Evidence for God from Science

Canuckster1127 wrote:Conversation and impressions are welcome here and if they're not correct that's fine. That's why we're interacting so we all can understand things better. Let's stay focused on the issues and topic and not make personal evaluations where they're not needed, please.

Bart, I'm not sure what you're getting at. All I was doing was trying to help him understand that the way he presented OEC was not from a point of knowing OEC itself. How was this off topic?

I pointed out the same thing in my post.

I'm responding to the suggestion that the representation is "bearing false witness." I don't think that addresses the issue and I don't sense anyway that kmr is trying to misrepresent anything so much as just state impressions and ask questions. We can address questions without judging motives and making things a personal issue is all I'm saying. Be as vigorous and direct as you want addressing the actual issue.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I pointed out the same thing in my post.

I'm responding to the suggestion that the representation is "bearing false witness." I don't think that addresses the issue and I don't sense anyway that kmr is trying to misrepresent anything so much as just state impressions and ask questions. We can address questions without judging motives and making things a personal issue is all I'm saying. Be as vigorous and direct as you want addressing the actual issue.

Bart, we've been over this before. Aig, and some prominent YECs misrepresent OEC. And by doing so, bear a false witness against someone. When someone purposely misrepresents what someone believes to make his own position sound better, then that's a false witness. I wasn't saying that kmr was bearing a false witness, and it wasn't anything personal against him. It was about YEC rhetoric and not knowing the subject enough to make an argument. If you notice, I was agreeing with August's post about how he says this:

That is, sorry to say, an outrageous and logically fallacious statement, and one that YEC's love to make.

Thanks for clarifying. It appeared to me that the comment was addressed to kmr personally and that is all I was responding to. Not all YECs and I'd venture to say,very few YECs are operating from a motive to misrepresent OEC positions. Most are simply expressing what they've been taught. I'm disappointed as well from time to time with some specific and prominent YEC proponents who appear to go well beyond the issues and question the sincerity and devotion to God of OEC proponents. I just want to avoid taking the same tone in response.

I think kmr expressed a common impression of the OEC position in terms of it's starting with science. I think you, August and I all addressed that impression directly and appropriately. Invoking the "bearing false witness" element is tantamount to saying someone is lying and willfully misreprenting something. It just seemed unnecessary to me and so I responded.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Thanks for clarifying. It appeared to me that the comment was addressed to kmr personally and that is all I was responding to. Not all YECs and I'd venture to say,very few YECs are operating from a motive to misrepresent OEC positions. Most are simply expressing what they've been taught. I'm disappointed as well from time to time with some specific and prominent YEC proponents who appear to go well beyond the issues and question the sincerity and devotion to God of OEC proponents. I just want to avoid taking the same tone in response.

I think kmr expressed a common impression of the OEC position in terms of it's starting with science. I think you, August and I all addressed that impression directly and appropriately. Invoking the "bearing false witness" element is tantamount to saying someone is lying and willfully misreprenting something. It just seemed unnecessary to me and so I responded.

Yes, it is saying that someone is willfully misrepresenting someone. That's what I can't stand about some of the YECs that use that tactic. Especially Jason Lisle. Lisle has been in enough debates with Hugh Ross, so that Lisle has no excuse as to what Ross believes. But, Lisle continues to misrepresent Ross, and the OEC stance. This is unacceptable, and I will point it out when I see it happening. If I saw an OECer doing the same, then I would not hesitate to point it out as well. I was just trying to encourage kmr to study oec on his own, so he can make his own informed decision. We all make the mistake of sometimes not really knowing what we're arguing against before we argue. But, we should always try to honestly look at all sides of an issue.

Thank you so much for clarifying! Something I've noticed about this site is that the members do a magnificent job of explaining their ideas, it is wonderful! I will keep studying on all of this. And I'm terribly sorry if what I wrote in my last post was a preliminary judgement, I didn't intend it to be that way, I was only reflecting on what I have seen from other people... I am very new to this topic! Again, thanks to everybody for the clarifications!

Good luck and God bless!

Up until about my sophomore year in high school, I was a YEC. I didn't adhere to YEC science as we see today, but I simply didn't know much about science or the OEC interpretation and just assumed YEC must be true. In high school though, it was apparent from my classes that the Earth was not made in six literal days and it was far more than 10,000 years old. They not only taught that the Earth was billions of years old but explained in great detail why it was and showed the evidence for it (rock layers, radioactive decay, distance of galaxies and the speed of light). It seemed that either the world was very old, or God intentionally created to world to appear old for some reason, which didn't sound likely.

By that time I was much less confident that Genesis at face value was a literal interpretation of the creation of the world. A bit later I stumbled upon the God and Science website. I read through many of the articles, they showed me that OEC is an intellectually and biblically sound position. So I was an OEC.

Even later on, I read Genesis 1:24 and began to think that even evolution could be supported by the Bible. I had also read The Language of God by Francis Collins, which to me gives a very good case for Theistic Evolution. On top of that, Evolution just sounds like reasonable idea to me. I don't associate it with Atheism or rejection of the Bible like some.

So here I am, somewhere between an OEC and a Theistic Evolutionist as well as an "I don't know, I wasn't there" stance. I think they're both credible and supportable so I don't attack either one. The only stance of the three that I dismiss as false is the Young Earth position.

Second post here so go easy...
Grew up in a Reformed Presbyterian Church with YEC being only view taught and subscribed to. That was in the 70s. Held that view for most of my adult life, also reading the Creation Science mags etc. I started having doubts wrt geology, continental drift, visited Mt Everest and saw the sedimentary rocks there etc. Sat on my doubts for a while. Someone in another church gave me a set of kent Hovind dvds to watch and wanted them played at our local school. I've never seen such rubbish before. At same time started thinking about carnivorous and poisonous animals and the fact that God must have meant for animals to consume one another etc... Surely there must have been death of animals designed by God before the fall. Started investigating alternative views and about 18mths started reading of the views espoused by OEC. The thing which concerns me most about YEC is that it becomes a badge for evangelical orthodoxy and woe betide if you hold a different view. There are very well read people obviously on this list so had not better stick my neck out too far. (I have not looked into this question before but is it possible that God always had in mind that humans also died before the Fall, and it was only Spiritual death which resulted from the Fall.) Oh and on the question of the global flood, I am not convinced that it was a global flood but rather local.... At the end of the day, I'm just a bit 'over' the fighting that seems to eventuate when these topics are brought up, and ultimately have faith that He is on His mission for a new heaven and a new earth. Of origins - ultimately - does it really matter what we believe? For the moment we see through a glass darkly.