Here it is! Creation debate to date
Jan. 12th, 2005 10:42 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
velvetpageI've received permission to copy the posts/comments and continue the debate here. Welcom, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
vickimfox!
My original comment:
I must confess I've never understood creationists. To be more specific, I've never understood the point of trying to prove the Bible is one-hundred-percent accurate. Anyone who tries to do so has confused the notions of "accuracy" and "truth". They are not at all the same thing.
I'd be really interested to know what that guy thinks about accuracy vs. truth. :)
Their reply was:
That's okay. Those of us with a God-centric worldview do not understand evolutionists. We don't understand how anyone can look at the structure, organization, information, interconnection, and balance of the universe from the largest to the smallest and think that it came about by random events and by violating various law of Physics and Chemistry from mechanics to thermodynamics to chemical bonding.
Even in academic circles many scientists are questioning the traditional evolution theories and embracing a hybrid called Intelligent Design. These scientists still do not acknowledge God, but they see that the current state of the evolution framework has more holes than swiss cheese.
Also, evolution is not a theory or a fact. It is a worldview - a mindset used to interpret observations. In academic circles, there is debate among scientists about which evolution framework is "correct". Do you believe in the punctuated equilabrium framework, neo-Darwinism framework, or catastrophy framework? Oh, let's not forget that there are about six or seven different proposed frameworks in academia just hypothesizing about how the original amino acids were formed.
Now, to the matter of "accuracy". The dictionary defines "accuracy" as "absolutely correct, making no mistakes" and "agreeing exactly with the truth".
The reason Bible-believing Christians take this matter of the inerrant nature of the Bible is simple - Jesus told us that is the measure of His Word! [John 3:12] "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" What this means is that if God cannot record history and other earthly aspects correctly, then how in the world can we believe what God tells us in the Bible about spiritual, moral, and heavenly things?
Even in the Old Testament, God established that any statement claimed to "be from God" but discovered to be false was clear evidence that the statement was not from God and that the person preaching such was not sent by God.
Therefore, if there are errors in the original texts, then the Bible in essence tells us that we should reject it (the whole Bible). If the Bible is not accurate, then it does not tell the truth. Conversely, if the Bible is accurate, then it implies that it is telling the truth.
Creationists and Evolutionists look at the same "evidence" but interpret it differently. You may look at a fossil and think million of years. I look at the same fossil, the result of rapid burial, and think of Noah's Flood. You may look at radioactive material and think long dates. I look at the same radioactive measurements and think "Yeah, so what? The dating mathematics is invalid and nobody knows the initial conditions."
PS. I have advanced degrees in Physics and Computer Science. When I was in college I believed in evolution. But, the more I studied, especially the mathematics of radioactive dating and information theory, the more I became convienced about the deception of evolution. This change did not occur until many years after I was saved and became a Christian.
vickimfox! My original comment:
I must confess I've never understood creationists. To be more specific, I've never understood the point of trying to prove the Bible is one-hundred-percent accurate. Anyone who tries to do so has confused the notions of "accuracy" and "truth". They are not at all the same thing.
I'd be really interested to know what that guy thinks about accuracy vs. truth. :)
Their reply was:
That's okay. Those of us with a God-centric worldview do not understand evolutionists. We don't understand how anyone can look at the structure, organization, information, interconnection, and balance of the universe from the largest to the smallest and think that it came about by random events and by violating various law of Physics and Chemistry from mechanics to thermodynamics to chemical bonding.
Even in academic circles many scientists are questioning the traditional evolution theories and embracing a hybrid called Intelligent Design. These scientists still do not acknowledge God, but they see that the current state of the evolution framework has more holes than swiss cheese.
Also, evolution is not a theory or a fact. It is a worldview - a mindset used to interpret observations. In academic circles, there is debate among scientists about which evolution framework is "correct". Do you believe in the punctuated equilabrium framework, neo-Darwinism framework, or catastrophy framework? Oh, let's not forget that there are about six or seven different proposed frameworks in academia just hypothesizing about how the original amino acids were formed.
Now, to the matter of "accuracy". The dictionary defines "accuracy" as "absolutely correct, making no mistakes" and "agreeing exactly with the truth".
The reason Bible-believing Christians take this matter of the inerrant nature of the Bible is simple - Jesus told us that is the measure of His Word! [John 3:12] "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" What this means is that if God cannot record history and other earthly aspects correctly, then how in the world can we believe what God tells us in the Bible about spiritual, moral, and heavenly things?
Even in the Old Testament, God established that any statement claimed to "be from God" but discovered to be false was clear evidence that the statement was not from God and that the person preaching such was not sent by God.
Therefore, if there are errors in the original texts, then the Bible in essence tells us that we should reject it (the whole Bible). If the Bible is not accurate, then it does not tell the truth. Conversely, if the Bible is accurate, then it implies that it is telling the truth.
Creationists and Evolutionists look at the same "evidence" but interpret it differently. You may look at a fossil and think million of years. I look at the same fossil, the result of rapid burial, and think of Noah's Flood. You may look at radioactive material and think long dates. I look at the same radioactive measurements and think "Yeah, so what? The dating mathematics is invalid and nobody knows the initial conditions."
PS. I have advanced degrees in Physics and Computer Science. When I was in college I believed in evolution. But, the more I studied, especially the mathematics of radioactive dating and information theory, the more I became convienced about the deception of evolution. This change did not occur until many years after I was saved and became a Christian.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-01-14 12:48 pm (UTC)So you believe. What is necessary to salvation?
So, if Genesis is just a parable, then I suppose there was no Abraham, no Jacob, no Issac, no Joseph, or any of the other fathers of Israel. If Genesis is just a parable, then I suppose when Jesus quotes from Genesis in a literal sense that He is lying to us. Or, is it only parts of Genesis are a parable and others are history? How do you decide which portions are which?
I meant the Creation story part of Genesis.
This is a popular lie propogated by critics who want to discount the New Testament. It ignores the fact that the Old Testament books were canonized by the Jews around 400 BC! The New Testament books were agreed upon as early as 100 AD based upon the writings of early church fathers.
As it turns out, I was thinking of the Council of Rome from 382. My apologies. The Council of Rome declared that the Apocrypha were divinely inspired, and no less significant than the other books of the Bible.
Yet Luther discounted them. Why?