Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,120 Year: 5,377/9,624 Month: 402/323 Week: 42/204 Day: 18/24 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's the creationists thought on this?
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4168 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 23 of 136 (37762)
04-24-2003 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by booboocruise
04-22-2003 4:05 PM


Re: Dinosaurs
booboo wrote, "consider the OPEN-MINDED creationist to be the Jury that will decide whether or not substantial evidence exists for evolution."
Okay, I was an open-minded creationist, and I found the evidence so overwhelming for evolution that I switched even though it took me two months to work up the courage to tell my wife and best friend that I was now an evolutionist. My former best friend has now rejected the church (we call it a village) that I am a part of, because we have publicly acknowledged we think evolution is true (or at least most of us do).
I can produce a pretty good number of open-minded creationists, some of the staunchest Bible believers you'd ever want to meet, with lives to prove it, who are now evolutionists, besides myself.
So, does that mean Hovind will pay up now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 4:05 PM booboocruise has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Quetzal, posted 04-24-2003 2:48 AM truthlover has replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4168 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 25 of 136 (37778)
04-24-2003 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Quetzal
04-24-2003 2:48 AM


Re: Dinosaurs
Hi, Quetzal.
Tax season kept me away. I have seven children, too, so while I can post in bursts, there will always be long breaks. Summer makes up for tax season, though, because I help teach our church's group home school (mostly math), and I have some free time while we're out in June and July.
To address the issue of not losing my faith, I want to say this...I will keep it short.
The real crisis of faith for me wasn't evolution, it was the combination of reading Gene Edwards and Watchman Nee followed by the apostolic fathers. Translated into secular language, that means that Edwards and Nee pointed out to me the incredible New Testament emphasis on love, unity, and the church as a united people. I fell in love with the story in Acts (one heart, one mind, shared possessions), but I could find it reproduced nowhere.
Since Jesus staked his credibility on the unity of his disciples (Jn 17:20-23), and I couldn't find that unity, I was struggling. Then I actually read the 2nd century "fathers." I read everything written by traditional Christianity between the apostolic writings and about AD 250, which is quite a lot. Most of it I read two or three times. I saw that neither the Catholics nor any of the Protestants were much like the early church at all, and they certainly didn't interpet the New Testament writings the same way.
Now that was a crisis! Finding out Genesis wasn't literal and that evolution was true was difficult, but not as difficult as finding out that 2nd century Christianity no longer existed, with all the ramifications that carried.
Origen (a 3rd century Christian) once said that you'd have to be stupid to believe there were days before there was a sun or that mankind fell because of a literal tree and piece of fruit. On the other hand, Theophilus, a 2nd century bishop, believed it was all literal.
In fact, this was always amazing to me. Theophilus added up all the dates from Adam to his day, using the Septuagint, which was the "Authorized version" of his day, and he added up 5698 years, give or take a few for loose months in each king's reign or son's birth. What's funny about that is that he wrote in AD 168, which puts his 6000 year figure at AD 470. It appears that the church of his day (certainly some, but it may have been common or even pretty universal) believed that the Roman Empire would fall at 6000 years (and it certainly seemed universal that they believed the antichrist would replace the Roman empire). That's an awful accurate prediction, or a pretty amazing coincidence, although I have no idea what one does with it even if it was a "prophecy." What's the point? Still, it's so amazing to me I can't ever forget it.
Sorry for rambling. I hope something was interesting. Better tell me if none of it was, so I don't do this in the future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Quetzal, posted 04-24-2003 2:48 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by booboocruise, posted 04-30-2003 4:18 PM truthlover has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024