welcome to the forum! good to have fresh voices!
Thanks, being in the eye of the storm if you will of Answers in Genesis. I appreciate you guys trying to build bridges. AIG is kind of adament that it is their way or the highway.
2 Likes
Bill did you actually look over your answers here?
What is the intent of your world view? Christ commanded (if you like) that his disciples preach the gospel to the world to convert the unconverted.
-
You ignore the entire reason for historicity. Human nature demands epsitomological answers one of which is historical! (where did we come from?). Whether or not you believe the importance of history, the rest of the world validates using itâŚso contrary to your claim, without the history, theres no reason to listen to your preaching. Add to this, your claim creation isnt literal, you deny your own religion because any idiot can read Genesis 1!
-
Also, if you intend preaching only to the Christian, who preaches to the atheist? Whether Christian or not, surely you see the problem there given Christs directive?
So YECâs preach history because it supports the authenticity of the gospel because thats what humans do in answer to the included question of epistomology (btw i dont care whether or not you think epistomolgy mattersâŚsociety has already made that choice for you). One cannot play games picking and chosing which bits to believeâŚpeople are not so stupid that they dont see holes in your religion there. I think in that case one would be better off not preaching the bible at all.
firstly, flat earth is irrelevant. In my view its nothing but a poor redneck argument that attempts to cover up poor theology. The idea is debunct and not an argument in support of TEism.
In response to your statement YEC would probably be a deal breaker for most atheistsâŚ
I have not yet had the experience of an atheist whinging about Creation. They seem to complain that miracles are the issue. Since creation, the incarnation of Christ, salvation and the Second Coming in the clouds of Heaven are all miracles⌠I have to dissagree with you on this. What are you going to preach? A hippy can preach love from under the cloud of the âweedâ he is smoking!
Another issue there is the question of Epistomology that asks âwhere did we come from?â
BTW, where did you come from and how do you know?
so let me get this straight, your claim is that individuals with PHDâs (doctorate degrees) are not using fundamentl level maths, physics, chemistry, biology, engineering sciences, lanuage?
Is that really your argument for bridging gaps here?
The FACTS are, these guys (YEC or whatever) all use the same science you do and they use the same research methods.
Its just that they do not use the uniformatarian premise that you do (ie that we can use today as a benchmark for the past).
As an illustration, even your own claim is somewhat falsified even by your own standards because of the claim early man was not as intelligent as we are today. That causes fundamental issues with uniformatarianism from the get go (btw Adventists believe Adam and Eve were more intellectually capable than we are today because God created them perfect and they were not initially corrupted by sin).
If we cannot, then we cannot say anything at all about history. Including whether the Bible is true, false, or that any of the words in it have meaning. Reading the Bible requires assuming that the words did not change meaning without leaving any traces and that grammar worked in a similar way to at least some other languages. Without uniformitarian assumptions, we could not know that resurrections were atypical; that the past existed; that animal life cycles a few millennia ago worked the same way as today, etc., etc.
What level of uniformitarian assumptions are reasonable and in accordance with Creation requires actually looking at the evidence. No changes of any sort to anything ever happening at all is an obviously absurd level that no one has considered; no events significantly beyond those within recent human experience was credible 200 years ago, but had become rather less so by the late 19th century (Lyell and Darwin were obstinate proponents of this); occasional events beyond those in recent human history is catastrophism, and is what evidence best supports for the history of the earth; the present having no predictive power at all on what the past looked like is another obviously absurd level. The amount of impact to a modern-style scientific consensus from miracles is unmeasurable and thus unknowable scientifically. But there are no examples in the Bible of pointless, deceptive miracles whose only purpose is to falsify history.
2 Likes
Iâm not just claiming it, Iâm stating it as a fact.
Just because someone has a PhD and is writing down equations, doesnât mean that theyâre actually doing maths and measurement. These things have rules, and if they want to be taken seriously, they need to stick to them.
3 Likes
Yes. I agree. Those arguments â at least the one or two I remember enough to evaluate â do that.
But the listener has to know and remember a fair amount to recognize the problem. If one doesnât remember, itâs an awful lot of work to study up again. It would take me years to deal with much beyond the most aggregiously bizarre claims. Goodness, there is so much I have forgotten with disuse!
Critical thinking skills are essential, but require one to work with good information. If one sticks with inaccurate information from the outset, anything is possible.
Evaluating information must be done dispassionately, though. For the person who believes her salvation depends on biblical doctrines developed on a literal understanding of Genesis, any argument that does not reach the foregone conclusion must be rejected, in spite of obvious logical errors. Too much is at stake. âThere simply must be a different explanation.â
Trust is also involved. People who want assurance that the assurance they have from the Bible is reliable find ârock solid proofâ from things like YEC and ID and whatever else appealingâirresistable; âcompellingâ as one very close loved one put it. A loved one who should know better, but who employs her critical thinking skills in very different ways than I do, based on very different information she trusts for reasons I donât understand.
I can tell her âReally! You ought to do better than follow that pseudo science stuff!â But I donât really have a way of demonstrating to her that the stuff she trusts is untrustworthy. Not one she believes, as she thinks the sources I trust are even worse.
James, I do so wish ot were as straight forward as you describe!
Did you? Nothing in your response is actually relates to anything I said.
First, you do realize that the YEC position is a very small portion of the Christian population.
Second, that means the vast majority of Christians must be âstupidâ because they donât see the holes.
Third, do you have any other way to explain why the YEC position isnât in the majority.
1 Like
Flat Earth is an analogy in this example, and I believe the analogy is relevant. Like Flat Earth, YEC expects people to believe in something that is contradicted by mountains of facts, and do so with the claim that YEC has to be True in order for the Bible to be True.
