What is Creation Science or "Biblical Creation"? Simple words, but how to flesh out?

[rogue06]

Thank you, Sylas. Jorge probably had made an unfounded assumption at the time of his participation in TO.

Ken Miller, Jim Oxyclean, and that Biologos dude are great examples of "Theistic Evolutionists" (A term I despise) as well. I despise the terminology because it's misleading category error jargon. Why not "Theistic Meteorology"? But I DO understand why it's used. Kinda like the "Big Bang."

Now back to my questions about a "literal" reading of the first Genesis story...

K54

Some who object to the term Theistic Evolutionists prefer to use the term Evolutionary Creationists. I use the former because most understand what I mean when I use it and often find myself having to explain the latter. Still, IMHO, its a "to-may-to, to-mah-to" kind of thing.

[rogue06]

Sylas is not necessarily lying - he simply may not recollect the history (this was quite a few years ago). Also (I thought about this last night), he wrote that he has been an Atheist for 25 years or so. That may be true. BUT - I was referring to his COMING OUT HERE ON TWEB as an Atheist. I could not know what was in his heart all along. I suspect that others here at TWEB (Jim 'may' be one ... r06 may be another) may be Atheists that are too afraid to come out of the closet. I mean, they share SO MUCH with the Materialistic views of Atheists that it is a baby step to be in the Atheist camp. Some people think that because they say, "God is my Savior" or "Christ, Christ!" that that makes them a Christian. God Himself tells us that many will learn that "God never knew them". NOTE: I am NOT NOT NOT saying that anyone here isn't a Christian. That domain is God's alone. What I AM saying is that by their fruits you shall know them. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and smells like a duck then people will be led to believe that it is a duck even though it may be a pelican.

Funny, though, how quick you are to point the finger at me (accusing others of lying) yet that same finger is 'frozen' regarding the lies written about me. Face it, Santa, you are not an honest person. Face it ... live with it ... and we'll get along better. Thank you.

Jorge

I think that it is more than safe to say, in the words of Michael Shermer (in what he calls Asimov's axiom), that you are wronger than wrong. Or if you prefer, as Wolfgang Pauli would put it, "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"

[oxmixmudd]

Sylas is not necessarily lying - he simply may not recollect the history (this was quite a few years ago). Also (I thought about this last night), he wrote that he has been an Atheist for 25 years or so. That may be true. BUT - I was referring to his COMING OUT HERE ON TWEB as an Atheist. I could not know what was in his heart all along. I suspect that others here at TWEB (Jim 'may' be one ... r06 may be another) may be Atheists that are too afraid to come out of the closet. I mean, they share SO MUCH with the Materialistic views of Atheists that it is a baby step to be in the Atheist camp. Some people think that because they say, "God is my Savior" or "Christ, Christ!" that that makes them a Christian. God Himself tells us that many will learn that "God never knew them". NOTE: I am NOT NOT NOT saying that anyone here isn't a Christian. That domain is God's alone. What I AM saying is that by their fruits you shall know them. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and smells like a duck then people will be led to believe that it is a duck even though it may be a pelican.

Funny, though, how quick you are to point the finger at me (accusing others of lying) yet that same finger is 'frozen' regarding the lies written about me. Face it, Santa, you are not an honest person. Face it ... live with it ... and we'll get along better. Thank you.

Jorge

Ok - this is getting ridiculous. I don't know who you think you are Jorge (maybe your ego has taken you up in your mind to some sort of demi-urge with the capacity to read minds and conjure the souls of those around you), but your constant insinuations and accusations about those who happen to disagree with you are going to fall away, or in this case are some sort of 'closet unbeliever' are way beyond the realm of and honest speculation based on real evidence and have moved into the realm of libel/slander.

And then there is the little matter of you trying to act as if YOU know Sylas' own personal history better than he himself does! Again, just who do you think you are? I'm beginning to think Roland's teasing of you thinking you are "God's direct mouthpiece" might just reflect reality a little more than any of us had dared suspect!!

As for 'lies' written about you? What lies Jorge? A link to your own words as you failed miserably to explain a reality even you admit is a problem for YEC (meteor impacts of sufficient size and number that they simply could not have happened so recently or in so short an interval as is implied by the YEC timeline). How can your own words be lies told by me?

Or the fact you think the scriptures imply stars can't form naturally? Even in this thread you have tried to justify that belief. There is some room for error on my part as to your theology as I am relying on my memory of previous threads on the old TWEB to flesh out the basics of what drives your need to try to find fault in the observed reality of stars forming all across the galaxy and universe. But that hardly constitutes a 'lie', and you are always free to take the time to provide a more accurate view. I certainly will accept your own clarification of your views over my own memory of what they are/were.

