Kirk Cameron on a crusade to debunk evolution

[jlay]

Whaaaaat?? I'm not here to debate that with you. I'm just telling the reality that many OECers don't want to accept.

But I completely disagree with this statement.

A lot of it boils down to translation.. The YEC movement falls apart in the Hebrew translations. Plus things are often taken for granted in the YEC beliefs like lions and other predators turning into meat eaters after the fall. There is no scripture to back this up. It's pure insinuation on part of one's theology.

[Gman]

Whaaaaat?? I'm not here to debate that with you. I'm just telling the reality that many OECers don't want to accept.

And I'm just saying that if one was to take the time and read it through in the Hebrew, much of this would go by the way side.

But I completely disagree with this statement.

A lot of it boils down to translation.. The YEC movement falls apart in the Hebrew translations. Plus things are often taken for granted in the YEC beliefs like lions and other predators turning into meat eaters after the fall. There is no scripture to back this up. It's pure insinuation on part of one's theology.

But it's true... In that respect evolutionists and YEC may have something in common. That it's repulsive to think that God setup the laws of thermodynamics before the fall.

[Gman]

I'm not here to debate you either jlay. I've got a lot of respect for you, plus I like your insightful comments when it comes to debating many of these evolutionists.

[touchingcloth]

This would have had a lot more credibility had it been published by, say, someone with a science background rather than Bananaman and a child actor. Comfort's problem is that he doesn't even understand the theory he's seeking to destroy. He's constructed a gargantuan strawman, and he still does a terrible job of knocking it down.

I'd have been more receptive to Ray's endeavor if he had gone to the effort of producing an annotated version of OoS, instead of just tacking a poorly thought-out foreword onto it.

[zoegirl]

There are people who reject God because of what they think His Word says about creation. NO doubt about it...I've spoken to grad students, fellow science teachers at public school at conferences, who are downright adamant that the reason they reject any idea of Christianity is that it demands rejection of the basic science models out there. To them, it's as if we look them in the eye and say to them "the sky is red, you must believe the sky is red" when clearly they look around them and see for themselves that the sky is blue. Why believe in a God when His word says something completely different than what basic observations tell you? Not only that, but why believe in a God when His followers also mislead and manipulate both data and observations which many in the YEC camp have done and still do.

For some this is simply their excuse...when I bring up OEC or even theistic evolution, that usually then shows whether their rejection is truly based on YEC concerns. Some move on to other objections that reveal their true feelings about God (
oh yeah, well, what about this or that"), others are genuinely curious, wondering why they've never heard about this.

I spoke with a teacher who was leading a conference who taught at a public school who looked at me as if I had two heads when I said I taught BIology at a CHristian HIgh School. Clearly I was the elephant in the room. WE then had a very interesting conversation at lunch about teaching evolution properly... found out she herself was a CHristian (theistic evolution if I recall) which then interestingly surprised two other non-believing teachers from public schools who looked at her in surprise when she and I actually had something in common. It was a very interesting lunch.

[Gman]

There are people who reject God because of what they think His Word says about creation. NO doubt about it...I've spoken to grad students, fellow science teachers at public school at conferences, who are downright adamant that the reason they reject any idea of Christianity is that it demands rejection of the basic science models out there. To them, it's as if we look them in the eye and say to them "the sky is red, you must believe the sky is red" when clearly they look around them and see for themselves that the sky is blue. Why believe in a God when His word says something completely different than what basic observations tell you? Not only that, but why believe in a God when His followers also mislead and manipulate both data and observations which many in the YEC camp have done and still do.

For some this is simply their excuse...when I bring up OEC or even theistic evolution, that usually then shows whether their rejection is truly based on YEC concerns. Some move on to other objections that reveal their true feelings about God (
oh yeah, well, what about this or that"), others are genuinely curious, wondering why they've never heard about this.

I spoke with a teacher who was leading a conference who taught at a public school who looked at me as if I had two heads when I said I taught BIology at a CHristian HIgh School. Clearly I was the elephant in the room. WE then had a very interesting conversation at lunch about teaching evolution properly... found out she herself was a CHristian (theistic evolution if I recall) which then interestingly surprised two other non-believing teachers from public schools who looked at her in surprise when she and I actually had something in common. It was a very interesting lunch.

Nice... Thank you zoe for this.