Believing in miracles will be a matter of faith. This is different than a matter of facts. YEC is factually wrong. The Resurrection is not. There is no evidence demonstrating that the Resurrection did not happen, but there are literal mountains of evidence demonstrating the age of the Earth and the absence of a recent global flood.
I come from my parents through the natural process of biological reproduction. I had thought you would already know where babies come from.
2 Likes
One of the problems as I see it is the all too common overly simplistic treatment of the question.
In the Rejection of evolution by religious groups - Wikipedia, the question posed in a polling of people from different countries was asking a response to âhuman beings as we know them developed from earlier species of animals.â My answer to that wording of the question is FALSE. And yet I completely embrace the science of evolution. Change the wording from âhuman beingsâ to âhomo sapiensâ and my answer would be true. The problem is that I do not believe human beings are just a biological species and the two should not be equated.
Human beings are children of God. We are His children by an inheritance of the mind in what He has taught us. And it is the mind based in the information in language which is far more important (than the information in DNA) for our human existence. So much so that people behaving purely according to physical instinct are typically called animals or even inhuman, excepting only if we see some potential for change to the behavior of a human being (like with children, especially).
2 Likes
This whole debate about the topic at hand can be very tiring and perhaps overwhelming when you hit a wall - Human Wall - where clashes take place. Then of course there are environments seasoned with acceptance for each otherâs view. I know three pastors who do not believe in evolution, and they are not likely to change their views. They actually believe we walked with the dinosaurs and the Garden actually existed 6,000 years ago. Recently I asked an Anglican priest what he thought and said he does not get into this sort of thing not what the age of the earth is. In fact, to many folks it doesnât matter much- they donât involve themselves in debates about evolution vs creationism. Most of the time the focus is on the gospels and what they have to teach us and how to apply HIS teachings to our lives. So, within some of the groups I meet up with I pretty much stand-alone that the Earth is billions of years old and my belief in Godâs working creative plan through evolution. I have little higher education but am an avid reader - no degrees - but read many books on multiple subjects. If I want to approach the subject of evolution I could be ignored or shut down. Being on Biologos is a gift in many ways to read what you all have to say. Hear this I just hope thereâs a heaven and Jesus is preparing a place for us. In the meantime, love one love all and carry whatever cross you have with hope.
3 Likes
My hope is that more and more people will understand that âevolution vs. creationâ is a false dichotomy, and that it is acceptable for people of faith to believe in God the Creator, and also accept the very sound evidence that He used evolution in His creative work. Also, that people would understand the idea that ToE isnât really a theory about the origin of life, but rather the development of life over changing environments on earth. There is much active research on abiogenesis, the origin of life, and varying opinions among scientists, due to very incomplete knowledge of life 3-4 billion years ago.
It seems to me that this much could be understood by open-minded people in the church, who are not that interested in science.
2 Likes
adamjedgar is an example of how active the debate still is â example of people who stubbornly cling to what is frankly a modern interpretation of the Bible not only in opposition to science, but imposing a modern science of biology on the text which cannot possibly be what the text is about. But by the same measure we can also say the debate over whether the earth is flat or round is alive and well â just a demonstration of how stubborn people can be if they are wiling to be deaf, dumb, and blind to everything which disagrees with them (Matthew 13).
That is exactly what creationists do.
The newest example I have been thinking about is Genesis 3:20 which says Eve was named so because she is the mother of all living. Of course the creationists like this passage only because they alter the text to say âbiological mother of all homo sapiens.â But that is not what the text says. If Eve is the mother of all living then it cannot be about genetics and biology. It is in fact in much better accord with what I have suggested above about our humanity being about an inheritance of God by what He taught us. Eve can then be called the mother of all living because it is through Adam and Eve which the ideas from God are brought to all living things.
But I suppose there are a lot of reasons why some Christians wouldnât like this. If they are all about entitlement and being given all things by God to do with as we please, then it wouldnât be so convenient to think of Eve as the mother of all living things. To be mother of all living would suggest that we have more of a role of stewards and a responsibility to all living things as being in our care.
1 Like
@adamjedgar might be a special case given the stronger YEC focus in the SDA church compared to other denominations.
I am also curious to hear what YEC looks like in the larger worldwide SDA congregation, if @adamjedgar would be willing to talk about it. Are there any individual SDA congregations that have moved away from YEC? How prominent is YEC in Sunday school lessons or in sermons for the general congregation?
How Adventists Became Creationists
- "Philip Mauro, authored a creationist book9 and participated in the Scopes âmonkeyâ trial. Mauro contributed three influential essays to The Fundamentals and noted: âIf the Bible does not give us a truthful account of the events of the six days recorded in its first chapter, it is not to be trusted as to any of its statements.â
- Religious Liberty
1 Like
I donât know if any congregations have moved away from YEC, but I have seen SDA sites that discussed individuals giving up YEC and remaining SDA.
1 Like
Yes sure, Iâm happy to engage on this. I obviously have only a limited knowledge of the wider SDA church on this and my understanding is that despite the official church position (literal - 7 day Creation and Flood accounts), there is division within the church. What percentage, i couldnât say although my gut instinct would be that its in the minority simply because of the philosophical position of Adventism itself. People become Adventist because they agree with the denominational theology and doctrines.
My dad is a retired SDA minister and there is a doctor in one of his local churches in Australia who does not believe in the literal = 7 day Creation and Flood accounts. He got up in front of the local church i think it was earlier this year from memory and put that view forward to the congregationâŚit caused quite a stir and a church board meeting ensued with a robust discussion about it.
Im a bit pushed for time right now (wife is at me to go to church)âŚill add to this later.
1 Like