Young Earth Creation. Does it matter what you believe?
- Thread starter Preach2u
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
R
Again, this thread shows something completely different.
what if you have to do that to make the real world that you see and touch and experience every day agree with how you understand scripture?
are you maybe trying too hard to get reality to fit what you perceive it ought to be?
are you maybe trying too hard to get reality to fit what you perceive it ought to be?
do you mind if put my views too, so anyone who also believes like i do doesn't feel like they're "not a Christian" on account of accepting some of the evidence of their own eyes?
Anything that keeps seekers from investigating the truth claims of Christianity definitely matters to Salvation.
The ones that already know that the earth is billions of years old will ridicule any and all Christians who think that the world is a mere few thousand years old.
The ones that already know that the earth is billions of years old will ridicule any and all Christians who think that the world is a mere few thousand years old.
OEC is already a fact for Posthuman, Jack, myself, and other like minded Christians...someday you will come to see the light...
also notice that none of these quotations actually -cite any specific scientific data-...they simply assert that 'science' supports their point of view and then insinuate that anyone who disagrees is a denialist...
but then there is the clincher...-your own words-...
At the same time expecting people to believe the earth is 6000 years old when the science says otherwise is a stumbling block for nonbelievers.
Why do you think the Bible contradicts science? Why do you feel it is necessary to make it so? Why do you think God would make the world ordered and understandable in every way EXCEPT this?
this thread and even -your own posts- show -exactly- what i said...
Last edited:
R
It's not a salvation sticking point, but it most certainly can be a stumbling block. I've read a comprehensive book on Hugh Ross' beliefs (Refuting Compromise) and how to combat them, among other resources. I know the stuff they believe and how and why it doesn't line up with God's Word.
T
Because the human philosophies that are mistakenly called 'Science' come from a worldview that is based entirely in so-called naturalism. It's a worldview philosophy, not testable, repeatable observations. If something doesn't line up with God's Word, it's not His Word that needs changing.
Am i a naturalist? Was gregor mendel? Francis collins?
T
How is science based in naturalism especially when God created the world to be scientifically discoverable?
Wouldnt naturalism be the worldview you take into science and not something inherent to science?
If not, am i a naturalist because im a scientist?
Wouldnt naturalism be the worldview you take into science and not something inherent to science?
If not, am i a naturalist because im a scientist?
T
no it doesn't...here are a number of quotations from old earth creationists on this thread...
Thats quite out of context and shows an intellectual dishonesty. They were saying that to say the world HAS to be 6000 years old is a stumbling block for salvation because scientists laugh at that notion.
what if you have to do that to make the real world that you see and touch and experience every day agree with how you understand scripture?
are you maybe trying too hard to get reality to fit what you perceive it ought to be? [/QUOTE]
those are your old earth creationist friends doing -exactly- what i said old earth creationists do...insinuating that anyone who doesn't believe as they do is in denial of 'the real world'...'reality'...'the evidence of our own eyes'...'knowledge'...'facts'...etc.
also notice that none of these quotations actually -cite any specific scientific data-...they simply assert that 'science' supports their point of view and then insinuate that anyone who disagrees is a denialist...
but then there is the clincher...-your own words-...
-you yourself- accuse those who disagree with you of rejecting 'science'...creating a 'stumbling block for nonbelievers'...setting the bible and 'science' in contradiction...and believing that God did not make the world 'ordered and understandable' when it comes to origins...
this thread and even -your own posts- show -exactly- what i said...
are you maybe trying too hard to get reality to fit what you perceive it ought to be? [/QUOTE]
those are your old earth creationist friends doing -exactly- what i said old earth creationists do...insinuating that anyone who doesn't believe as they do is in denial of 'the real world'...'reality'...'the evidence of our own eyes'...'knowledge'...'facts'...etc.
also notice that none of these quotations actually -cite any specific scientific data-...they simply assert that 'science' supports their point of view and then insinuate that anyone who disagrees is a denialist...
but then there is the clincher...-your own words-...
-you yourself- accuse those who disagree with you of rejecting 'science'...creating a 'stumbling block for nonbelievers'...setting the bible and 'science' in contradiction...and believing that God did not make the world 'ordered and understandable' when it comes to origins...
this thread and even -your own posts- show -exactly- what i said...
T
Look here. The general consensus in Science is that there is no God - personal or no and that everything came about naturally without divine intervention of any kind. That's what naturalism is. Yes, naturalism is certainly a worldview a person takes into Science (it's a worldview presupposition from which they draw the conclusions they want). No, not all scientists are naturalists, but evolutionists most certainly are naturalists).
The same with science. You are saying that all because all squares are rectangles, that all rectangles are squares. It doesnt logically follow
T
no it doesn't...here are a number of quotations from old earth creationists on this thread...
Thats quite out of context and shows an intellectual dishonesty. They were saying that to say the world HAS to be 6000 years old is a stumbling block for salvation because scientists laugh at that notion.
Thats quite out of context and shows an intellectual dishonesty. They were saying that to say the world HAS to be 6000 years old is a stumbling block for salvation because scientists laugh at that notion.
