Ask an Evangelical IV

I don't really know. I know creationists have explanations for this kind of stuff but I don't know where they are. I'd presume YECs would argue that the dating is wrong rather than that God "Planted them there" or something like that.



You are right. Science isn't my strong point and I really don't know enough to defend my side of it.

Obviously creationists would disagree with you on what constitutes "Actual Science". Maybe we're wrong. The reality is, I really just don't know enough to be of much help on the topic. I know what I believe. I have no idea how poorly supported it is.

I do.

If you tell me it's your inner conviction which is based on faith, I'd say it's very well supported. On the other hand, if you point at those who use rationalisations and fake science and have them speak for you, it indeed is poorly supported. Now I feel you had those convictions before any of these discussions took place, so why not be honest and found your believes on your faith. It's yours, it's genuine.
 
I do.

If you tell me it's your inner conviction which is based on faith, I'd say it's very well supported. On the other hand, if you point at those who use rationalisations and fake science and have them speak for you, it indeed is poorly supported. Now I feel you had those convictions before any of these discussions took place, so why not be honest and found your believes on your faith. It's yours, it's genuine.

You'd be right, so yeah, pretty much. I don't really know the science TBH.
 
BioLogos rests on the following premises:

1.The universe was created by God, approximately 14 billion years ago.

2.The properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.

3.While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, it is possible that the development of living organisms was part of God's original creation plan.

4.Once life began, no special further interventions by God were required.

5.Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.

6.Humans are unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanations and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the knowledge of right and wrong and the search for God.


Hmm. I wonder.
 
You'd be right, so yeah, pretty much. I don't really know the science TBH.

No, not many people do, which unfortunately doesn't stop whole hordes of people attacking the scientific method and suchlike because current knowledge indicates that a literal belief in the Bible is completely unsupportable as we know it.

Speaking generally, believe what you do for reasons that are your own and then refrain from forcing them on those who think differently. It is the easiest dodge in the world to attempt to discredit that with which you disagree or which makes your beliefs look foolish, but if you honestly believe something that is unfalsifiable or unable to be substantiated, why bother waiting for someone to agree with you or for no one to disagree?
 
Well, I must say this thread, and related threads frequented by the Evangelicals, are changing my views radically on what Christianity is.

I always thought it was about:
forgiveness and compassion for my fellow man;
poverty and not setting up your store on earth;
taking no thought for the morrow;
not letting your right hand know what your left was doing;
and the like.

It really seems that it's nothing to do with any of this.

But instead:
judging and not feeling pity for anyone;
getting as rich as you feel you need;
letting everyone know how great you are;
and, most importantly, getting into heaven.

Ah well. It's not for me, then. But I didn't think it was, anyway.
 
Well, I must say this thread, and related threads frequented by the Evangelicals, are changing my views radically on what Christianity is.

I always thought it was about:
forgiveness and compassion for my fellow man;
poverty and not setting up your store on earth;
taking no thought for the morrow;
not letting your right hand know what your left was doing;
and the like.

It really seems that it's nothing to do with any of this.

But instead:
judging and not feeling pity for anyone;
getting as rich as you feel you need;
letting everyone know how great you are;
and, most importantly, getting into heaven.

Ah well. It's not for me, then. But I didn't think it was, anyway.

Avoid the use of Never. Avoid the use of Always. :) :) :)
 
At the risk of sounding snarky, you are frequenting a thread for evangelicals and Calvinists, Borachio. I imagine that threads such as "Ask an Anglican" or "Ask a Roman Catholic" might be substantially different (or not, depending on who's answering questions).
 
At the risk of sounding snarky, you are frequenting a thread for evangelicals and Calvinists, Borachio. I imagine that threads such as "Ask an Anglican" or "Ask a Roman Catholic" might be substantially different (or not, depending on who's answering questions).

Yes :) Now add Unitarian Universalism ;)
 
OK. Snark away! Though I don't see that you are being snarky.

But, I thought that Evangelicals attempt a literal interpretation so therefore they might, just might, have a firmer grasp of what Christianity really is. I always suspected this wasn't the case, but I have had it firmly confirmed.. Or rather, let me say, my understanding of Christianity has been plainly wrong

As for Catholics and Anglicans...well.
 
