Evidence for God from Science

That's not my real age in my profile. I just put that there to make me sound more sophisticated, and wise. I'm really only 16.

Rick: I'm really only 16.

Now THAT really explains a LOT!

Guess you can never take that 16-year-old boy out of the 46-year-old man???!!! But why would you want to?

Philip wrote:Well, don't blame the one revealing AIG's rhetoric. People aren't sure what they actually believe or say, so I figured it would be an easy reference and snapshot at what they teach. And, clearly, they are going FAR beyond just what they believe about the time issue, to trying to tar anyone who doesn't agree with them the "heretic" or "evolution lover" tag. So, yeah, but please, don't kick your doggie! Maybe throw darts at your Ken Hamm poster or whatever.

Philip, you are a moderator. I expect more from you than this. The words "evolution lover" don't appear anywhere on their website. And while they do regard OEC as heresy, they clearly state, "a Christian [can] . . . spout heresy without being a heretic."* You may not be comfortable with AiG regarding OEC as heresy, but that's another matter and another claim. You don't get to say things that not only they don't say but that they explicitly disavow. That's a sin against charity at best and lying at worst.

------------

* The full statement is as follows: "Can a Christian sin and even sometimes spout heresy without being a heretic? It appears that Scripture answers this query in the affirmative. Did not Paul condemn Peter (and Barnabas) of hypocrisy and teaching by example a works-based salvation, which was a form of heresy? Yet they obviously were not heretics but Christians—and Peter was appointed as an apostle."

Jac3510 wrote:

Philip wrote:Well, don't blame the one revealing AIG's rhetoric. People aren't sure what they actually believe or say, so I figured it would be an easy reference and snapshot at what they teach. And, clearly, they are going FAR beyond just what they believe about the time issue, to trying to tar anyone who doesn't agree with them the "heretic" or "evolution lover" tag. So, yeah, but please, don't kick your doggie! Maybe throw darts at your Ken Hamm poster or whatever.

Philip, you are a moderator. I expect more from you than this. The words "evolution lover" don't appear anywhere on their website. And while they do regard OEC as heresy, they clearly state, "a Christian [can] . . . spout heresy without being a heretic."* You may not be comfortable with AiG regarding OEC as heresy, but that's another matter and another claim. You don't get to say things that not only they don't say but that they explicitly disavow. That's a sin against charity at best and lying at worst.

------------

* The full statement is as follows: "Can a Christian sin and even sometimes spout heresy without being a heretic? It appears that Scripture answers this query in the affirmative. Did not Paul condemn Peter (and Barnabas) of hypocrisy and teaching by example a works-based salvation, which was a form of heresy? Yet they obviously were not heretics but Christians—and Peter was appointed as an apostle."

Jac,

You sick again?

Jac, when they post things like this on their main info page:

"Why “Long Days”? Romans 3:4 declares: "“Let God be true, and every man a liar.”" In every instance where someone has not accepted the “days” of creation to be ordinary days, they have not allowed the words of Scripture to speak to them in context, as the language requires for communication. They have been influenced by ideas from outside of Scripture."

Then what the heck do you think they are referring to: First, they want to equate those not on board with their interpretation as being "a liar." Next, the reason they say this is has to do with "ideas from outside of Scripture." OK, Jac, WHAT ideas outside of Scripture might they be implying? One is most certainly evolution. The other, progressive creationism. Don't defend the organization that has a website saturated with this stuff as being innocent of what they are clearly implying.

Or, how about this: "One result of compromising with our evolutionary culture is the view of creation called the “day-age” theory or “progressive creation."

Or this: "As their name indicates, progressive creationists believe that God progressively created species on earth over billions of years, with new species replacing extinct ones, starting with simple organisms and culminating in the creation of Adam and Eve. They accept the evolutionary order for the development of life on earth, even though this contradicts the order given in the Genesis account of creation.9 Evolutionary theory holds that the first life forms were marine organisms, while the Bible says that God created land plants first. "

Or this: "But once the door of compromise is unlocked and Christian leaders concede that we shouldn’t take the Bible as written in Genesis, why should the world take heed of it in any area? Because the Church has told the world that one can use man’s interpretation of the world (such as billions of years) to reinterpret the Bible, it is seen as an outdated, scientifically incorrect “holy book,” not intended to be taken seriously.

