Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
36 online now:
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,322 Year: 20,358/19,786 Month: 755/2,023 Week: 263/392 Day: 123/53 Hour: 11/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Case For A Creator
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13143
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1 of 67 (856168)
06-28-2019 7:03 AM


Here at EvC, we tend to be skeptical of the integrity of Christian Apologists. While my critics say that I need to look at the evidence and quit accepting emotions and internal impressions as my evidence of God, they counter by saying that there essentially is no evidence for God...(at least the Christian Trinitarian One)

I bought Lee Strobel's book in order to see how the apologist defends the premise.

quote:
During his academic years, Lee Strobel became convinced that God was outmoded, a belief that colored his ensuing career as an award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. Science had made the idea of a Creator irrelevant—or so Strobel thought. But today science is pointing in a different direction. In recent years, a diverse and impressive body of research has increasingly supported the conclusion that the universe was intelligently designed. At the same time, Darwinism has faltered in the face of concrete facts and hard reason. Has science discovered God? At the very least, it’s giving faith an immense boost as new findings emerge about the incredible complexity of our universe. Join Strobel as he reexamines the theories that once led him away from God. Through his compelling account, you’ll encounter the mind-stretching discoveries from cosmology, cellular biology, DNA research, astronomy, physics, and human consciousness that present astonishing evidence in The Case for a Creator.

The case For A Creator

I bought the book and have been reading it. One telling trait that we all have in these types of debates is our own personal bias one way or the other. Indeed, one of the reviews of the book said this much:

quote:
This is the third Strobel "Case" book I've read, and I was definitely less impressed with this one than his previous two books.
More so than in his other books, in this one I was particularly troubled with the fact that he only interviews people who are going to give him the answers he wants. He needs to interview atheists!

The book is a good read so far. In
CHAPTER 4: Where Science Meets Faith a fellow by the name of Dr.Alan Rex Sandage is interviewed. I did a bit of fact checking on the internet and found further information on Dr.Sandage from this webpage

They asked him some questions. His answer here is noteworthy.(he has valid credentials to back up his assertions) Q. Must there necessarily be a conflict between science and religion?

Dr.Sandrage writes:

In my opinion, no, if it is understood that each treats a different aspect of reality. The Bible is certainly not a book of science. One does not study it to find the intensities and the wavelengths of the Balmer spectral lines of hydrogen. But neither is science concerned with the ultimate spiritual properties of the world, which are also real.
Science makes explicit the quite incredible natural order, the interconnections at many levels between the laws of physics, the chemical reactions in the biological processes of life, etc. But science can answer only a fixed type of question. It is concerned with the what, when, and how. It does not, and indeed cannot, answer within its method (powerful as that method is), why.

Why is there something instead of nothing? Why do all electrons have the same charge and mass? Why is the design that we see everywhere so truly miraculous? Why are so many processes so deeply interconnected?

But we must admit that those scientists that want to see design will see design. Those that are content in every part of their being to live as materialistic reductionalists (as we must all do as scientists in the laboratory, which is the place of the practice of our craft) will never admit to a mystery of the design they see, always putting off by one step at a time, awaiting a reductionist explanation for the present unknown. But to take this reductionist belief to the deepest level and to an indefinite time into the future (and it will always remain indefinite) when "science will know everything" is itself an act of faith which denies that there can be anything unknown to science, even in principle. But things of the spirit are not things of science.

There need be no conflict between science and religion if each appreciates its own boundaries and if each takes seriously the claims of the other. The proven success of science simply cannot be ignored by the church. But neither can the church's claim to explain the world at the very deepest level be dismissed. If God did not exist, science would have to (and indeed has) invent the concept to explain what it is discovering at its core. Abelard's 12th century dictum "Truth cannot be contrary to truth. The findings of reason must agree with the truths of scripture, else the God who gave us both has deceived us with one or the other" still rings true.

If there is no God, nothing makes sense. The atheist's case is based on a deception they wish to play upon themselves that follows already from their initial premise. And if there is a God, he must be true both to science and religion. If it seems not so, then one's hermeneutics (either the pastor's or the scientist's) must wrong.

I believe there is a clear, heavy, and immediate responsibility for the church to understand and to believe in the extraordinary results and claims of science. Its success is simply too evident and visible to ignore. It is likewise incumbent upon scientists to understand that science is incapable, because of the limitations of its method by reason alone, to explain and to understand everything about reality. If the world must simply be understood by a materialistic reductionist nihilism, it would make no sense at all. For this, Romans 1:19-21 seems profound. And the deeper any scientist pushes his work, the more profound it does indeed become.

