Scientists Question Darwinism

[genuineoriginal]

But not a YE creationist because, YE creationism hadn't been invented yet.

Nobody used the term Young Earth creationist until after evolutionists started convincing people that the earth was billions of years old.
However, the belief that God had created the heaven and the earth in only six days has been around for 6,000 years.

A creationist is a person who acknowledges that God created all things. A YE creationist is willing to admit that God created all things, but doesn't approve of the way He did it.

No, a Young Earth creationist believes that the record that God gave about the creation is the truth and there is no reason to turn it into a lie.

Exodus 20:11 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.​

 

[The Barbarian]

Nobody used the term Young Earth creationist until after evolutionists started convincing people that the earth was billions of years old.
However, the belief that God had created the heaven and the earth in only six days has been around for 6,000 years.

As you learned, as people studied the Earth, they came to realize it was very, very old. By the 1800s, Christians also understood this:

But if you will look in the first chapter of Genesis, you will see there more particularly set forth that peculiar operation of power upon the universe which was put forth by the Holy Spirit; you will then discover what was his special work. In Ge 1:2, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We do not know how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God.
The great Baptist evangelist, Charles Spurgeon, Sermon No. 10

Since Christians had always realized that the days of Genesis were not literal days, this was no propblem until YE creationism was invented in the early 1900s.

The creationist view at the Scopes trial, for example, was OE creationism. Until the Seventh-Day Adventists invented YE creationism, most creationists realized this.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Christians had always realized that the days of Genesis were not literal days

You have been caught lying again.
:wave2:

 

[The Barbarian]

barbarian observes:
Christians had always realized that the days of Genesis were not literal days

You have been caught lying again.
:wave2:

I don't think you're lying. I think you've been so indoctrinated, you've closed yourself off to the truth.

St. Augustine, about 1600 years ago, showed how it was impossible to logically assert a literal creation week. His work was widely distributed in Christendom, and no one thought to argue with him. Your new doctrine of YE creationism is less than a century old.

Instead of losing your temper and making foolish and false accusations, why not learn a little bit about what Christians believe?

Wouldn't hurt to try?

 

[genuineoriginal]

St. Augustine, about 1600 years ago, showed how it was impossible to logically assert a literal creation week.

Augustine brought a lot of heresies into Christianity.

Your new doctrine of YE creationism is less than a century old.

You should stop lying.
Young Earth Creationism is merely a new name for an ancient belief.
Early Christians used a calendar that had the birth of Jesus at 5500 years after the creation of the world.

Dionysius Exiguus (Latin for "Dionysius the Humble"[a]; c. AD 470 – c. AD 544) Dionysius is best known as the inventor of the Anno Domini (AD) era, which is used to number the years of both the Gregorian calendar and the (Christianised) Julian calendar. Evidence exists that Dionysius' desire to replace Diocletian years with a calendar based on the incarnation of Christ was to prevent people from believing the imminent end of the world. At the time, some believed that the Second Coming and end of the world would occur 500 years after the birth of Jesus. The current Anno Mundi calendar commenced with the creation of the world based on information in the Greek Septuagint. It was believed that, based on the Anno Mundi calendar, Jesus was born in the year 5500 (or 5500 years after the world was created) with the year 6000 of the Anno Mundi calendar marking the end of the world. Anno Mundi 6000 (approximately AD 500) was thus equated with the second coming of Christ and the end of the world.

​

Young Earth Creationists often use the Ussher chronology, which is 369 years old, not "less than a century old".

The Ussher chronology is a 17th-century chronology of the history of the world formulated from a literal reading of the Old Testament by James Ussher, the Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland. The chronology is sometimes associated with young Earth creationism, which holds that the Universe was created only a few millennia ago by God as described in the first two chapters of the biblical book of Genesis. The chronology is sometimes called the Ussher–Lightfoot chronology because John Lightfoot published a similar chronology in 1642–1644. This, however, is a misnomer, as the chronology is based on Ussher's work alone and not that of Lightfoot. Ussher deduced that the first day of creation fell upon, October 23, 4004 BC, in the proleptic Julian calendar, near the autumnal equinox. Lightfoot similarly deduced that Creation began at nightfall near the autumnal equinox, but in the year 3929 BC.

​

Instead of losing your temper and making foolish and false accusations, why not learn a little bit about what Christians believe?

Wouldn't hurt to try?