As each subsequent generation has pushed this door of compromise open farther and farther, increasingly they are not accepting the morality or salvation of the Bible either. After all, if the history in Genesis is not correct as written, how can one be sure the rest can be taken as written? Jesus said, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” (John 3:12; NKJV).

It would not be exaggerating to claim that the majority of Christian leaders and laypeople within the church today do not believe in six literal days. Sadly, being influenced by the world has led to the Church no longer powerfully influencing the world.

The “war of the worldviews” is not ultimately one of young earth versus old earth, or billions of years versus six days, or creation versus evolution—the real battle is the authority of the Word of God versus man’s fallible theories.

Jac, thou dost protest too much! AIG clearly goes far beyond merely stating opinion that the days of Creation are literal in length - to much more, falsely tagging many Christians who DO believe that the days were long periods for far more reasons than just "views of the world." That's just unnecessary and insulting. "COMPROMISERS" - come ON!!! AIG is busted with their own words (all quotes are from their website).

Jac: And while they do regard OEC as heresy, they clearly state, "a Christian [can] . . . spout heresy without being a heretic."

They say whilst clearly trying to tag the person they disagree with as a "heretic" yet without actually calling them one. How very clever!

"

One result of compromising with our evolutionary culture is the view of creation called the “day-age” theory or “progressive creation

Hugh Ross rejects evolution and so this is slander of a brother in Christ.But also the age of the universe and earth did not come from evolution science,it came from Christians who started modern science.I know YEC's reject an old earth but they should not imply that an old heavens and earth came about because of evolution but Christians and they had no problem accepting an old earth.

They also claim that Thomas chalmers came up with the gap theory to accomodate evolution and an old earth but this is wrong because the gap theory goes back long before Thomas Chalmers all he did was revive it about 50 years before evolution was accepted.And gap theorists have always rejected evolution even William Buckland rejected early evolutionary ideas that were around before evolution took off when Charles Darwin published his book.William Buckland rejected evolution and the gap theory makes evolution wrong if it is true,if it is true evolution is totally wrong and all of the evidence in the earth has nothing to do with evolution.

BTW, my initial post was NOT to stir up some new outbreak of YEC vs. OEC, it was merely to have a convenient linked reference as to what AIG believes on this issue of the earth/universe's age. My comment was just a simple observation that they go beyond just stating an opinion on that issue - to negative attacks on those Christians who happen not to share that particular view. I've also criticized RTB/Hugh Ross on occasion: They have tried hard to read science into quite a few places in Scripture that is very unlikely referencing such. This is because Ross and Co are SCIENTISTS and not theologians, which can cause problems. Also, with RTB, I think they have entrenched themselves so much into science-based theological beliefs that they will find it excruciating to backtrack, even if honestly so. Not EVERYTHING can be proved by science! And the older, more ancient a mystery, the lesser that proof will ever be within our grasp. People who put unreasonable emphasis on scientific proof are also exercising a type of faith. But, SOMEWHERE, there's a balance. Of course, personally, I do not believe that balance is achieved by dismissing certain parts of Genesis as mere allegory or fiction, or taking a "low" view of Scripture. Where God is, mortals will always find some incredible mysteries. I'm good with that, as sometimes that's all we're given. A need-to-know basis, I guess. Faith in Jesus will always be far important than our Christian "sideshow" arguments, no matter how fun, passionate or maddening they might be.

Creationism is in a crisis because YEC vs Evolution they are in a never ending debate that YEC's have lost.Evolution is slowly dying on its own but it has nothing at all to do with YEC they have lost and actually cause people to believe evolution because they teach a young earth.This is not about the real truth of God's word by YEC but putting out misleading information,slandering other interpretations in order to defend their interpretation and it is going to be answerable to at the judgment seat of Christ.