Or do you now to deny you base your resistance to the acceptance of stars forming naturally on your interpretation of the Bible?

Anyway - stop the slander. I am who I say I am, a Believer in Christ. Regardless of what your warped view of your 'super powers' and ' theology' might lead you to imagine.


Jim

[sylas]

Sylas is not necessarily lying - he simply may not recollect the history (this was quite a few years ago). Also (I thought about this last night), he wrote that he has been an Atheist for 25 years or so. That may be true. BUT - I was referring to his COMING OUT HERE ON TWEB as an Atheist.

That would be the same time I signed up. I was always openly atheist here at TWEB. Concealing my religious position when signing up at a Christian board is not something I would ever do, or have ever done. You can check the archives if you have them, but I am positive my first post at TWEB was in the forum for self introductions, and that I declared my unbelief as a part of my first post.

It is more than tiresome to be told by Jorge to "stop telling historical porkies" on this. Jorge remembers it wrong.

Jorge's comments on the interaction of religious faith and acceptance of science are nonsense as well. There are many many Christians who are active in defending good science with respect to cosmology, biology, astronomy. There's no reason whatever to think they are closet atheists.

It's really REALLY rude Jorge, for you to be making up out of the whole cloth all these declarations with respect to me, to Jim, or to others. You have a serious problem with dealing with basic simple reality on all kinds of things. It's somewhat surreal to watch.

Sylas

PS. I originally signed up as "silas", in 2003 I think, but was permitted to change the spelling after a time, as it was getting confused too often with Silas of the New Testament.

[phank]

Some who object to the term Theistic Evolutionists prefer to use the term Evolutionary Creationists. I use the former because most understand what I mean when I use it and often find myself having to explain the latter. Still, IMHO, its a "to-may-to, to-mah-to" kind of thing.

I always assume you mean something like "natural history occurred the way it has due to natural causes, but at least one god played some critical role in it." And I always get stumped as to whether this means that at least one god is "natural", or whether that god got things kick-started, or whether it's continuously diddling reality, or what. So I just factor out all the gods anyway, since everything known about reality requires none of them in any explanatory role. I don't personally regard figuring out the meaning of life as an aspect of natural science.

[klaus54]

Sylas is not necessarily lying - he simply may not recollect the history (this was quite a few years ago). Also (I thought about this last night), he wrote that he has been an Atheist for 25 years or so. That may be true. BUT - I was referring to his COMING OUT HERE ON TWEB as an Atheist. I could not know what was in his heart all along. I suspect that others here at TWEB (Jim 'may' be one ... r06 may be another) may be Atheists that are too afraid to come out of the closet. I mean, they share SO MUCH with the Materialistic views of Atheists that it is a baby step to be in the Atheist camp. Some people think that because they say, "God is my Savior" or "Christ, Christ!" that that makes them a Christian. God Himself tells us that many will learn that "God never knew them". NOTE: I am NOT NOT NOT saying that anyone here isn't a Christian. That domain is God's alone. What I AM saying is that by their fruits you shall know them. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and smells like a duck then people will be led to believe that it is a duck even though it may be a pelican.

Funny, though, how quick you are to point the finger at me (accusing others of lying) yet that same finger is 'frozen' regarding the lies written about me. Face it, Santa, you are not an honest person. Face it ... live with it ... and we'll get along better. Thank you.

Jorge

Jorge,

1) In view of Sylas' explanation, do you have difficulty admitting you are wrong?

2) IMHO, the "baby steps" toward atheism come from the Luddite view of science and the insistence of a "literal" interpretation of Genesis, which so far you haven't be able to flesh out unambiguously. It seemeth to me a prima facie example of projection.

Now -- Ge 1:2, PLEASE!

K54

[klaus54]

I always assume you mean something like "natural history occurred the way it has due to natural causes, but at least one god played some critical role in it." And I always get stumped as to whether this means that at least one god is "natural", or whether that god got things kick-started, or whether it's continuously diddling reality, or what. So I just factor out all the gods anyway, since everything known about reality requires none of them in any explanatory role. I don't personally regard figuring out the meaning of life as an aspect of natural science.

Me too.

1) Sounds a lot like my opinion of ID. How is the D involved in the D?

2) Absolutely correct. Science can't answer the "meaning of it all" question.

