Adam, YEC is NOT “Science from a Christian perspective.” Science has rules, and anything that does not stick to the rules is not science from any perspective, Christian or otherwise.
YECism starts with its conclusion and attempts to interpret the evidence to fit the conclusion. That is a violation of the most fundamental rule of science: you must fit your conclusion to the evidence and not the other way around. There is a word in science for starting from your conclusion and attempting to interpret the evidence to fit the conclusion when quite clearly it does not. The word in question is “fraud.”
Ooohhh im sorry…i thought we must be on the same page here…did you say follow the science?..i was certain I heard follow Darwin!
Honestly, the reason I used Christian Science is because Christian theology comes first …in my world (the Christian model), the science fits the Bible theology, not the Darwinian theology as you clearly support as authoritative.
I have noticed how convertly the name of this forum highlights the truth in my above statement… Bio comes first and logos comes second. That is fundamentally opposed to what God wants…we are to put Him first, not science.
¹³Do not have two differing weights in your bag — one heavy, one light. ¹⁴Do not have two differing measures in your house — one large, one small. ¹⁵You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lᴏʀᴅ your God is giving you. ¹⁶For the Lᴏʀᴅ your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. Any creation model, any interpretation of Genesis 1, any challenge to the scientific consensus on the age of the earth or evolution, must obey those verses, for the simple reason that not obeying those verses is, by definition, lying. YEC does not obey those verses and I have already given numerous examples why which you have not even attempted to address.
It all boils down to one thing, Adam. If you are going to claim to be doing science, you must make sure your facts are straight. “Following Darwin” has nothing to do with it.
Eh??? This makes no sense…your theological point is what exactly?
Are you genuinely trying to link that text with your widly errant theology and make a truth statement from it? Are you really of the belief that text supports your world view? Im sorry but that’s a very risky claim to make…David Koresh immediately comes to mind!
You use that text as reference to throw out the Bible theme… We are told exactly how sin came into this world and that death came with it. You deny this because it doesn’t fit the Darwinian model. That is theological madness and it is also why TEism is a fundamentally flawed world view. You have a better chance being Mormon…it would align better with TEism.
Congratulations, Adam. You are now the ninth YEC to openly admit to me to being a liar.
I’ve had eight others before you reject the relevance of those verses to the discussion, whether by accusing me of taking them out of context or by saying I had to “balance” them against other verses of Scripture or whatever.
The theological point is simply the ninth commandment. Do not tell lies. Nothing more, nothing less. To respond to such a point by calling it “widly errant theology” or “throwing out the Bible theme” or “denying this because it doesn’t fit the Darwinian model” or with ridiculous analogies to David Koresh is to demand the right to tell lies.
If YECism had a shred of integrity, they would instead try to justify the YEC approach to weights and measures and to persuade me that it was indeed accurate and honest. I am yet to see a YEC even attempt to take that approach.
I’m sorry if you think, as Agent Smith from Answers in Genesis does, that using the “L” word is being “vitriolic.” But all I can say to that is, if you don’t want to be called a liar, don’t demand the right to tell lies.
My current beliefs can best be classified as axiarchic Neoplatonism: the spatiotemporal realm and mental realm (incl. universal mind) co-emerge in a strange loop with and from a platonic realm of entangled quantum information. The platonic Form of the Good (= the One) is equivalent with the God of classical theism, and is an axiarchic creative power that instantiates all possible worlds that are better to exist than not. We and the world are a kind of “simulation” in the mind of God. This view is arguably compatible with a sophisticated Christianity (e.g., sensu Teilhard de Chardin and Frank Tipler), as well as the more esoteric traditions of many other religions (in the spirit of perennialism and hermeticism). However, I reject all kinds of fundamentalist religion, including Biblical literalism, as simplistic and naive cargo cults.
There are always individuals who are up to something, but you are dreaming if you think there is a movement of secular scientists to YEC. Even creationist organizations do not maintain this.
I am reminded of a portion of the Talmud which iinvolves: Doeg, Ahithophel, Angels, and Ha-Shem (i.e. Yhwh).
Doeg the Edomite was Saul’s chief herdsman, who witnessed David’s interaction with the High Priest Ahimelech. David claimed to be on a secret mission and sought food from Ahimelech. Ahimelech responded by giving David and his men showbread from the altar and Goliath’s sword. Doeg reported the interaction to Saul, who became infuriated with Ahimelech for helping David, Saul’s “enemy”. So Saul ordered some of his own men to execute Ahimelech and other priests with him. The appointed executors refused, so Saul told Doeg to kill them.which Doeg did.
Ahithophel was one of King David’s most trusted advisors. During the revolt of Absalom against his father, King David, Ahithophel advised Absalom thereby aiding and abetting David’s rebel son. When Ahithophel realized that Absalom’s rebellion had failed, Ahithophel put his affairs in order and proceeded to hang himself.