:rotfl:
You should stop trying to make your foolish and false accusations and learn some Christian history.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
St. Augustine, about 1600 years ago, showed how it was impossible to logically assert a literal creation week.

Augustine brought a lot of heresies into Christianity.

Odd then, that he's a highly respected theologian by all three major branches of Christianity. Have you considered maybe it's you that's out of step?

Barbarian observes:
Your new doctrine of YE creationism is less than a century old.

You should stop lying.

There's really no point in you denying it:

The most consistent creationist voice at the beginning of the 20thcentury belonged to the new Seventh-day Adventist movement, which looked to the mid-nineteenth century prophetic writings of Ellen White for guidance. What we call young-earth creationism today—as promoted by Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, the Institute for Creation Researchand other groups—can be traced back to one of White’s visions.Ellen White (1827-1915) was a prophetess whose writings have been widely translated. She experienced the “Great Disappointment” on October 22, 1844 when Jesus failed to appear as predicted by William Miller, the leader of her sect. Shortly after, she began receiving visions and was soon at the heart of a new branch of Christianity that now boasts more than 14 million followers in 200 countries. Her literary output exceeded 5,000 articles and 40 books.Among White’s influential writings is Patriarchs and Prophetsin her series “Conflict of the Ages,” first published in 1890. In this text White offers an expanded vision of Bible stories such as the Genesis creation accounts, the fall, and Noah’s great flood. In a curious twist of history, modern young-earth creationism can be traced to her visionary expansion of the Genesis flood narrative
...
The Origin of Flood GeologyBy mid-19thcentury, when White’s visions began, geologists, almost all of them bible-believing Christians, had concluded that Noah’s flood was confined to the mid-east. Its effects had been largely erased over time. This interpretation of the story, which Hebrew scholars have determined is a faithful interpretation of Genesis, was uncontroversial and accepted by most educated Christians.
...
Because these creationist ideas were basically limited to Seventh-day Adventist biblical interpretation, most Christians outside that group paid no attention to them, and were fine with the idea that evolution was simply God’s method of creation. A few decades later, however, all this would change when respected fundamentalist scholars John Whitcomb and Henry Morris joined forces to move Price’s ideas from Adventism to mainstream evangelicalism. They co-authored The Genesis Flood, the book that launched the modern creationist movement and convinced millions of Christians to accept White’s vision of earth history. But what is not widely known, because the authors of The Genesis Floodleft it out of their book, is that the arguments in the book are really just Price’s arguments, updated to provide a more scientific presentation.
https://biologos.org/uploads/static-content/Giberson-scholarly-essay-1.pdf

It's just a fact. You're preaching a modern Seventh-Day Adventist doctrine.


You should stop trying to make your foolish and false accusations and learn some Christian history.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Barbarian observes:
St. Augustine, about 1600 years ago, showed how it was impossible to logically assert a literal creation week.

Augustine brought a lot of heresies into Christianity.

Odd then, that he's a highly respected theologian by all three major branches of Christianity.

No, it is not odd that many damnable heresies had entered into Christianity 200 years after the crucifixion, since those damnable heresies were prophesied by the writers of the New Testament.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You're preaching a modern Seventh-Day Adventist doctrine.

You are claiming that Dionysius Exiguus, James Ussher, and John Lightfoot are Seventh-Day Adventists?
You are a fool.

 

[Derf]

You are claiming that Dionysius Exiguus, James Ussher, and John Lightfoot are Seventh-Day Adventists?
You are a fool.

Not to mention his taking Biologos material as representative of Christianity, since their stated goal is to harmonize the never-changing word of God with evolutionary science.

But if Biologos is so disingenuous as to claim that all of Moses' followers from the birth of the nation of Israel, and all of Christianity from the time of Jesus' resurrection, until the 19th century were not cognizant of the doctrine espoused by God Himself in Exodus 20:11, and written on tablets of stone by His very finger (Deut 9:10), you have to question Biologos' real purpose.

 

[The Barbarian]

You are claiming that Dionysius Exiguus, James Ussher, and John Lightfoot are Seventh-Day Adventists?

Since none of those men were alive by the time the Seventh-day Adventists invented YE creationism, wouldn't think so.

You are a fool.

You're an excitable guy, and prone to becoming verbally abusive,when you lose an argument.

Matthew 5:22 But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Everyone does something foolish now and again. But you're pushing your luck, I think.