K54

[Jorge]

In what way am I being "less than honest"? YOU claim that a literal reading of the first Genesis story is only correct one. I'm assuming literal means "clear and unambiguously mapped to physical reality." Do you disagree with that definition?

What I disagree with is the second sentence above. You (conveniently) forget that literal language may be intermixed with figurative, allegorical and poetic language. Study and the application of a sound, time-proven exegesis and hermeneutic will allow us discern which is which MOST of the time.

Now I'm trying to tease out your views here. Are you saying the first few verses of the first Genesis story are "figurative"? If not then please map them to reality. (I can understand "In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth" as "literal" in some sense -- ultimate origins, beginning of space-time and the Cosmos.) Then why aren't the Days "figurative" as well?

What I HAVE said - clearly, or so I thought - was regarding the word "light".

Tell me, are you being paid to waste my time? Hmmm ... Satan perhaps ...

Why can't the stories be meant in an accommodationalist manner? What's wrong with that? Well, let's concentrate on the literal-unambiguous-physical reading now. We can return to interpretations in another thread.

Can't now. On this trip I will have precious little time -- much too much to do. Today and tomorrow I'm in Houston, TX but will end the day in Ft. Worth, TX. Wednesday and Thursday I'll be in Arkansas and Friday in Amarillo, TX. You get the idea, yes?

If you believe the first few verses are figurative, then would you please tell me where the real physical history starts? Which verse? Then please start mapping the text unambiguously to physical history.

And it's hardly "straining at gnats" to ask for a mapping to physical reality of the VERY FOUNDATION of Creation -- the earliest state of Creation. Please answer my simple questions, PLEASE don't project!

K54

It might help if you figured out what you're after besides nit-picking. You come across as a really confused dude hoping to find something - anything! - to trip-up your ideological opposition. I regard that as highly dishonest. ANYONE can be tripped up. Not too long ago R. Dawkins could not even state the complete name of his "bible" - Darwin's "Origin of Species". So, yes, anyone can miss something at any time. But that's not how debates are won and less how truth is obtained.

Jorge

[Jorge]

That would be the same time I signed up. I was always openly atheist here at TWEB. Concealing my religious position when signing up at a Christian board is not something I would ever do, or have ever done. You can check the archives if you have them, but I am positive my first post at TWEB was in the forum for self introductions, and that I declared my unbelief as a part of my first post.

It is more than tiresome to be told by Jorge to "stop telling historical porkies" on this. Jorge remembers it wrong.

Jorge's comments on the interaction of religious faith and acceptance of science are nonsense as well. There are many many Christians who are active in defending good science with respect to cosmology, biology, astronomy. There's no reason whatever to think they are closet atheists.

It's really REALLY rude Jorge, for you to be making up out of the whole cloth all these declarations with respect to me, to Jim, or to others. You have a serious problem with dealing with basic simple reality on all kinds of things. It's somewhat surreal to watch.

Sylas

PS. I originally signed up as "silas", in 2003 I think, but was permitted to change the spelling after a time, as it was getting confused too often with Silas of the New Testament.

I will simply say this: There has to be SOMEONE besides myself that recalls this history. Problem is that if they are one of your compadres than I stand a snowball's chance in hell that they will come out to support me. If they belong to my camp then they may not have been here since 2002 or they may not recollect or some other obstacle.

BOTTOM LINE - I'm not going to sweat this too much. YOU certainly know the truth in this matter as does God (yup, the same God that you deny). I stand ready for His judgment on this as well as on all other matters.

You speak of my words regarding "the interaction of religious faith and acceptance of science" as "NONSENSE". All I will say about that is that you should at least refrain from criticizing that which you neither know nor understand. That will make you appear smarter than you may actually be.

Lastly, you say that I have a "serious problem dealing with basic simple reality on all kinds of things". As an Atheist, you really, I mean REALLY ought to stay away from such declarations. Rank foolishness oozes right out of their pores whenever an Atheist/Materialist/Humanist even mentions the word "reality".

Keep searching, Sylas ... it may come.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

I will simply say this: There has to be SOMEONE besides myself that recalls this history. Problem is that if they are one of your compadres than I stand a snowball's chance in hell that they will come out to support me. If they belong to my camp then they may not have been here since 2002 or they may not recollect or some other obstacle.

BOTTOM LINE - I'm not going to sweat this too much. YOU certainly know the truth in this matter as does God (yup, the same God that you deny). I stand ready for His judgment on this as well as on all other matters.

