A short explaination of the human-nature

[Estrid]

The geologic column isn't part of the story of ancient times? Are you really going to maintain that position?



Not required, as per the definition.

Yes, it does.

The evidences we have from the start of civilization, as well as the biblical story of the flood are in synch with it.

Did first humans emerge from Middle East, not Africa?

Scientists could be compelled to rewrite the history of the evolution of modern man after the discovery of 400,000-year-old human remains.

www.deccanherald.com

Here's a more recent one:

Archaeologists discover 400,000-year-old paleo snack pack in Israeli cave

Researchers find prehistoric man had technique for storing bone marrow for up to nine weeks, which they replicate in gruesome experiment

www.timesofisrael.com

Because that's what it is usually called.

Richard Dawkins, one of the most prolific evangelists for Evolution, wrote these books:

“Climbing Mount Improbable” “River Out of Eden”“The Ancestor’s Tale” “The Blind Watchmaker” “The Evolution of Life”

Are you seriously saying that the story of evolution is not a story? Before you answer, take one more look at the book titles.

I'm not going to address equivocation.
So I will leave most of your post at entrance to
rabbit hole.

Id seen the 400k date, and I think its so far not
been falsified.

It is not imo legit to call that evidence of origin tho.
Else each time a new oldest is found, the place of origin
must leap about in a most unseemly way.

" oldest ( presently) known" is what we have there.


Does accepting that date affect your view of
Bible " history" concerning human origins?

You are aware that H. erectus dates to at least
1.6 million years.

And that they used fire, made flint tools.


How does that comport with Bible myth?

 

[Derf]

I already know that. Going into the future, and being that I do study Hermeneutics with all else I've studied, just assume I have a handle on the place of interpetation in both science and in religion, even with the Christian Faith. OUR Christian Faith.

You mean yours and mine? Where we learn what God has to say about His creation from the Bible, since He was actually there when it happened, instead of trying to jam the Bible into modern creation myths? That Christian faith?

Being that I'm an advocate of education,

As long as it's the accepted education, right?

I'm all for promoting their furthered education so they don't blindly accept whatever story they're told, from whatever institution.

So you're all for explaining the creation story in the Bible without trying to jimmy it into a secular model? Good!

And no, educated Christians ARE NOT doing more damage than atheists. If you continue on that path of accusation, I'll rip it apart !!!

Who said anything about educated Christians?

This kind of accusation insinuates that you're unwilling to engage the book that I cited, which doesn't really tell me that you yourself don't prefer sticking your head in the sand.

I dont have the book. Did you read the articles I provided links to? If the findings prove to be correct, it invalidates (=shows to be false) multiple decades of the natural history you are so enamored with. And, coincidentally, moves your "story" into the second definition of "myth", where the story isn't even true.

You can do better than this, can't you?

Do better than what? Tell you the meaning of words, when you don't seem to know what they mean? I shouldn't have to be doing it at all, since you wear your education in your sleeve. I work with PhD physicists...And they are often wrong about things. I've read experts in biblical languages, and they don't all agree with each other. You and I have the honorable and heavy responsibility of determining who is telling the truth. If you are going to get offended when I state my viewpoint, then you should move on to another thread. But if you want to have an intelligent conversation, keep your temper in check and present your ideas in a cogent way.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You mean yours and mine? Where we learn what God has to say about His creation from the Bible, since He was actually there when it happened, instead of trying to jam the Bible into modern creation myths? That Christian faith?

Yes, I mean yours and mine. I will not accept some other Christian implicating that I'm somehow "lesser" then they spiritually simply because I hold my faith in Christin via a different Epistemological approach.

Moreover, no one is "jammin" the Bible into what you call modern creation myths. I actually see Genesis as a sacred text and I keep it separate from science. Hermeneutically speaking, I'm not a Gap-Theorist or a Day-Age Theorist.

What's more: I have zero qualms with fundamentalist brethren who want to hold to a more literal interpretation. That's fine by me. What I won't put up with is the insinution that I'm somehow "less" than.