 

[The Barbarian]

Not to mention his taking Biologos material as representative of Christianity, since their stated goal is to harmonize the never-changing word of God with evolutionary science.

It's true that there are many good and worthy Christians who are YE creationists, and while Biologos is in concert with the great majority of the world's Christians, they don't reflect the views of all of them.

But if Biologos is so disingenuous as to claim that all of Moses' followers from the birth of the nation of Israel, and all of Christianity from the time of Jesus' resurrection, until the 19th century were not cognizant of the doctrine espoused by God Himself in Exodus 20:11, and written on tablets of stone by His very finger (Deut 9:10),

They merely accept His word as they understand it. Just like you.

 

[Stripe]

Creationists, are mostly working and have tenure somewhere. And ... they also get published in reputable journals.

Next time some moron asks why creationists don't publish, we'll expect you to be the first to correct them.

 

[Stripe]

Why not learn a little bit about what Christians believe?

Because what people believe is irrelevant compared with what the Bible teaches. And as you have been taught, the Bible is explicit:
"Six days."
"The whole world."

Instead of losing your temper, and making foolish and false accusations, why not learn a little bit about what the Bible says?

Wouldn't hurt to try?

 

[ok doser]

Because what people believe is irrelevant compared with what the Bible teaches. And as you have been taught, the Bible is explicit:
"Six days."
"The whole world."

Instead of losing your temper, and making foolish and false accusations, why not learn a little bit about what the Bible says?

Wouldn't hurt to try?

Seventeen years and he's as ignorant as the day he started. :sigh:

 

[The Barbarian]

Because what people believe is irrelevant compared with what the Bible teaches.

Perhaps the great majority of Christian have it right, and you have it wrong. You really think your new interpretation is better than that of the early Christians?

And as you have been taught, the creation story is explicitly figurative; from the beginning, Christians dismissed the idea of the creation week as a literal history, pointing out that the text itself shows us this. It is absurd to imagine mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

Long, long before evolution, Christians were aware that the "yom" of the creation week did not mean literal 24 hour days.

The good news for you, is that God doesn't care if you approve or not. You can be a YE creationist and still be saved. Unless you make YE into an idol. That could be disastrous for you.

 

[The Barbarian]

Next time some moron asks why creationists don't publish, we'll expect you to be the first to correct them.

Of course they publish. The vast majority of them are not biologists, and so much of their work passes peer review. And the few biologists have published papers. But you have to know what you're looking for; they are about 0.3% of biologists.

And some creationists, like Kent Hovind have degrees from diploma mills, and so can't get published in a reputable journal.

I could probably find a few examples for you, if you'd like.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Since none of those men were alive by the time the Seventh-day Adventists invented YE creationism, wouldn't think so.

Good, then stop making the false claims.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Perhaps the great majority of Christian have it right, and you have it wrong.

Bandwagon is a fallacy based on the assumption that the opinion of the majority is always valid: that is, everyone believes it, so you should too. It is also called an appeal to popularity, the authority of the many, and argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people"). Argumentum ad populum proves only that a belief is popular, not that it's true.

​

You really think your new interpretation is better than that of the early Christians?

The early Christians were Jews who believed in the six days of creation.
Any other interpretation came into Christianity from Gentiles who were not raised to believe in the accuracy of the Torah.

And as you have been taught, the creation story is explicitly figurative;

We have been taught that you believe that the creation story is explicitly figurative.

from the beginning, Christians dismissed the idea of the creation week as a literal history, pointing out that the text itself shows us this. It is absurd to imagine mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

There were a few Christians who rejected the Bible account, but that does not mean more than those few rejected it.

The good news for you, is that God doesn't care if you approve or not. You can be a YE creationist and still be saved.

It is easy for people who believe what the Bible says to be saved, but those who profess to be Christians but reject the Bible for the doctrine of evolution may have a more difficult time being saved.

 

[The Barbarian]

It is easy for people who believe what the Bible says to be saved,

But you can be saved, too. God doesn't care if you accept the way He created things. That's not how you will be judged. Only if you make an idol of your new doctrine will your salvation be at risk.

 

[ok doser]

It is easy for people who believe what the Bible says to be saved, but those who profess to be Christians but reject the Bible for the doctrine of evolution may have a more difficult time being saved.

he's trolling you GO - i reported him