I've not yet perused internet infidels to see what your heroes retort in this book, but shall do so...if only in the name of fair and balanced...

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by PaulK, posted 06-28-2019 9:13 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply
 Message 3 by Taq, posted 06-28-2019 12:04 PM Thugpreacha has responded
 Message 4 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-28-2019 1:27 PM Thugpreacha has responded
 Message 26 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-01-2019 11:40 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15549
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


(3)
Message 2 of 67 (856173)
06-28-2019 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Thugpreacha
06-28-2019 7:03 AM


Isn’t that the one where Strobel goes to Intelligent Design people instead of actual experts? That was obvious even for Strobel.

Sandage seems more reasonable.

But there is something missing in the quote you give. There is no reason why the “church's claim to explain the world at the very deepest level” should be accepted.

My other objection would be that “why” is ambiguous - there are senses of it that science can answer. And it is far from clear that the “why” questions he raises do have answers in a sense that science cannot address (or have much of an answer at all - I have addressed ”why is there something instead of nothing before” and come to the conclusion that it isn’t likely to have a satisfying answer)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Thugpreacha, posted 06-28-2019 7:03 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8159
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 3 of 67 (856199)
06-28-2019 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Thugpreacha
06-28-2019 7:03 AM


Thugpreacha writes:

Here at EvC, we tend to be skeptical of the integrity of Christian Apologists. While my critics say that I need to look at the evidence and quit accepting emotions and internal impressions as my evidence of God, they counter by saying that there essentially is no evidence for God...(at least the Christian Trinitarian One)

These apologists seem to be painting themselves into a corner. They are actually agreeing with the argument that if something can be explained through natural causes then God does not exist. They require God to act in contradiction to nature in order for God to create.

If I were you, I would take a look at theistic evolution or go to BioLogos to learn about evolutionary creationism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Thugpreacha, posted 06-28-2019 7:03 AM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by dwise1, posted 06-28-2019 5:30 PM Taq has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Thugpreacha, posted 06-29-2019 8:17 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2330
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.4


(2)
Message 4 of 67 (856207)
06-28-2019 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Thugpreacha
06-28-2019 7:03 AM


Q. Must there necessarily be a conflict between science and religion?

Science is based on objective verifiable evidence. If religion is based on objective verifiable evidence there will be no conflict. As far as I am aware, no religion is based on objective verifiable evidence, so...


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Thugpreacha, posted 06-28-2019 7:03 AM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Thugpreacha, posted 06-29-2019 8:11 AM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3839
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


(3)
Message 5 of 67 (856235)
06-28-2019 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Taq
06-28-2019 12:04 PM


These apologists seem to be painting themselves into a corner. They are actually agreeing with the argument that if something can be explained through natural causes then God does not exist. They require God to act in contradiction to nature in order for God to create.

For decades I have been seeing the exact same thing. With YECs it seems to be inherited from fundamentalists treating science as an enemy attacking their faith by coming up with naturalistic explanations for everything, such that an implicit consequence is to adopt a perversion of the "God of the Gaps" (which is a perversion entirely on its own). A standard simple example would be lightning. Before a scientific understanding, it was only explainable by attributing it to a god (eg, Zeus, Thor, YHWH), but once we understood the phenomenon scientifically, then that god was no longer necessary to explain it. It is that kind of logical reasoning that fundamentalists fear and characterize as science waging war on religion.

BTW, the story I read about Benjamin Franklin's invention of the lightning rod is that lightning was believed to be the "Finger of God" meting out his Justice and Wrath. So at first the preachers vilified Franklin viciously for thwarting the Will of God (strange that God the Omnipotent could be so easily thwarted). But then they finally began to realize that the most frequent target of lightning was the churches with their bell towers -- I seem to recall that one particularly disastrous lightning strike ignited the gunpowder that was hidden in the church's basement. Finally, the churches started installing lightning rods and no longer suffered lightning strikes, but they didn't want to talk about it.

ID is more explicit about their reliance on "God of the Gaps". First, their primary bugaboo is naturalism, which they characterize as "philosophical naturalism" (ie, the idea that the natural universe is all that exists; there is no supernatural) while they primarily attack science's "methodological naturalism" (ie, the reality that science can only deal with and use naturalistic processes and explanations; there is no position on the supernatural except that science cannot work with it). Second, most of their arguments are of the type of showing something to be highly complex (eg, their "irreducible complexity" arguments) and concluding that since we cannot explain it therefore their "Intelligent Designer" (for Whom they play the same "it's unnamed" game as "creation science" did with their "some unnamed Creator" smokescreen) -- AKA "goddidit".