As long as it's the accepted education, right?

There's several forms of education: an Ultra-Liberal one isn't one I advocate. So, get that straight right now!

So you're all for explaining the creation story in the Bible without trying to jimmy it into a secular model? Good!

Who said anything about educated Christians?

I'm saying that education for Christians-----for any Christians------is a good thing.

I dont have the book. Did you read the articles I provided links to? If the findings prove to be correct, it invalidates (=shows to be false) multiple decades of the natural history you are so enamored with. And, coincidentally, moves your "story" into the second definition of "myth", where the story isn't even true.

I don't have to accept Richard Dawkin's account; he's a Philosophical Naturalist. And I'm not.

And no, it doesn't "move" anything into any other denotation of myth, a term that you just can't help but to keep misusing.

Do better than what? Tell you the meaning of words, when you don't seem to know what they mean? I shouldn't have to be doing it at all, since you wear your education in your sleeve. I work with PhD physicists...And they are often wrong about things. I've read experts in biblical languages, and they don't all agree with each other. You and I have the honorable and heavy responsibility of determining who is telling the truth. If you are going to get offended when I state my viewpoint, then you should move on to another thread. But if you want to have an intelligent conversation, keep your temper in check and present your ideas in a cogent way.

You work with PhD physicists? Do tell? You actually work with them? In the same work-center? If so, I'm surely impressed. I'd like to know who you work with.

Y'know, it sounds like we've both read a lot and studied a fair amount. We could just compare notes rather than griping at each other. Want to try that? I have a truckload of books on both various positions in Creationism and in Evolution. Where do you want to start?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You mean yours and mine? Where we learn what God has to say about His creation from the Bible, since He was actually there when it happened, instead of trying to jam the Bible into modern creation myths? That Christian faith?

As long as it's the accepted education, right?

So you're all for explaining the creation story in the Bible without trying to jimmy it into a secular model? Good!

Who said anything about educated Christians?


I dont have the book. Did you read the articles I provided links to? If the findings prove to be correct, it invalidates (=shows to be false) multiple decades of the natural history you are so enamored with. And, coincidentally, moves your "story" into the second definition of "myth", where the story isn't even true.



Do better than what? Tell you the meaning of words, when you don't seem to know what they mean? I shouldn't have to be doing it at all, since you wear your education in your sleeve. I work with PhD physicists...And they are often wrong about things. I've read experts in biblical languages, and they don't all agree with each other. You and I have the honorable and heavy responsibility of determining who is telling the truth. If you are going to get offended when I state my viewpoint, then you should move on to another thread. But if you want to have an intelligent conversation, keep your temper in check and present your ideas in a cogent way.

And yes, I DO get irritated, because I've always found myself having to defend my views from crap thrown by both "fellow" Christians on one side and hardened atheistic Ex-Christians on the other.

 

[Derf]

I'm not going to address equivocation.
So I will leave most of your post at entrance to
rabbit hole.

I'll take that as an admission that you learned something new.

Id seen the 400k date, and I think its so far not
been falsified.

Right.

It is not imo legit to call that evidence of origin tho.
Else each time a new oldest is found, the place of origin
must leap about in a most unseemly way.

Indeed. And a convenient way to admit you, and all who hold to the "out of Africa" myth were possibly wrong.

" oldest ( presently) known" is what we have there.

Which says that either homo sapiens did not first come out of Africa, or they did, but the evidence to prove it is missing. Shall we go back to the definitions of "myth" again?

Does accepting that date affect your view of
Bible " history" concerning human origins?

I have serious reservations about the dating of such things. The methods have proven unreliable in many instances.

You are aware that H. erectus dates to at least
1.6 million years.

1.85 to 1.9, last I checked.

And that they used fire, made flint tools.

And they possibly didn't originate in Africa either:

From Homo erectus, our ancient ancestor
"The conventional view (read "the traditional story", or myth) is that the species evolved in Africa about two million years ago."