T
I'm not following you. Many scientists laugh at the Christian faith full-stop. Why should we let their bullying and intellectual dishonesty get in the way of believing what God says in His Word?
Also, when i evangelize to my coworker and he asked me, "but i thought all you christians were antiscience." The fact that im a scientist who doesnt disregard science helped me to evangelize to him
T
So just because the general consensus of people who use a tool is something means that that tool is that something? An analogy: So most CDs nowadays are used for music. Does that mean CDs are inherently musical? No. CDs are a data storage method and mostly are used for music, but not all CDs are music.
The same with science. You are saying that all because all squares are rectangles, that all rectangles are squares. It doesnt logically follow
The same with science. You are saying that all because all squares are rectangles, that all rectangles are squares. It doesnt logically follow
R
Thats quite out of context and shows an intellectual dishonesty. They were saying that to say the world HAS to be 6000 years old is a stumbling block for salvation because scientists laugh at that notion.
it was very obviously insinuated that old earth creationists accept science and reality and facts and so on...and young earth creationists do not...
if you really want someone to accept the validity of your point of view...the first thing you need to do is stop implying that anyone who disagrees with you is essentially delusional...
T
Because you think God's word disagrees with science when i have provided evidences that show progressive creationism isnt contradictory to the Bible, and in fact makes sense contextually.
Also, when i evangelize to my coworker and he asked me, "but i thought all you christians were antiscience." The fact that im a scientist who doesnt disregard science helped me to evangelize to him
Also, when i evangelize to my coworker and he asked me, "but i thought all you christians were antiscience." The fact that im a scientist who doesnt disregard science helped me to evangelize to him
T
I didn't say anything of the sort. Please stop twisting my words. Consensus science isn't necessarily truth. Most of the world believes the universe is close to 14 billion years old. That belief is informed by an evolutionary worldview (a naturalistic - God-doesn't-exist worldview). It's philosophy, not Science. Biblical creationists also have a biased philosophy but their philosophy is based in God's Word.
This has nothing to do with evolution or naturalism. Individual scientists being their own naturalist worldviews into their work and while their conclusion may be wrong, the data is not. Just because the practitioner of the method is a naturalist does not make the method inherently naturalistic.
You are simply trying to attack OEC by saying they are naturalists when they are just following the data of God's word and world. Evolutionists add in naturalism, but progressive creationists do not.
T
Dude. I've read a book called "Refuting Compromise" that refutes Dr. Hugh Ross' teachings. It was 400+ pages long, so pretty comprehensive. I've heard it all before. It doesn't gel with the Bible. As for you evangelizing. Well, Holy Spirit can work through anyone, using any method He chooses. It doesn't mean OE beliefs are true.
how about you do as i did. Read from the sources and compare. I read from answers in genesis and god and creation. Dont read a counter book and assume you have heard it sll
T
I didnt twist your words, i followed them to their natural conclusion. The belief that the universe is old is not informed by naturalism. It is informed by a methodological study of repeatable and testable or observable events, such as the red shift of the light of galaxies.
This has nothing to do with evolution or naturalism. Individual scientists being their own naturalist worldviews into their work and while their conclusion may be wrong, the data is not. Just because the practitioner of the method is a naturalist does not make the method inherently naturalistic.
You are simply trying to attack OEC by saying they are naturalists when they are just following the data of God's word and world. Evolutionists add in naturalism, but progressive creationists do not.
This has nothing to do with evolution or naturalism. Individual scientists being their own naturalist worldviews into their work and while their conclusion may be wrong, the data is not. Just because the practitioner of the method is a naturalist does not make the method inherently naturalistic.
You are simply trying to attack OEC by saying they are naturalists when they are just following the data of God's word and world. Evolutionists add in naturalism, but progressive creationists do not.
R
Because you think God's word disagrees with science when i have provided evidences that show progressive creationism isnt contradictory to the Bible, and in fact makes sense contextually.
Also, when i evangelize to my coworker and he asked me, "but i thought all you christians were antiscience." The fact that im a scientist who doesnt disregard science helped me to evangelize to him
Also, when i evangelize to my coworker and he asked me, "but i thought all you christians were antiscience." The fact that im a scientist who doesnt disregard science helped me to evangelize to him
so quit it already...
for that matter it isn't enough simply to show that 'progressive creationism isn't contradictory to the bible'...you have to show that this idea is -actually derived from scriptural exegesis-... it wouldn't contradict the bible for me to claim that there are unicorns in my backyard either...but that doesn't mean i got that idea from the bible...
and finally...just the fact that you make a point of describing yourself as someone 'who doesn't disregard science' insinuates that those who disagree with you on this issue -do- disregard science...which is exactly what i said old earth creationists do on a constant basis...and now you don't even appear capable of stopping...
i have news for you...i am a young earth creationist and i -don't- disregard science...
T
Dude. I've read a book called "Refuting Compromise" that refutes Dr. Hugh Ross' teachings. It was 400+ pages long, so pretty comprehensive. I've heard it all before. It doesn't gel with the Bible. As for you evangelizing. Well, Holy Spirit can work through anyone, using any method He chooses. It doesn't mean OE beliefs are true.
Creation Science Book Review, Refuting Compromise