In addition, we have some interesting affirmations of "God of the Gaps" by ID leaders. In particular, I once read an essay by Phillip E. Johnson where towards the end he states that his main reason for opposing evolution is that "it leaves God with nothing to do" (quoted from memory; I have not been able to find that essay again). To my mind, that was an explicit statement of belief in the "God of the Gaps" and in the attitude that you describe.

My thoughts on the matter, which I have offered a few times on this forum with no responses, is that creationists' false dichotomy of natural processes versus What God Does is extremely wrong and leads to "faux creationism", a false form of creationism. The way I see it, an Actual Creationist would believe in a Creator who did actually create the entire Universe including all the natural forces and processes that operate within that created universe. Therefore, an Actual Creationist would realize that there cannot possibly be a situation of Nature vs God, since God had created Nature. Even though lightning forms entirely through naturalistic processes, that does not in any manner deny God who had created those naturalistic processes. Evolution does not conflict with God, because it is the cumulative results of life (which an Actual Creationist believes was created by God) doing what life does. Even abiogenesis, the origin of life through natural processes, does not conflict with God since, yet again, God had created those natural processes.

Fake creationism (eg, YEC, ID) can only function by creating false conflicts where none exist. To an Actual Creationist, they would be an abomination.

Edited by dwise1, : Corrected number on a verb conjugation

Edited by dwise1, : Corrected "lightening" to "lightning" as per Pollux


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Taq, posted 06-28-2019 12:04 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Pollux, posted 06-28-2019 11:22 PM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Thugpreacha, posted 06-29-2019 2:41 AM dwise1 has responded

  
Pollux
Member (Idle past 5 days)
Posts: 251
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 6 of 67 (856254)
06-28-2019 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by dwise1
06-28-2019 5:30 PM


Lightening
Hi Dwise1,

Your discussion of "lightening" sounds so much like "lightning" that I doubt its existence as a separate phenomenon!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by dwise1, posted 06-28-2019 5:30 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13143
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 7 of 67 (856263)
06-29-2019 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by dwise1
06-28-2019 5:30 PM


Hair Today Gong Tomorrow
dwise1 writes:

...The way I see it, an Actual Creationist would believe in a Creator who did actually create the entire Universe including all the natural forces and processes that operate within that created universe. Therefore, an Actual Creationist would realize that there cannot possibly be a situation of Nature vs God, since God had created Nature. Even though lightning forms entirely through naturalistic processes, that does not in any manner deny God who had created those naturalistic processes. Evolution does not conflict with God, because it is the cumulative results of life (which an Actual Creationist believes was created by God) doing what life does. Even abiogenesis, the origin of life through natural processes, does not conflict with God since, yet again, God had created those natural processes.

Im glad that you can make that argument, though I wonder if you argue academically without understanding belief in general.
I don’t think that preferring rationality to fantasy is subjective. But if that is the way you want to go, I guess you had better stop trying to pretend to be rational.

If you put me on the spot, I doubt whether I could defend why I supposedly understand it. Its just one of those things that you know it when you see it.

Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by dwise1, posted 06-28-2019 5:30 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by dwise1, posted 06-29-2019 10:58 AM Thugpreacha has responded
 Message 14 by dwise1, posted 06-29-2019 11:52 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13143
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 8 of 67 (856265)
06-29-2019 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tanypteryx
06-28-2019 1:27 PM


Objective Verifiable Reality versus Subjective Experience
Science is based on objective verifiable evidence. If religion is based on objective verifiable evidence there will be no conflict. As far as I am aware, no religion is based on objective verifiable evidence, so..
I would argue that the "religion" of Christianity was never meant to be discerned and accepted based on objective verifiable evidence. Of course there were allegedly a few eyewitnesses to some of the major stories within the NT, but the belief seemingly spread like a wildfire through the people afterwards. One could argue that the spread itself was cause for claiming validity...but arguably Islam spread even faster, so truth cannot be used as the reason.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-28-2019 1:27 PM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Theodoric, posted 06-29-2019 9:00 AM Thugpreacha has responded
 Message 13 by ringo, posted 06-29-2019 11:51 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 06-29-2019 1:25 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13143
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 9 of 67 (856267)
06-29-2019 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Taq
06-28-2019 12:04 PM


Taq writes:

These apologists seem to be painting themselves into a corner. They are actually agreeing with the argument that if something can be explained through natural causes then God does not exist. They require God to act in contradiction to nature in order for God to create.

If I were you, I would take a look at theistic evolution or go to BioLogos to learn about evolutionary creationism.