But recent discoveries outside of Africa may contradict that story:
"Some researchers believe that the distinctive features of the Dmanisi fossils (including the smaller body and brain sizes) point to this being a more primitive species than H. erectus, which could be called Homo georgicus. However, others feel that these features simply reflect its position as a very early member of the species H.erectus.

Earlier than Turkana boy? The dates are surely close enough to question it.

How does that comport with Bible myth?

The extended human, and even animal, existence does not for with the biblical creation myth at all. Just like the insistence that there wasn't a worldwide flood doesn't fit. But the evidence for a worldwide flood is inundating, if you'll pardon the pun.

 

[Derf]

Yes, I mean yours and mine. I will not accept some other Christian implicating that I'm somehow "lesser" then they spiritually simply because I hold my faith in Christin via a different Epistemological approach.

Not sure how that applies here. You do believe the Bible is the word of God, right?

Moreover, no one is "jammin" the Bible into what you call modern creation myths. I actually see Genesis as a sacred text and I keep it separate from science. Hermeneutically speaking, I'm not a Gap-Theorist or a Day-Age Theorist.

What's more: I have zero qualms with fundamentalist brethren who want to hold to a more literal interpretation. That's fine by me. What I won't put up with is the insinution that I'm somehow "less" than.

Only if you can't explain your own position.

There's several forms of education: an Ultra-Liberal one isn't one I advocate. So, get that straight right now!

I'm saying that education for Christians-----for any Christians------is a good thing.

Agreed. But Christians shouldn't worship at the altar of education. The Tree of Knowledge still trips us up sometimes.

1 Corinthians 1:27 KJV — But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

I don't have to accept Richard Dawkin's account; he's a Philosophical Naturalist. And I'm not.

Ok.

And no, it doesn't "move" anything into any other denotation of myth, a term that you just can't help but to keep misusing.

Would you like to explain how I'm misusing it?

You work with PhD physicists? Do tell? You actually work with them? In the same work-center?

I did, but I'm semi-retired. It wasn't work related to origins, but the principle is the same. They aren't a perfect reference--so don't just accept what They say unquestioningly.

If so, I'm surely impressed. I'd like to know who you work with.

Y'know, it sounds like we've both read a lot and studied a fair amount. We could just compare notes rather than griping at each other. Want to try that? I have a truckload of books on both various positions in Creationism and in Evolution. Where do you want to start?

Start with explaining your view instead of pointing to someone else's book.

And yes, I DO get irritated, because I've always found myself having to defend my views from crap thrown by both "fellow" Christians on one side and hardened atheistic Ex-Christians on the other.

I thought that was part of the scientific process. Why would it irritate you to have to defend your view?

 

[Estrid]

I'll take that as an admission that you learned something new.

Right.

Indeed. And a convenient way to admit you, and all who hold to the "out of Africa" myth were possibly wrong.

Which says that either homo sapiens did not first come out of Africa, or they did, but the evidence to prove it is missing. Shall we go back to the definitions of "myth" again?

I have serious reservations about the dating of such things. The methods have proven unreliable in many instances.

1.85 to 1.9, last I checked.

And they possibly didn't originate in Africa either:

From Homo erectus, our ancient ancestor
"The conventional view (read "the traditional story", or myth) is that the species evolved in Africa about two million years ago."

But recent discoveries outside of Africa may contradict that story:
"Some researchers believe that the distinctive features of the Dmanisi fossils (including the smaller body and brain sizes) point to this being a more primitive species than H. erectus, which could be called Homo georgicus. However, others feel that these features simply reflect its position as a very early member of the species H.erectus.

Earlier than Turkana boy? The dates are surely close enough to question it.


The extended human, and even animal, existence does not for with the biblical creation myth at all. Just like the insistence that there wasn't a worldwide flood doesn't fit. But the evidence for a worldwide flood is inundating, if you'll pardon the pun

Why cite dates you don't accept as valid, or
speak of evidence in any connections at all?

Belief in "flood" shows evidence has no bearing on
your beliefs.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not sure how that applies here. You do believe the Bible is the word of God, right?

