The TRUE reason for the EvC controversy, and why it can not be resolved.

Of course it was judgemental. He made a judgement based on what HE thinks a Christian is that some other poster was not a Christian.The point is that not only was it judgemental, it was wrong!

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The difference is that evolution gives us an explanation of the origin of man. A relative meaning is ultimately arbitrary. There's no reason to choose one meaning (or purpose) over another.

---

"Headpiece filled with straw, Alas!"--T. S. Eliot

jarI am not debating the biblical evidence for the fall. The far greatest majority of Christians believes that the biblical support for the fall is solid, and - and this is the point - that is the reason why you can't convince creationists of evolution.Trying to deny, or failing to see what the Bible so obviously stating from Genesis to Revelation will not make that fact go away.

So am I.I'm also amazed that what is merely a classificational matter is treated as negative judgment.

---

"Headpiece filled with straw, Alas!"--T. S. Eliot

I don't have a problem with there being a completely different physical universe before the Fall, and certainly when the Sons of God are finally manifested and the new heavens and new earth brought into existence.And I think your point is intriguing, although I don't yet really understand it, that this fact would have uniformly distorted what we can know scientifically between these events. That is, it seems to me, it would specifically distort what we can know about the PAST, although as applied to the fallen world it should be perfectly adequate.What I'm having a problem with in what you are saying is that the Fall and the Flood were supernatural events and that this somehow renders all science questionable. But I may not be understanding what you are saying. I am certain that God would not create deceptive conditions, so it is interesting to think that there is something just naturally "deceptive" in a sense that is caused by the inability of the temporal world to register the eternal world.But if the Fall brought about the physical conditions we now live in, then the science we have that is built on those conditions ought to be adequate to them. You are talking about the temporal world. Why should God's laws be any less orderly and rational in this context. Or maybe you aren't saying that. I admit to being confused about what you ARE saying.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-27-2006 11:08 AM

Gee, thanks! Ah, I see. I guess in that case I have questions similar to Faith's: what do you read in the Bible that leads you to conclude this? So do I. So your primary difference is with YECs seeking natural explanations for Biblical events and miracles?--Percy

quote:

---

All I am pointing out is that as it stands all you are offering is a lame excuse for ignoring the evidence.

---

If that is what you want to call it. Even so, calling it lame won't make the unbridgeble philosofical gap go away, and that is the point. It is this very same "lame" believe that is the foundation for all creationists arguements. If you think my "lame excuse for ignoring the evidence" is any different from any other creationist arguement, you are fooling yourself.What explaination can I give you when the laws of science had changed from something we don't know? What you are asking is for someone who has never been to Japan to explain Japanese culture. The person knows it exists, but more than that, he doesn't know. So too, I know there was a fall, but what the world was like before that I don't know. If that is lame to you, then I suppose it is lame, but I can not tell you that which I don't know.

That's correct. You are asserting that there was a Fall. Well, I dispute that a majority of Christians think there was a Fall, but I will admit that Creationists do believe that there was a Fall. They believe lots of things for which there is no evidence.The point is that there is no evidence that there was some change in the physical laws, and there is lots of evidence that there has been no such change.There is also the philosophical reason to discount such a story. The idea that the laws of physics changed during some recent even, call it the Fall, would mean that all of the evidence from physics, astronomy, geology, archeology, genetics, cosmology, chemistry and biology has been tampered with, falsified, faked. Any God that does something like that is but Loki, some picayune bling-bling pimp daddy selling visions on the street corner, a trickster.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

There is nothing judgmental about saying someone is or is not a Christian.You and Percy are confusing facts with standards, the distinction I point out in my Message 176 that Karl Popper made rather well.If it is wrong, that doesn't stop it from being a factual statement. Factual statements may be right or wrong and not stop being factual. Or, to use Robin's term, "classificational."This message has been edited by Faith, 03-27-2006 11:20 AM

PercyI really don't see what the big deal is. Am I being judgemental if I say you're not a chimpanzee? If you regard a statement of fact to be judgemental, I supose it is. If you deny that Christ was a real person, who died for our sins, and was ressurected from the dead, so we can have forgiveness, you really have no reason to feel "judged" if someone say you're not a christian. That is, after all, what Christianity is all about.Can we now please stop turning this debate into a therapy session?

I was just talking about the use of the term "Christian" to mean most anything we like. Ringo seems to be using the word to mean "nice person." I don't know why one would want to use the term in that extremely broad and vague sense, when it has a definite historical meaning.

---

"Headpiece filled with straw, Alas!"--T. S. Eliot

I believe the TRANSITION from the perfect nature to the fallen nature was gradual. The fall was complete after the flood (or maybe the tower of Babilon) Ever since then, we've lived in the same fallen state.I must say, as far as I know, mainstream YEC does not believe in a change in scientific laws. My position is my own.

As you wish.There's only a hundred messages to go till closing time. I apologize for the original digression, let's get back on topic.--Percy

But the philosphical gap you keep talking about is easily bridged. I've done it several times. It is no problem for me to consider your ides that the Fall might have changed how the Universe operates.The problem comes to when we consider the question of whether it is a reasonable explanation for the actual evidence. And your position is that you refuse to even think about it.What explanation could you give ? Well you could try to work out a plausible scenario. You even made a brief start when you suggested that radioactive decay might have started with the Fall. Unfortunately for you that was no help in actually explaining the evidence. YOu don't evenneed to go that far - all I need is a good reason to suppose that the Fall and your assumed prior natural laws would actually produce something like the world we see.

quote:

---

So too, I know there was a fall, but what the world was like before that I don't know. If that is lame to you, then I suppose it is lame, but I can not tell you that which I don't know.

---

I wish you would stop misrepresenting what I say.The lame part is using the Fall as an excuse to ignore the physical evidence. If you actually could come up with a rational account of how that could be so - even a purely speculative one that would be a major step forward.

Hm. I suppose I would answer that if the transition was gradual that we are still in the transition. Seems to me that the fallen state has been accumulating ever since the Fall and never stopped and can only get worse. The only thing that opposes it is the salt and light of the people of Christ. And that's gone a long way to slowing the corruption, but it has merely slowed, not stopped. Yes, that's what I figured. I don't know what Percy meant about YEC's thinking a different science applies to the Flood.