In paying true homage to cafeteria Christianity I have never cared much whether Genesis was literally true or not. I saw it all as an allegory or parable. In contrast, I have and do believe that the Resurrection is in fact a literal event and that Jesus Christ was more than a mere man, prophet, or ordinary guy. I doubt whether anyone will be able to prove that either way---I certainly am unimpressed with Richard carrier and the modern mythicists. They seem to have an axe to grind despite their distractive charm and innocence regarding the search for truth. In addition, I believe that we are in a spiritual war and that there are literally principalities, powers, and assignments against the Christian message. Dont ask me why---just call me crazy. My only defense would be to say that if you had walked a mile in my shoes...

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Taq, posted 06-28-2019 12:04 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 06-29-2019 11:54 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6795
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 10 of 67 (856273)
06-29-2019 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Thugpreacha
06-29-2019 8:11 AM


Re: Objective Verifiable Reality versus Subjective Experience
but the belief seemingly spread like a wildfire through the people afterwards.

There is no evidence of this. There is actually evidence that it spread very slowly for a few hundred years.
It did not become the major belief until it was co-opted by imperial powers.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Thugpreacha, posted 06-29-2019 8:11 AM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Thugpreacha, posted 06-29-2019 4:19 PM Theodoric has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3839
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 11 of 67 (856283)
06-29-2019 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Thugpreacha
06-29-2019 2:41 AM


Re: Hair Today Gong Tomorrow
Thugpreacha writes:

??? writes:

I don’t think that preferring rationality to fantasy is subjective. But if that is the way you want to go, I guess you had better stop trying to pretend to be rational.


If you put me on the spot, I doubt whether I could defend why I supposedly understand it. Its just one of those things that you know it when you see it.

What the fork are you talking about? I never wrote that! That isn't even in this topic, but rather in an entirely different topic, I Know That God Does Not Exist, where PaulK in Message 856 replied to GDR's Message 855:
quote:

PaulK writes:

GDR writes:

It is only partly about arguing for an intelligent root cause but I accept that the answer is subjective. However, the view that we are the result of mindless chemical processes that started from lifelessness is every bit as subjective.


I don’t think that preferring rationality to fantasy is subjective. But if that is the way you want to go, I guess you had better stop trying to pretend to be rational.


Furthermore, you replied to that very same part of PaulK's message and you agreed with him! So, what the fork?

Why are you falsely attributing that quote to me? I'm sorry, but that reeks of the stench of all-too-typical "true Christian" dishonesty! What kind of forking bullshirt are you trying to pull here?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Thugpreacha, posted 06-29-2019 2:41 AM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Thugpreacha, posted 06-29-2019 11:44 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13143
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 12 of 67 (856287)
06-29-2019 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by dwise1
06-29-2019 10:58 AM


Misattribution and Edited Post 7
My apology. I was thinking that I was replying to PaulK in the other topic but somehow pasted in the wrong window, reread the quotes and found they did not make sense and then tried to fix it...in the wrong thread! That was totally my error! Dont stereotype me just yet. I will edit the post.Better yet i will repost it with my corrected reply below:
***************************************************************
dwise1 writes:

...The way I see it, an Actual Creationist would believe in a Creator who did actually create the entire Universe including all the natural forces and processes that operate within that created universe. Therefore, an Actual Creationist would realize that there cannot possibly be a situation of Nature vs God, since God had created Nature. Even though lightning forms entirely through naturalistic processes, that does not in any manner deny God who had created those naturalistic processes. Evolution does not conflict with God, because it is the cumulative results of life (which an Actual Creationist believes was created by God) doing what life does. Even abiogenesis, the origin of life through natural processes, does not conflict with God since, yet again, God had created those natural processes.

phats original comment writes:

Im glad that you can make that argument, though I wonder if you argue academically without understanding belief in general.

At which point I thought about my assertion of understanding belief in general. I then meant to say:

If you put me on the spot, I doubt whether I could defend why I supposedly DO understand belief.. Its just one of those things that you know it when you see it.

Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by dwise1, posted 06-29-2019 10:58 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17516
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 13 of 67 (856289)
06-29-2019 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Thugpreacha
06-29-2019 8:11 AM


Re: Objective Verifiable Reality versus Subjective Experience
Phat writes:

I would argue that the "religion" of Christianity was never meant to be discerned and accepted based on objective verifiable evidence.


Of course not. What religion is?

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Thugpreacha, posted 06-29-2019 8:11 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3839
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 14 of 67 (856290)
06-29-2019 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Thugpreacha
06-29-2019 2:41 AM


Re: Hair Today Gong Tomorrow
Im glad that you can make that argument, though I wonder if you argue academically without understanding belief in general.