I do. But that doesn't mean that for my view of the Bible to qualify as "Christian" it has to fall within conceptual grids that only your favorite local pastor will accept.

Only if you can't explain your own position.

Oh, don't worry. Given enough time, I can explain my own position. What I find all too often is that once I get started and another person realizes that I am fully capable of explicating the finer details------------they disappear.

Agreed. But Christians shouldn't worship at the altar of education. The Tree of Knowledge still trips us up sometimes.

Not only are you conflating concepts and making category mistakes, it's not "Knowledge" per say that is (or ever was) the problem. The myth of Adam and Eve doesn't focus upon a mere "Tree of Knowledge." No, it's not general knowledge that's is the corruptive force in the Bible. It's "knowing" good and evil in a way that is not prescribed by God.

... besides, I think you more accurately meant to say that Christians shouldn't worship at the altar of Secular Education. But what would "worshipping" of Secual Education entail exactly?

1 Corinthians 1:27 KJV — But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

Yeah, about that. Shouldn't you be reading and citing the entire passage. There's more to that passage Paul wrote, and more to his overall meaning, than what you're quoting. So, I think your attempted citation of Paul falls flat and only serves as a kind of strawman argument.

Ok.

Would you like to explain how I'm misusing it?

I already told you how you're misplacing the conceptual referents of the denotation you've used. In fact, the form of your argument is not too dissimilar than that which Marxist theorists seem to use when they refer to "metanarratives." And again, the Geologic Column, a mental abstract of correlation, isn't a "meta-narrative" either.

I did, but I'm semi-retired. It wasn't work related to origins, but the principle is the same. They aren't a perfect reference--so don't just accept what They say unquestioningly.

I never do. I wouldn't have received my own university degrees if I ever had just taken any and all PhD sources without question ......................

Start with explaining your view instead of pointing to someone else's book.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Any one person's view has sources, and I most definitely will rely on those sources which I think are cogent. Hence, the reason I cite my specific sources. That's how Epistemology typically works, whatever your approach to it is.

Have you studied Epistemology?

And you haven't explained your own view yet other than to abrubptly tell me and Estrid that you think the Geologic Column qualifies as a "myth," but you insisted that I go 'check out' your links. By your double-standard, I shouldn't have to check out your links.

I thought that was part of the scientific process. Why would it irritate you to have to defend your view?

That depends on what you think a scientific method is. Do you read anyting on the Philosophy of Science or the Nature of Science?

 

[Derf]

Why cite dates you don't accept as valid, or
speak of evidence in any connections at all?

Your beliefs are challenged by your dates. So I cite them. If i just cited my beliefs, and quoted the bible, would you learn anything? I doubt it...you've already rejected my beliefs and sources of truth. So I turn to your beliefs and sources of truth to show that they contradict each other. Hopefully, when you see that your beliefs are being dashed to pieces by your sources of truth, you will search for better truth sources.

Belief in "flood" shows evidence has no bearing on
your beliefs.

Why do you say that? Flood evidence is everywhere. What kind of fossils are found on Mt Everest? Marine fossils.

"Called the "Qomolangma Limestone" by geologists, the summit rocks are well-bedded limestone (grainstone) with fragments of common Ordovician marine invertebrate shells, such as trilobites, brachiopods, ostracods and crinoids." (From Summit Limestone - Everest Education Expedition | Montana State University)


What kind of fossils are found in Grand Canyon? Marine fossils.

"The sedimentary rocks exposed throughout the canyon are rich with marine fossils such as crinoids, brachiopods, and sponges..." (from Fossils - Grand Canyon National Park (U.S. National Park Service))

Marine fossils are found almost everywhere other fossils are found, too.

Of course your scientists will say it wasn't a flood:
"When we find these fossils it tells us...
(here comes the story/myth to explain the evidence in your mythology)
that these rocks were laid down in marine conditions, i.e. under the sea. The reason they're now up a mountain is due to plate tectonic processes like mountain building. When the continents collide together it results in large scale tectonic forces that uplift the land, pushing rocks upwards to create mountains," Dr Katie Strang said.
(From Man Finds Sea Fossil on Mountain and People Think It's Proof of Great Flood)
But if you look at that article, it describes a beautifully preserved crinoid including soft tissue...something that is rarely (never?) preserved in normal marine environments.