I've encountered the same thing. People asking me, "do you really believe in Noah's ark?" Oh, another Bible believer, "you believe that the earth was created in 6 days? " How could anyone believe that? You have to take it all on faith. Quite.

[jlay]

People can not beleive in Noah's Ark or biblical creation because they are at enmity with God.

It is sin that blinds a person to the bible, not science.

There are people who reject God because of what they think His Word says about creation.

Or so they say. For many that is a crutch that they prop their unbelief upon.

Not only that, but why believe in a God when His followers also mislead and manipulate both data and observations which many in the YEC camp have done and still do.

Gosh, I could say the same thing.

[zoegirl]

Obviously most here would disagree that, with regards to Old Earth, that the data is manipulated. Personally I woud disagree that data is manipulated by scientists...we might disagree with their conclusions, but manipulating data would be death to the career.

Nonetheless, for what it's worth, for many scientists, the supposed contradictions *are* a huge roadblock to seeing God. For some, this is an excuse...for other's it's a real block. Again, it's like saying to someone that the sky is red and to them it clearly is blue. And to be told that they must believe in this God that says the sky is red when clearly it is blue would be a big problem.

[jlay]

Zoe, sin is and will always be the largest roadblock. Period, end of story.

Data is always 'manipulated.' if someone is looking at the evidence with a YEC or OEC position, then they will consciously or subconsciously impose their views on the evidence. The evidence is the evidence. That is why two people can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. The simplest example is the Grand Canyon. Two people can look at the Canyon. (Same evidence) One can conclude rapid erosion. the other can conclude slow erosion. Both can present good arguments and interpretations of the evidence.

Again, it's like saying to someone that the sky is red and to them it clearly is blue. And to be told that they must believe in this God that says the sky is red when clearly it is blue would be a big problem.

I just hope you understand that many non beleivers see your positions as the sky is red.

[zoegirl]

I;m not saying that they won't be judged or that their sin is any less sin. They have to answer to God for their lack of investigation...

But you can't mix misrepresentation of data or bad manipulation of data with bad *interpretation* of data or a different interpretation of data.

When YEC proponents leave out certain variables and refuse to include those into the equation and thus change the answers...

When they refuse for over twenty years to change the data for the moon dust....

When they for many, many years insisted that there were dinosaur and human footprints together in the Paluxi fossil bed

And these are only three examples of misrepresentation of actual data...then they have a bad track record.

It doesn't remove that fact that these scientists are antagonistic to Christianity because they see dishonesty and a lack of integrity with data. Does that remove any responsibility on their part....absolutely not!!! SHame on them for not pursuing any interest in God.

Does it remove any guilt on their part with the interpretation of their data!? Absolutely not.

But we can't confuse manipulation of data with difference in interpretation.

[ageofknowledge]

Indeed Zoegirl. Way of the Masters then takes these faulty conclusions and forces them on the newly converted. Needless to say, many cannot accept such foolishness and just walk away saying to themselves "what was I thinking? Fred Flinstone never existed."

I find their approach reckless and dangerous in the way they push YEC onto newly saved converts. If they stuck with evangelism and apologetically dealt with creationism in the macro as but one of many components in a sound doctrinal instructional program now that would be responsible.

[ageofknowledge]

Are you talking about talking with them at Vineyared about OEC?

Of course. I wrote the senior pastor and let him know I was certified as a science apologist by RTB and that while I respected all authentic Christians decision for Christ regardless of their creation position; I found the business of forcing a YEC position onto all Christians as faulty and counter-productive. So far he is taking it in stride. My position is that we have to view the various creation models as an in-house discussion between brothers and sisters as one that is not tied to our salvation.

[Gman]

I was certified as a science apologist by RTB

Age, really? How did you get that? I might be interested myself.

[ageofknowledge]

I was certified as a science apologist by RTB

Age, really? How did you get that? I might be interested myself.

It's a long story. All you have to do is contact the organization and they'll walk you through it. It was informational. After you're certified, you get a big discount for life on all their materials as well. Pays for itself if you like their materials.

[Gman]

I was certified as a science apologist by RTB

Age, really? How did you get that? I might be interested myself.

It's a long story. All you have to do is contact the organization and they'll walk you through it. It was informational. After you're certified, you get a big discount for life on all their materials as well. Pays for itself if you like their materials.

Do you take a test or something?