Are you trying to argue that "belief in general" requires one to embrace ideas that are clearly and blatantly contrary to fact?

That is what "creation science" requires. It's even official doctrine as presented by ICR's John Morris at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism:

quote:
If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning.

That's the same as saying that if the sea is the wrong shade of pink then God does not exist. "Creation science's" contrary-to-fact claims are complete and utter nonsense and creationists base their faith on such nonsense!

Among the critics of "creation science" are actual creationists, actual believers in Creation and the Creator who object to "creation science's" faux creationists who have usurped the title of "Creationist" from the actual creationists. We already know of Dr. Kenneth Miller, a Catholic and staunch and highly effective opponent of "creation science", declaring himself a creationist because he does believe in God the Creator. Here are some excerpts from an evangelical creationist with the same complaint:

quote:
I am an evangelical Christian and a creationist. I am also a Ph.D. candidate in geology, believe that the earth is approximately 4,600,000,000 years old, and have taught evolution in historical geology courses. Does this sound contradictory to you? Well, read on...

. . .

Creationism, despite what some people think, is not a belief held exclusively by uneducated Protestant fundamentalists who interpret the Bible literally.

. . .

I've read many of the materials written by young-earth creationists such as Steve Austin, Thomas Barnes, Carl Baugh, Duane Gish, Ken Ham, Henry Morris, John Morris, Gary Parker, and Harold Slusher among others. I'm also very familiar with the material put out by Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society. In addition, I've even attended lectures and seminars by several well-known young-earth creationists.
In general, I've been dismayed by the lack of scholarship, research, and ethics displayed by these men who claim to be devout Christians. They totally misrepresent mainstream science and scientists, ignore evidence contrary to their claims, and display an amazing ignorance of even the most basic fundamentals of science and scientific inquiry. Their materials are aimed toward laypeople who are in no position to evaluate their claims. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but who is better qualified to judge the accuracy of K-Ar dating, an evangelist who reads creationist literature and has never taken a physics or geology course in his life or a Ph.D. in isotope geochemistry (who may also be a devout Christian) who has spent 25 years studying K-Ar dating in granites?

. . .

My criticisms of creationism are not incompatible with my being an evangelical Christian. Donald Bloesch, in his comprehensive two volume Essentials of Evangelical Theology (1978), states that:

quote:

If we take the genealogies in the Old Testament as literal chronologies, we will have to opt for a recent date for the creation of the world and man (5000-4000 B.C.?), and we will then have to resort to spurious science to support our allegations. This is not to say that current science supplies the norm for settling these issues, for this would make scientific rationality the criterion for truth. It does mean that if we use science, we must do so honestly, and much of contemporary evangelical apologetics in this area is dishonest.

. . .

Keeping all of the above in mind, I think it's time for Christians to reclaim the word creationists from the Biblical literalists. To be a creationist means to believe that God created the heavens and the earth and all life therein. This is the historic, orthodox Christian position and implies nothing about the age of the earth or the mechanisms (or lack thereof) of biological evolution. Let's speak of Biblical creation or young-earth creation when distinguishing the beliefs of those who accept a literal reading of Genesis.

In regard to the Biblical-creation/evolution controversy, I think it's probably best for Christians not to become dogmatic one way or another, to accept that devout Christians can hold differing viewpoints on the issue, to be willing to examine the evidence with an open mind, and to remain humble in the knowledge that only God knows the whole Truth. I think we'll all be surprised when we one day stand face-to-face with our Creator!


An actual creationist would believe that God actually created the universe and that the universe is a reflection of its Creator. Faux creationists (eg, YECs) give lip service to the Creation while at the same time believing emphatically that the universe disproves the existence of God. Actual creationists believe that the world is the way it is because that's how God created it; faux creationists believe that if the world is the way it is then God does not exist. Actual creationists want to learn about the Creation, including how it came about; faux creationists don't want to learn and want to dictate to God what He could and could not do.

Which makes more sense?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Thugpreacha, posted 06-29-2019 2:41 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17516
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 15 of 67 (856291)
06-29-2019 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Thugpreacha
06-29-2019 8:17 AM


Phat writes:

In addition, I believe that we are in a spiritual war and that there are literally principalities, powers, and assignments against the Christian message. Dont ask me why---just call me crazy.


You're crazy. It's a paranoid delusion, like Faith seeing leftists behind every tree.

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Thugpreacha, posted 06-29-2019 8:17 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019