 

[Derf]

I do. But that doesn't mean that for my view of the Bible to qualify as "Christian" it has to fall within conceptual grids that only your favorite local pastor will accept.

I disagree with my pastor regularly. What does he have to do with this? Are you only able to tout others' beliefs, so you assume I'm that way, too?

Oh, don't worry. Given enough time, I can explain my own position.

Still waiting...

What I find all too often is that once I get started and another person realizes that I am fully capable of explicating the finer details------------they disappear.

That's from boredom, probably.

Not only are you conflating concepts and making category mistakes, it's not "Knowledge" per say that is (or ever was) the problem. The myth of Adam and Eve doesn't focus upon a mere "Tree of Knowledge." No, it's not general knowledge that's is the corruptive force in the Bible. It's "knowing" good and evil in a way that is not prescribed by God.

... besides, I think you more accurately meant to say that Christians shouldn't worship at the altar of Secular Education. But what would "worshipping" of Secual Education entail exactly?

Yeah, about that. Shouldn't you be reading and citing the entire passage. There's more to that passage Paul wrote, and more to his overall meaning, than what you're quoting. So, I think your attempted citation of Paul falls flat and only serves as a kind of strawman argument.

I already told you how you're misplacing the conceptual referents of the denotation you've used. In fact, the form of your argument is not too dissimilar than that which Marxist theorists seem to use when they refer to "metanarratives." And again, the Geologic Column, a mental abstract of correlation, isn't a "meta-narrative" either.

Yet in all of that you don't explain what is "right", only that I'm doing something wrong. What do YOU believe? (Try not to be boring. Use language gauged to your audience, and stay on thread-topic.) If you need to quote a passage, secular or biblical, do so, but explain what you are wanting me to see in the passage.

("What do they teach them in schools these days?")

I never do. I wouldn't have received my own university degrees if I ever had just taken any and all PhD sources without question ......................

Yet you don't seem able to explain your views. Why is that?

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Any one person's view has sources, and I most definitely will rely on those sources which I think are cogent. Hence, the reason I cite my specific sources. That's how Epistemology typically works, whatever your approach to it is.

Cite your sources by explaining what they say. Don't just tell me to go read a bunch of books.

Have you studied Epistemology?

Is that what you'd rather talk about? Start a new thread and tag me in it.

And you haven't explained your own view yet other than to abrubptly tell me and Estrid that you think the Geologic Column qualifies as a "myth," but you insisted that I go 'check out' your links. By your double-standard, I shouldn't have to check out your links.

Meaning you didn't read them? Whose got the double standard?
That's why I first explained my position (which is that the other position is a story of origins that can be called a myth), then used those that agree with that story to prove my point. This is something you should have learned when doing your advanced degrees.

That depends on what you think a scientific method is. Do you read anyting on the Philosophy of Science or the Nature of Science?

No, it doesn't depend on what I think. All good science must be able to be challenged or it is religion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I disagree with my pastor regularly. What does he have to do with this? Are you only able to tout others' beliefs, so you assume I'm that way, too?


Still waiting...

That's from boredom, probably.

Yet in all of that you don't explain what is "right", only that I'm doing something wrong. What do YOU believe? (Try not to be boring. Use language gauged to your audience, and stay on thread-topic.) If you need to quote a passage, secular or biblical, do so, but explain what you are wanting me to see in the passage.

("What do they teach them in schools these days?")


Yet you don't seem able to explain your views. Why is that?


Cite your sources by explaining what they say. Don't just tell me to go read a bunch of books.

Is that what you'd rather talk about? Start a new thread and tag me in it.


Meaning you didn't read them? Whose got the double standard?
That's why I first explained my position (which is that the other position is a story of origins that can be called a myth), then used those that agree with that story to prove my point. This is something you should have learned when doing your advanced degrees.


