP, though I am staunch YEC myself, I believe this is a bit unfair. They do accept His Word, just not the literal meaning (in this case).
Don't we all do the same thing?
John 6
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Have you, and in what manner have you eaten His flesh and drank His blood?
Literally?
HankD
First, I want to thank you for your conciliatory tone.
Second, the point I have the most question about is how old the universe actually is. I have no difficulty believing that God spoke it into existence. I have no difficulty believing that God created it outside the governance of time as we know it. Otherwise, I can see how someone could come to the belief solely through reading the scripture that the universe is older than the specific creation on earth or that the universe had a previous creation... though I think the Scofield approach has some pretty serious weaknesses.
It is my opinion that it is and that there is no contextual indication anywhere that it isn't. I don't think that precludes everything other than YEC however.
I think it does preclude macroevolution however.
I think you have a strong opinion that is not shared by others with equal training and knowledge.
I really don't. I mostly do that for the benefit of those who must always have "an answer".
I think that is what often frustrates people like UT. My goal is not to prove any detail in particular but simply to establish that real possibilities exist within the bounds allowed by the evidence that do not conform to the naturalistic, uniformitarian presuppositions evolution but do conform to scripture.
Evolution also assumes that everything begins at "zero" and moves up from there. A creator nullifies this assumption completely.
Charles Meadows
New Member
Scott,
My goal is not to prove any detail in particular but simply to establish that real possibilities exist within the bounds allowed by the evidence that do not conform to the naturalistic, uniformitarian presuppositions evolution but do conform to scripture
That's fine.
My goal is to maintain honesty in doing so. I have no problem with a young earth belief. I do however think too many Christian thinkers are so bent on "establishing the possibility" that they put forth some rather questionable stuff. I think this hurts the cause and could hurt the belief of some young minds.
Consider 2 students:
Student A is told, "The Bible says the earth is young. Science hasn't necessarily corroborated this - but it can never prove otherwise - so believe God's word first!"
Student B is told, "The Bible says the earth is young. Scientists have put forth these ridiculous conclusions which are readily disproved by a little study. Why even the second law of thermodynamics precludes evolution!"
Both studenst go off to college and become biology majors.
Student A encounters evolution and observes, "Yea my teacher was right, science does seem to make an old earth possible - but it's still theoretical so I still believe the Bible.
Student B encounters evolution and some witty science professors who shatter the flimsy thermodynamic and carbon 14 arguments he learned from the creationist website. He says,"Is this it? Is this all the scholarship Christianity has to offer? My pastor won't even discuss it - he says not to ask such questions. Is it all just a farce like my professor said?"
Both had been given a solid biblical background. But student A's teachers were HONEST and student B's teachers twisted things a little to make the YEC position seem a little stronger.
Which student was better served?
My goal is not to prove any detail in particular but simply to establish that real possibilities exist within the bounds allowed by the evidence that do not conform to the naturalistic, uniformitarian presuppositions evolution but do conform to scripture
That's fine.
My goal is to maintain honesty in doing so. I have no problem with a young earth belief. I do however think too many Christian thinkers are so bent on "establishing the possibility" that they put forth some rather questionable stuff. I think this hurts the cause and could hurt the belief of some young minds.
Consider 2 students:
Student A is told, "The Bible says the earth is young. Science hasn't necessarily corroborated this - but it can never prove otherwise - so believe God's word first!"
Student B is told, "The Bible says the earth is young. Scientists have put forth these ridiculous conclusions which are readily disproved by a little study. Why even the second law of thermodynamics precludes evolution!"
Both studenst go off to college and become biology majors.
Student A encounters evolution and observes, "Yea my teacher was right, science does seem to make an old earth possible - but it's still theoretical so I still believe the Bible.
Student B encounters evolution and some witty science professors who shatter the flimsy thermodynamic and carbon 14 arguments he learned from the creationist website. He says,"Is this it? Is this all the scholarship Christianity has to offer? My pastor won't even discuss it - he says not to ask such questions. Is it all just a farce like my professor said?"
Both had been given a solid biblical background. But student A's teachers were HONEST and student B's teachers twisted things a little to make the YEC position seem a little stronger.
Which student was better served?
Neither since both are going to be taught evolution as a fact and the only "scientific" explanation for origins without any discussion of the philosophical underpinnings or even basic honesty about it being a theory (witness the Georgia case).
I will agree with you that creationists shouldn't be haphazard with facts... it does hurt the cause. I do however think that the same scrutiny placed on creationists should be turned on evolution- not just its conclusions or explanations but its premises.
I will agree with you that creationists shouldn't be haphazard with facts... it does hurt the cause. I do however think that the same scrutiny placed on creationists should be turned on evolution- not just its conclusions or explanations but its premises.
Plain Old Bill
New Member
And for the Pastors who are untrained in the sciences a reference to true.origens.org would be a good idea.Then tell the to go to thier search windows and type young earth or old earth and hit search.They will find out much more than they want to know.
I for one am a YEC guy but I do know for a fact the earth is at least 59 3/4 years old based on my own personal experience.
I for one am a YEC guy but I do know for a fact the earth is at least 59 3/4 years old based on my own personal experience.