I might be able to buy that for geological stuff, but why would God put a bunch of pre-dead plants animals in the ground that we would eventually discover to appear to be millions of years old? And why did He organize them in such a way as to suggest a consistent history of evolutionary progress, including things like mass extinction events? It just reeks of an elaborate hoax.
The massive layers of sediments in which the fossils are buried can be best explained by a global flood which is recorded in the bible as Noah's flood. Usually life decays quickly when dead, only catastrophic events will result in fossils, and the burial order is determined by how quickly each kind of animal/plant succumbed to the sediment loaded waters of the flood and was buried. In general plants/fish/insects succumbed early to the flood, with reptiles following, the mammals and birds generally survived a little longer due to ability to move longer distances to hills or fly and therefore show up later in the fossil record. This disparity in survival times means they are in upper layers of sediments and when interpreted by uniformatarism methods it gives the appearance of extinctions of certain animal species.
There are vast layers of sediments over all the continents. Geologically, sediments erode quicker over continents than they are laid down, therefore normal geological processes cannot result in these sedimentary layers over continents that often are kilometres thick. A catatrosphic global flood is the only event that can explain these continental layers of sediments.
Life on earth is very complex and its health is generally diminishing rapidly due to mutations increasing with each generation. This rapid increase in unhealthy mutations in humans and mammals in general mean that humans and mammals will become sickly species at the current rate within tens of thousands of years. Extrapolated backwards this points to a timeframe of the existence of mammals and humans for a brief period of time, tens to hundreds of thousands of years at best. As there is such a rapid rate of decline in the species now, then it is clearly not feasible that they evolved to such a high standard of life previously. The evidence clearly points to the design and creation of life, not its evolution. Even the simplest life forms of bacteria etc are extremely complex in nature, and unable to arise spontaneously with no evidence at all that life can exist in simpler forms.
Also many extinctions paraded as real by scientists do not fit the facts. Dinosaurs, also known as dragons were clearly present on the earth in historical times, ie up to 1500 years ago, and probably more recently, with discriptions and engravings of dragons in historical writings, on buildings, with rumours of their continued existence in regions of africa and even on unpopulated islands of Papua New Guinea.
It is not surprising that when scientists ignore facts like these, that many people will also disbelieve scientists on issues also like global warming, age of earth, origin of life etc.
 
That's "creation science" for you, Borachio. It's also a living example of Poe's Law.
 
Oh, I see. It's just a test of my gullibility, then. Did I pass?
 
. . .
In general . . .fish . . . succumbed early to the flood,. . .

I guess they staged a rapid recovery when the deserts eventually reformed ?


Dinosaurs, also known as dragons were clearly present on the earth in historical times, ie up to 1500 years ago, and probably more recently, with discriptions and engravings of dragons in historical writings, on buildings, with rumours of their continued existence in regions of africa and even on unpopulated islands of Papua New Guinea.

That much is correct. I've seen maps with 'Here be dragons' carefully entered.

It is not surprising that when scientists ignore facts like these, that many people will also disbelieve scientists on issues also like global warming, age of earth, origin of life etc.

"Facts like these" - a true summary of creation science.

Do you think there might be a disparity between scientists', and evangelicals', and the general public's, ideas on what constitutes a fact ?
 
Oh I know. All that marine wildlife dying in a global flood? What was God thinking about?
 
Let's concentrate on the global flood:

In order to even entertain the possibility of a worldwide flood, one has to bypass all laws of physics, exit the realm of science, and enter into the realm of the miraculous, which many believers are willing to do.

There simply isn't enough water in the global system to cause a world wide flood to significantly raise the level to the height of Mt Ararat from 40 days of rain.

It is time for groups of evangelical amateurs to stop making sensational claims about discoveries they did not really make.

This, you should note, is from a bible scholar.
 
So, this isn't a question, but more of a comment. I sometimes refer to some of the faithful as "Biblilians" and not "Christians" because they're more interested in squinting and twisting in order to fit their worldview in the Bible than actually obeying the commandments of Christ and getting to know the Creator.

I don't blame Trev for his conception of Creation Science, because not everyone is very well trained in natural history. But that's not HIS argument, anyway. Those arguments were created by someone else, and then they were memetically transferred to pastors & parents who then gave them to their children. The pastors are people whose jobs is to know the Bible and aid in its interpretation. If they're believing and preaching creation science, they're as unqualified as an economist who believes the Great Depression never occurred.

By insisting on holding the Bible so holy, they build their foundations upon sand. They end up worshiping the creation (the Bible) instead of the Creator. A man cannot serve two masters. By trying to maintain the infallibility of the Bible, the Christians has to reduce their obeying of Christ's commandments and becomes a Biblilian.
 
By insisting on holding the Bible so holy, they build their foundations upon sand. They end up worshiping the creation (the Bible) instead of the Creator. A man cannot serve two masters. By trying to maintain the infallibility of the Bible, the Christians has to reduce their obeying of Christ's commandments and becomes a Biblilian.

So, is this idolatry? Or is it, maybe, iconography?
 
Top Bottom