No, it doesn't depend on what I think. All good science must be able to be challenged or it is religion.

Ok. Since you've made way, way too many insinuations about what it is you think I think, let's do it "your" way. Let's just assume you are the "wise one" between us and I'm the utterly ignorant idiot who didn't get his money's worth with his education.

So, you explain to me how the term "myth" should be understood and, thereby, how it is you think it applies to the Geologic Column.

Please know that I'm needing to understand, through my stupidity, how I am prescriptively liable to adhere to your use and application of the term, "Myth."

Please explain to me why you think this should not require more than a dictionary reference.

 

[Estrid]

Your beliefs are challenged by your dates. So I cite them. If i just cited my beliefs, and quoted the bible, would you learn anything? I doubt it...you've already rejected my beliefs and sources of truth. So I turn to your beliefs and sources of truth to show that they contradict each other. Hopefully, when you see that your beliefs are being dashed to pieces by your sources of truth, you will search for better truth sources.


Why do you say that? Flood evidence is everywhere. What kind of fossils are found on Mt Everest? Marine fossils.

"Called the "Qomolangma Limestone" by geologists, the summit rocks are well-bedded limestone (grainstone) with fragments of common Ordovician marine invertebrate shells, such as trilobites, brachiopods, ostracods and crinoids." (From Summit Limestone - Everest Education Expedition | Montana State University)


What kind of fossils are found in Grand Canyon? Marine fossils.

"The sedimentary rocks exposed throughout the canyon are rich with marine fossils such as crinoids, brachiopods, and sponges..." (from Fossils - Grand Canyon National Park (U.S. National Park Service))

Marine fossils are found almost everywhere other fossils are found, too.

Of course your scientists will say it wasn't a flood:
"When we find these fossils it tells us...
(here comes the story/myth to explain the evidence in your mythology)
that these rocks were laid down in marine conditions, i.e. under the sea. The reason they're now up a mountain is due to plate tectonic processes like mountain building. When the continents collide together it results in large scale tectonic forces that uplift the land, pushing rocks upwards to create mountains," Dr Katie Strang said.
(From Man Finds Sea Fossil on Mountain and People Think It's Proof of Great Flood)
But if you look at that article, it describes a beautifully preserved crinoid including soft tissue...something that is rarely (never?) preserved in normal marine

Why do I say that? Because your Noah- flood
is disproved 10,000 times over.
Do you know that?


It's kinda like if you are accused of murder
in Bangkok.

The prosecution can misrepresent all the evidence
they like.

But if you'd been having high tea with Queen E
at the time that can be proved and their theories
add up to zero. Not guilty.

Of course if you got a court that followed your
standards of evidence, like conclusion first,
only testimony against you is considered,
expert witnesses are sneered at etc, well, good luck.

Your view on due diligence, bias, truthfulness,
intellectualvintegrity etc would probably change a lot in those circumstances.

 

[Derf]

Why do I say that? Because your Noah- flood
is disproved 10,000 times over.
Do you know that?

Yet, here we are, still having this conversation. Would you like to offer some tidbit of proof, or should I just take your word for it?

 

[Derf]

Ok. Since you've made way, way too many insinuations about what it is you think I think,

Which is necessary, since you won't tell me what you think.

let's do it "your" way. Let's just assume you are the "wise one" between us and I'm the utterly ignorant idiot who didn't get his money's worth with his education.

No need to assume that until evidence is provided to the contrary.

So, you explain to me how the term "myth" should be understood and, thereby, how it is you think it applies to the Geologic Column.

Did that already. Go read some of those earlier posts you must have glossed over.

Please know that I'm needing to understand, through my stupidity, how I am prescriptively liable to adhere to your use and application of the term, "Myth."

You aren't required to. But you joined in a conversation where it was being used, and you disagreed with its use therein.

Please explain to me why you think this should not require more than a dictionary reference.

I even provided the dictionary reference that you have yet to acknowledge. Why should I go further than that at this time?