You speak of my words regarding "the interaction of religious faith and acceptance of science" as "NONSENSE". All I will say about that is that you should at least refrain from criticizing that which you neither know nor understand. That will make you appear smarter than you may actually be.

Lastly, you say that I have a "serious problem dealing with basic simple reality on all kinds of things". As an Atheist, you really, I mean REALLY ought to stay away from such declarations. Rank foolishness oozes right out of their pores whenever an Atheist/Materialist/Humanist even mentions the word "reality".

Keep searching, Sylas ... it may come.

Jorge

It is so interesting and enlightening to see just how far you will go to avoid simply admitting you could have made a mistake. There are many ways you could address this issue that would show a tad of humility, just an ounce of capacity to recognize you could in some fashion have misunderstood. Yet you avoid them all. It clarifies so, so much

Jim

[klaus54]

What I disagree with is the second sentence above. You (conveniently) forget that literal language may be intermixed with figurative, allegorical and poetic language. Study and the application of a sound, time-proven exegesis and hermeneutic will allow us discern which is which MOST of the time.



What I HAVE said - clearly, or so I thought - was regarding the word "light".

Tell me, are you being paid to waste my time? Hmmm ... Satan perhaps ...



Can't now. On this trip I will have precious little time -- much too much to do. Today and tomorrow I'm in Houston, TX but will end the day in Ft. Worth, TX. Wednesday and Thursday I'll be in Arkansas and Friday in Amarillo, TX. You get the idea, yes?



It might help if you figured out what you're after besides nit-picking. You come across as a really confused dude hoping to find something - anything! - to trip-up your ideological opposition. I regard that as highly dishonest. ANYONE can be tripped up. Not too long ago R. Dawkins could not even state the complete name of his "bible" - Darwin's "Origin of Species". So, yes, anyone can miss something at any time. But that's not how debates are won and less how truth is obtained.

Jorge

Wow! That was helpful. NOT! Apparently I have some association with Satan now. Looks like that's a new one for the list.

So if the figurative is intermixed with the literal how can you tell which is which?

Oh, and back to the main point -- for the parts that ARE literal (assuming you can tell), can you give an unambiguous mapping to the physical? I mean, if you're not interpreting, the meaning must be plain and clear and thus injectively map-able to reality.

"the earth was without form, and void..." - Figurative or literal? If the latter, please map it unambiguously to the physical phenomena. And if the former, how did you tell?

Have yet another go. But try even HARDER this time, por favor.

K54

P.S. Thanks for the lesson. You taught me something today! I didn't realize before now that Dawkins' Bible was Origin of Species. Fascinating! Sounds like a category error, but what do I know?

[lilpixieofterror]

I will simply say this: There has to be SOMEONE besides myself that recalls this history. Problem is that if they are one of your compadres than I stand a snowball's chance in hell that they will come out to support me. If they belong to my camp then they may not have been here since 2002 or they may not recollect or some other obstacle.

Tweb was founded in 2003, so how could these people not be here since 2002, when tweb wasn't around yet?. If you can't even remember basic details, such as that. Why should anybody believe you when you make bigger claims that the person they are about denies as being accurate?

[klaus54]

Jorge,

You need to apologize to Sylas for continuing to doubt his word, or AT LEAST ADMIT YOU WERE MISTAKEN!

If you doubt an eyewitness, nay, someone's OWN recollection of his history, then how can anyone expect you to give an honest exegesis of a "literal" Genesis 1 story?

Apologize to Sylas, admit you were wrong, and then get back to answering questions.

Gracias!

K54

[sylas]

I will simply say this: There has to be SOMEONE besides myself that recalls this history. Problem is that if they are one of your compadres than I stand a snowball's chance in hell that they will come out to support me. If they belong to my camp then they may not have been here since 2002 or they may not recollect or some other obstacle.

Typical Atheist - re-writing history to suit an agenda.

I DISTINCTLY remember the early conversations with Sylas (circa 2002) in which he was NOT out as an Atheist - he was a Theistic Evolutionist or something closely related. Just as clearly, I remember the post where he was then (and ever-after) an ATHEIST. I remember this because I remember commenting something like, "Ah, wasn't that predictable ... it did not surprise me at all." Words to that effect.

[rogue06]

It is so interesting and enlightening to see just how far you will go to avoid simply admitting you could have made a mistake. There are many ways you could address this issue that would show a tad of humility, just an ounce of capacity to recognize you could in some fashion have misunderstood. Yet you avoid them all. It clarifies so, so much

Jim

The most obvious of which is that he could be mistaking sylas for someone else.