Philip, then say what they actually say. They have not attempted to tag anyone with the term "evolution lover" nor have the called anyone a "heretic." In fact, I provided a statement from them in which they explicitly say a person can teach heresy without being a heretic.

You've misrepresented their position. I expect you to be honest. You are more than justified in saying you don't appreciate their rhetoric and in saying that you don't think that they are correct. You can complain that they have misrepresented OEC. You can't say that they have said things that they haven't. That is simply not true. If someone said that you said something you did not say, something that you explicitly denied, you wouldn't appreciate it.

edit:

Rick, I know you're having fun, and that's really okay. But I want to be clear. These kind of comments are, frankly, hateful. It's bad enough that they're tolerated. It's worse when they come from a mod. I'm saying this publicly because this was said publicly. These boards are supposed to be a place where Christians can come together and discuss ideas and learn from each other. When we're allowed to demonize and lie about other people and other groups with whom we disagree, the whole purpose is undermined. I'm publicly asking Philip to acknowledge that while he has deep disagreement with AiG, that he shouldn't put words in their mouth and that they have not called OECs "evolution lovers" or "heretics." His claim was false. It should not be allowed to stand.

Jac wrote:
Rick, I know you're having fun, and that's really okay. But I want to be clear. These kind of comments are, frankly, hateful. It's bad enough that they're tolerated. It's worse when they come from a mod. I'm saying this publicly because this was said publicly. These boards are supposed to be a place where Christians can come together and discuss ideas and learn from each other. When we're allowed to demonize and lie about other people and other groups with whom we disagree, the whole purpose is undermined. I'm publicly asking Philip to acknowledge that while he has deep disagreement with AiG, that he shouldn't put words in their mouth and that they have not called OECs "evolution lovers" or "heretics." His claim was false. It should not be allowed to stand.

While I've never seen AIG call anyone an Evolution Lover, when Philip said that, I immediately knew what he was referring to. AIG has been known to conflate OEC with Evolution. So, the term wasn't out of line.

And Jac, you're seriously going to defend the idea that someone can teach heresy without being a heretic?

A heretic is one who practices or preaches heresy. According to Ham, Hugh Ross and others, believe in, and preach heresy.

*sigh*

Okay, Rick. I see.

Jac3510 wrote:*sigh*

Okay, Rick. I see.

Why do I get the feeling that you don't?

Reading what AIG says, it seems to me that they think one can't be a heretic and also be a believer. So, it seems they redefine "heretic" to fit that belief.

They say one can preach heresy and still be a believer. But doesn't that mean the same as one can be a heretic, and still be a believer?

If someone is a believer and commits adultery, is he not an adulterer?

If someone is a believer and steals, is he not a thief?

Why the difference with a believer who preaches heresy?

I would actually like to see YEC's respond to the truthful points being made about AIG putting out misleading information.At the same time I don't want to see the person ganged up on,like 3 to 1 or whatever but AIG is known to slander good Christian brothers in Christ and put out wrong misleading information like re-writing history claiming and teaching an old earth came about because of evolution,which is not true,they are misleading their followers.

abelcainsbrother wrote:I would actually like to see YEC's respond to the truthful points being made about AIG putting out misleading information.At the same time I don't want to see the person ganged up on,like 3 to 1 or whatever but AIG is known to slander good Christian brothers in Christ and put out wrong misleading information like re-writing history claiming and teaching an old earth came about because of evolution,which is not true,they are misleading their followers.

ACB,

I think this discussion goes to show us ALL, that we need to be careful, and try to be as honest as possible when talking about another's point of view. I take this very seriously. And any of you that follow my posts on here, can see that I don't always accurately portray the other's pov. I hope you understand that it's not on purpose. I'm always learning.

Maybe I have a hair across my butt when it comes to AIG, because I feel like I was duped by them. It was my own fault for believing what they said without really checking into it. But, I see no remorse on their end for constantly misrepresenting what others believe.

And to add, I think this forum goes a long way to help us all understand each other better. There's no reason why AIG couldn't have the same kind of open discussion forum on their site. It would certainly lead to better understanding.

You're just 16 Rick, so it's understandable.