Are you truly asking me to explain my use of "myth" in regards to the geologic column? It's a story that is trying to explain the evidence. The story is about origins, which makes it a creation story. It is not an eye witness account handed down, so it's filled with conjecture, some of which may be true, but some of which may be already proved to be false.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Which is necessary, since you won't tell me what you think.



No need to assume that until evidence is provided to the contrary.

Did that already. Go read some of those earlier posts you must have glossed over.

You aren't required to. But you joined in a conversation where it was being used, and you disagreed with its use therein.


I even provided the dictionary reference that you have yet to acknowledge. Why should I go further than that at this time?

Are you truly asking me to explain my use of "myth" in regards to the geologic column? It's a story that is trying to explain the evidence. The story is about origins, which makes it a creation story. It is not an eye witness account handed down, so it's filled with conjecture, some of which may be true, but some of which may be already proved to be false.

Ok. Obviously you and I come at all of this from very different epistemological angles. I'll just leave it at that since I unfortunately only have time to be on here 3 or 4 minutes at a time.

With that I'll just say I'm going to stick with all that I've learned from about 100 plus PhDs, Christian or otherwise.

So, be blessed in Christ!

 

[Derf]

Ok. Obviously you and I come at all of this from very different epistemological angles.

It's not obvious to me, since you won't even attempt to explain yourself.

I'll just leave it at that since I unfortunately only have time to be on here 3 or 4 minutes at a time.

I understand that. But I hope you can verbalize your position in those you choose to participate in.

With that I'll just say I'm going to stick with all that I've learned from about 100 plus PhDs, Christian or otherwise.

Not impressive, if, after listening to 100 plus PhDs, you can't even type out a little bit of what they say.

So, be blessed in Christ!

Thanks. You too.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's not obvious to me, since you won't even attempt to explain yourself.


I understand that. But I hope you can verbalize your position in those you choose to participate in.


Not impressive, if, after listening to 100 plus PhDs, you can't even type out a little bit of what they say.


Thanks. You too.

Derf. Or Fred. Just stop while you're ahead ...

 

[Derf]

Derf. Or Fred. Just stop while you're ahead ...

I guess I dont feel "ahead" if you walk away not agreeing with me, and me not having heard your view. It's not about winning, but about coming to the knowledge of the truth. Not my or your truth, but the truth. But go in peace, and may we meet again under more favorable epistemological conditions.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I guess I dont feel "ahead" if you walk away not agreeing with me, and me not having heard your view. It's not about winning, but about coming to the knowledge of the truth. Not my or your truth, but the truth. But go in peace, and may we meet again under more favorable epistemological conditions.

I don't know about you, but for me, this whole "Creationism VS. Evolutionism" or "Faith VS. Science" isn't a major issue.

And so I don't typically expend all that much energy on it.

 

[Derf]

I don't know about you, but for me, this whole "Creationism VS. Evolutionism" or "Faith VS. Science" isn't a major issue.

And so I don't typically expend all that much energy on it.

From what I hear, somewhere close to 88% of kids who grew up in church (Christian parents and maybe Christians themselves) reject their faith when they go off to college. The reason? Evolution.

Personal story: I witnessed to a co-worker of mine about Jesus death and resurrection, that we can believe in life everlasting because of Him. His response? "I can't believe in that because of science. He grew up going to church. His mother was a Christian (Not sure about his father).

Another personal story: my son went to a science-based college. The first semester one professor quizzed the students whether they believed in a 6 day creation somewhere around 6-10k years ago. 10 or 15 answered yes. Throughout the semester he would repeat the question, and graph the response! At the end, there were 3. My son and his roommate, and one other guy. And my son admitted he struggled greatly with the issue. It was a major issue for the God-denying professor. Shouldn't it also be for those who love God?

If you care about future generations of Christians, including your own children, you would care about this issue. It IS a faith issue. The message the kids get is "faith vs science". But "science" has repeatedly been wrong in the evolution front.

1 Timothy 6:20 KJV — O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called

2 Peter 3:5-6 KJV — For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: