|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 0/368 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The TRUE reason for the EvC controversy, and why it can not be resolved. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
quote: If creationists are such an insignificant minority, why does this website exist?
quote:I disagree. The starting point for all creationists are the bible. They then try to use natural explainations to explain how the events in the bible lead to a world as we know it today. My only difference with other creationists is that I no longer see the need to do that. I believe in heaven without physical proof, in God without physical proof, in Jesus and his Resurection without physical proof and all the other miracles described in the bible. Why then should I make an exception on Genesis 1? My faith stands on its own, I don't need to know exactly how the almighty, alknowing God did things to believe Him when He said He did.
quote: How many creationists did you convert to evolutionism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
quote: Except Paul, who continually askes me to explain something which I call unknowable. As for the rest of your post, if you take out the judging-my-world-view-through-yours flavouring, this is exactly what I've been saying from the start.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
quote: I can not deny that this is in fact what creationists are doing. They feel their believes are threatened, so they developed a "counter science" to fortify their believes, and then declared war. What I fail to understant is why evolutionists give credibility to this war by participating in it, rather than to just ignore it? People gravitate towards creationism, primarily because of religious reasons, not because of its scientific arguements. If you tear down all the creationist arguements, you'll find the philosophy I've mentioned at its core. Maybe creationists should add a disclaimer to their i priori believes. Creationism should be saying something more like "Due to our believe in the bible, we can not accept evolution as the truth, and it is our purpose to try and explain the natural world in light of what the Bible says." In effect, this thread is my unilateral peace treaty with the ToE. I don't accept it, but, since the debate is philosofical in nature, I no longer see the need to fight it, or to refute it. Maybe this post will make other creationists see it this way as well, but I don't see the war dying down.
quote: ALL OF THE FOLLOWING IS OFF TOPIC>>> I can't speak for Hovind here, but back in South Africa, we followed a policy of "Christian National Education" up and till 1994, and it was still pretty much in tact when I left school in 1997. I count myself fortunate to have been educated in that time, where prayer and bible reading was common practice, as well as one bible class per week. I believe, because of its religious implications, evolution should not be taught before high school level. But that's just me. It also saddens me to see the damage the sexual revolution did to the family unit. I don't think people who practice free sex give enough thought about all the unwanted children and the broken homes the practice leads to. Sex have very expensive consequences. Maybe I'm more sensitive to this because I was lucky enough to grow up in a sheltered loving family, where my mother stayed at home. For this I am eternally gratefull. Sorry for wondering off the topic. <<quote: As I am effectively doing with this thread. PS. While I believe Creationism is not science, I do believe that ID is a valid scientific hypothesis, as there are no references made to religious sources. From what I read from ID supporters - not what evolusionists say about ID - I conclude that, though creationists like to associate with ID, true ID is not creationism, and based purely on scientific observation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
Faith.
All of what you say could well be true, because, as I said, it is all speculation. The thing is just, since I believe in it, regardless of whether I can explain it or not, I don't see why I should be searching for an explaination. God probably used a natural approach to create the flood, but to me it doesn't really matter one way or the other. However, what I am saying is: do we know of any condition that would not merely extend life, but give you immortality? No? Therefore, to aquire immortality, a change in physical law is required. What about the fossils? Well, if they died off after the fall and before the flood, you don't have the problem of fitting them all in on the ark. If mankind did not fill the entire earth before the flood, the flood does not have to cover the whole earth, which decrease the amount of animals on the ark even more. If the before mentioned change in physical laws was gradual, the animals that died before the flood could appear to be older than they really are. And a change in natural law would allow the rainbow appearing on the post flood earth without having a preflood earth with no rain. Rain is necesary for the dying animals to be fossilised. Is a change in physical law reasonable within the christian world view? Well, if you read about the second comming, and the conditions on the new earth, how the "verganklike" world will be made non-"verganklik", a future change in the laws of physics is implied. If God is going to do it in the future, what reason do we have to assume he didn't do it in the past as well? When did these changes stop? From what I can tell, somewhere after the flood. Maybe with the tower of Babel, maybe before. I don't know. Ofcause this is all speculation, which I don't really need in order to believe in the Bible.
quote: True. But a naturalist will reject any event that does not appear be natural all the way to the beginning.
quote: No they won't. They would simply say, ok so there was a flood, and the bible is a historic account of that event. But you've shown that it was a perfectly natural event, and therefore God is not required. The flood would no more proof God's existance than a normal flood would today. It is the Holy Spirit that convince you of God, not human wisdom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
Modulous
Your arguements are very sound, and I must admit that, from a natural perspective, I can't shoot a hole in it. However - and I must probably have said this from the beginning - my big problem is with evolution, not a young/old universe. The length of the days in Genesis do not have any big theological implications. Also, the Bible does not specify the time span between creation and the fall. However, the idea of death and suffering before sin, or the idea that man was created with his current, sinful nature, that has enourmous implications which I can not accept. There is, however, one problem with your arguement :"We can measure the radioactive decay of elements from the supernova" How? If the material is available when we saw it happen, it meant it traveled at light speed, something that is not possible. If we did capture the material, how can we tell it came from the supernova? Or that is is uncontaminated? As far as I know, the first microscopic material from space was only retrieved this year. Could you post a link that explain this?Thanks quote:Very much so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
quote: You don't actually believe this is going to happen any time soon, do you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
quote: quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
Unless you practice theological doublethink - which does not seem to be a problem to many - I agree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
All I'm saying is that there is a clear transitional period between Adam and Abraham. The circumstances directly after the fall was clearly still much better than that of Abraham and us. Conditions gradually declined. Yes, languages came at an instant, but it did not come directly after the fall. Yes, God willed to shorten the human life span, but that was several generations after the fall. You might view these events as independent from the fall, to me they're clearly related, as they would not have happened if there was no fall. Also, whether Nephalim means "sons of God" or "Giants", the point is that it clearly indicate that they were no ordinary men.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
Agnostics and Atheists has never experienced the spirit world like Satanists have. Ex-Satanists know that the spirit world is very real, and the only way to free them of that hellish existance, is to draw them to Christ. You will not convert a Satanist to Agnostisism or Atheism, or any other religion for that matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
quote: I never said that evolution material should be censored. I simply believe in free speach.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
quote: Fighting creationism will not make it go away. I suggest that you should concider a voucher system instead of a public school system. This way, the government issues vouchers to the parents, and they can use it to place their children in a school of their choice. This way, the creationist can go to a creationist school, and the evolutionist to an evolusionist school, all with the same public money. As long as there is a winner takes all aproach to public schooling, this scenario will persist. In South Africa, we have much bigger problems in our educational system than evolution/creationism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
quote: I'm saying that the rules of practicing "evolutionary science" and the rules for practicing "creation science" differ. In order to have a meaningful debate, one must at least share the same rules. I'm not saying that it is wrong to practice creation science, but I do think that it is no use to use "creation science" for warfare against evolution. Creation science should just do what they do, and let it stand on its own. Maybe I'm naive.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024