At Sanhedrin 105a [in the Babylonian Talmud], it is written:
… **the ministering angels said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: ‘Master of the Universe, if David, who killed the Philistine and bequeathed the city of Gath to your sons, will come and complain that You gave a share in the World-to-Come to his enemies Doeg and Ahithophel, what will You do concerning him? Will you accept his complaint?’ God said to the ministering angels: ‘It is upon me to render David and his enemies friends with each other, and even David will agree.’ "
So, it seems, there is precedent for a similar Divine intervention between YEC-cers and TEs in the World-to-Come.
My statement is 100% correct. Nowhere in Isaiah 14 is Satan spoken of. It identifies who it is speaking of quite clearly…
Isaiah 14 The Lord will have compassion on Jacob and will again choose Israel, and will set them in their own land, and aliens will join them and will cleave to the house of Jacob. 2 And the peoples will take them and bring them to their place, and the house of Israel will possess them in the Lord’s land as male and female slaves; they will take captive those who were their captors, and rule over those who oppressed them. 3 When the Lord has given you rest from your pain and turmoil and the hard service with which you were made to serve, 4 you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:
And I have not failed to notice your failure to address the main point…
So much for your rewrite of both Isaiah and Revelation. It is an example of why so many have come to the conclusion that most so called “Christians” haven’t even read the Bible – but just follow along blindly with what others say is in the Bible.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
109
Just because you have a few guys here and there, like Dr Gunter Bechly , does not mean it’s outgrowing anything. YECism is definitely on the decline.
Also I again wanted to point out. Earlier you went on this rant about these two main theological things thst no ECist had answers for and I answered both. One was about sin through Adam and the other was about the death of Christ.
I also wanted to note that Bechly almost never ever debates. I know he recently did one within the last few years with Swamidass on Unbelievable. But I’ve not listened to it. I’ll see if they moved it over to the podcasts and not just a video. But I’m fairly confident that his one opinion won’t be challenging. There is a reason why almost every single scientist accepts evolution, including the bulk of those who also are Christians.
It’s so funny to me how AIG/YEC folks will bend over backwards to completely disassociate from Nicene orthodox, godly, devout, practicing Christ-followers because of some nonsense about not starting a gospel presentation with “Adam was a real person in history and there was no physical death before the fall.” (So clearly God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life???) But then anyone who throws shade on evolution, be they secular Jew, atheist, axiarchic Neoplatonist, or whatever, is obviously on the same team.
This whole series of articles warning about BioLogos being an emissary of Satan is a pretty transparent attempt to drum up some web traffic and engage the apathetic sectors of the dwindling base by creating a fake crisis. They want the attention of some kind of internet battle royale so badly.
Knowing full well that BioLogos would undoubtedly respond to my articles publicly identifying them as a false teaching organization at some point, I knew I would need to address their responses (of which I expect many more).
Last week, I dealt with some of Biologos’ recent attempts to rebut the arguments contained within my articles (BioLogos: House of Heresy & False Teaching, Part 1 & 2). Once again (before addressing another of their critiques), I would like to remind anyone following this particular “back and forth” between AiG and BioLogos of the key issues my original articles revealed in relation to identifying false teachers within the church and how those conclusions relate to BioLogos.
They have one moderator comment from a comment board that contained some quotes and 16 sentences of bemused commentary and that has now become “recent attempts to rebut” them and BioLogos’ “critiques” and “back and forth.” That’s going a bit beyond embellishing the truth, folks.
Meanwhile, we’re just going to keep on doing our thing. Rigorous science, faithful Bible interpretation, relevant and thoughtful commentary on the pressing issues of the day. We don’t need fights with AIG for clickbait.
And it cracks me up that you are encouraged to “Download a pdf of “BioLogos: House of Heresy & False Teaching” (both parts combined) to share with others.”
Tells you all you need to know about their demographic. It’s the people who print out internet articles (conveniently set in large type for those whose eyesight is failing) to give to their friends.
“And that is why there is also a corresponding rise in scientific publications supporting YEC. It is specifically in response to the heresy of evolution.”
The quote I gave you was from Cardinal Bellarmine who was head of the Holy See (i.e. the Inquisition) at the time of Galileo’s trial. Bellarmine persecuted Galileo because he held the heretical view of Heliocentrism, the view that the Earth moved about the Sun. How is that not an apt quote?
One scientist, and that marks a trend? Surely you jest.
What are the actual numbers? How many scientists in the fields of cosmology, geology, and biology accept the scientific consensus and how many reject it? What is the ratio?
Joel Duff @Joel_Duff had a good series of articles on the New Creationists. This may well be an attempt to draw attention back to AIG as they are losing their audience not only to EC,OEC, and ID, but to the newer voices in their ranks of YECs. It will interesting to see how things progress. It seems Ken Ham is also not so prominent on the AIG website, so there is that dynamic as well.
Note that Jonathan Wells, of the Discovery Institute, claims to be a Christian although he identifies Rev. Moon as the messiah. He claims that Christianity is about opposing evolution, not about Christ. If you are looking carefully for any theological errors, it’s important to apply it to everyone.