HAHAHAHAHA!

Wow...just wow. That has got to be the most creative explanation I have ever heard.

While it's true that some fish can surive salinity changes it is by no means all or even most. Seeds cannot be contained in the atmosphere either. Some can survive for long periods in unfavorable conditions...but definitely not all. As for sticking to animals or staying inside animals...well, only a few do that and not for 40 days at any rate.

I have to give you points for creativity...but as for practicality? No way. Makes for a good story, though.

~Zoo

OK I read the first page of the comments and I thought, "I should make a post and say congratulations on how civil you guys are."  And then I go to the end at page 7 and you are still being civil and logical and not just shouting talking points at each other.  Unbelievable.  You guys should really give yourselves credit for being open-minded.

I think it's a little too late for me to get involved in the discussion, but some other time I'll post something and you can have the fun of arguing the same things all over again with me instead.

Thanks for stopping by then.

I'll look forward to that discussion.

I take it this subject interests you? Good. Me too....although I admit I don't go that deep into the scientific side. Just deep enough to get myself in trouble.....  

The problem with stating what creationists believe and what they do not believe is that the group of creationists consists of a diverse array. Some creationists come from agricultural or "small town" backgrounds and have little idea of what a "vestifial" organ or of what "megaevolution" is. Some, like Francis Collins, are at the top of the scientific pecking order and have, liberal, but still creationist beliefs.

The same applies to scientists. Some "scientists" have depressingly little scientific knowledge.

Just like scientists would surely call these people "pseudoscientists", creationists would deem their ignorants "extremists".

Ultimately, through education, both parties reach, on average, a common ground. These views might be stated, but unfortunately, ignorant nuts on either side cannot easily be separated from students of knowledge. So, organization of educated thought on either side cannot be properly reached, and the ideas held by either party cannot be freed from the contamination of ignorant masses.

I just thought I would point out that the OP has the definition of creationism a bit skewed toward one view. There are many forms of creationism but the two largest might be Old Earth and Young Earth. YEC creationism is pushed heavily by sites like AIG or ICR while OEC is pushed by Reasons to Believe iirc. Leaving aside the various ID beliefs or the exact age of the earth (6k, 10k, 100k) among YEC creationsts. Sometimes the OEC and YEC can be quite nasty toward each other.

The only thing I would suggest is that rather than assume that the overwhelming majority of scientists in just about every field are lying to you or just complete idiots you might consider learning more about evolution from both sidea. I know some christians are comforted by the first account they read that reinforces the bible and don't feel the need to investigate further.

It's an interesting subject. If you are a creationist you should at least take a look at the OEC-YEC arguments, even if you don't trust non-creationist scientists to tell you the time of day.

You might also consider looking up some interviews with Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project. He is a born-again, evangelical christian geneticist who believes in Jesus but does not believe in the claims of creationism or ID and finds them harmful to christianity.

It sounds like you lean towards the OEC trying to get the YEC to reconsider their stance. One thing you're not considering tho, I don't believe, is the fact that many YEC Christians over the age of say 30 grew up ONLY with evolution being taught in schools. I am over 45 and went thru 13 years of public school where they only taught one side of this debate yet I don't buy it. How can that be?

I know many YEC Parents today that homeschooling their kids because they believe the schools are indoctrinating the kids in this direction.



I have a hard time with this because if you believe Jesus is God than you believe the words of the bible were inspired by Him. These words surrounding creation are very clear that they are literal 24 hour days and the pattern of the seven day week is mentioned later as a reminder of the creation.

What you are describing is a theistic evolutionist and I believe that came to be after Darwin came on the scene. It's a way that tries to marry Darwin with Moses and I've looked at that as well. It's a compromise and I, as a YEC, don't buy that either.

Jesus also quoted from Genesis and almost all of the OT books so if he believed they were in error he would have said so but in fact he did just the opposite time and time again.

I guess I'd like to know tho, why this guy finds a belief in YEC harmful to Christianity? It's not an essential to believing in Christ so why would it be harmful?

No, I'm not an OEC or a YEC.

I believe Collins finds them dangerous to christianity because when you make assertions that are proven to be wrong by further study (for instance, we will never find x, or x can't happen) then christians can come to doubt their core faith when and if those discoveries come to pass. Having taken someone's word on the science of creationism, and finding it later wrong, can lead to their questioning other claims about the bible, or the bible itself.

There are certainly examples of people who have lost their faith in creationism going on to lose their faith just as there are examples of those who lost their faith in creationism who continue to believe in Jesus or God.

I believe that's the point he's making.

As you say, it's not an article of faith. There are many christians who don't support the claims of creationism or the ID movement.

To be clearer, its kind of a "god of the gaps" philosophy which some consider poor theology. They say, "well, they don't know this, that's evidence of god". Then they find a reason for it and god gets paved over. So then they find another gap in knowledge and say, "well, god is over here", but it's like crying wolf, eventually people grow tired of finding god in the gaps and seeing him get pushed out again.

Science does have a very good track record of finding things out so pointing to gaps and betting god's existence on a gap in knowledge....can be demoralizing for some people of faith.

There are a number of interviews with Collins online but heres the first one to pop up:
http://faculty.fmcc.suny.edu/mcdarby/tucker_carlson_.htm

Ok, let's talk about this. So far many of the claims of the bible have been tested and found to be true. For instance there are many scientific, archeological and historical finds that have backed up what scriptures have reported. Nothing thus far has found the bible to be in error although there were times it seemed to be so until another discovery cleared up the confusion.

Many of these sources are not even necessarily Christian in nature. One historian by the name of Ramsey used Luke's Account in the book of Acts to do his 30 year research into the history and mapping of Asia Minor. He was not a believer but his research led him to his Christian faith. Luke was fanatical about details and many of his accounts were verifiable and impressed Ramsey to no end.

So I can see nothing in scripture that can make one doubt their core faith unless it's not taken correctly. Say for instance...

Many believe in the pre-trib rapture. Many evangelicals teach this. There is another camp, not as numerous, that believe in the pre-wrath rapture meaning believers are not going to escape some hairy times.

I was in the pre-trib camp for many years and now after doing much research can see how pre-wrath (also known as mid-trib) sounds more likely. I think the teaching of pre-trib ONLY can lead many to doubt their faith when the bad times come because they have been taught they will escape this. So this is not a scriptual error...it's an interpretation error.

Big difference.



Even tho I do believe you can believe in Theistic Evolution and be a Christian I would have to say honestly that I'd wonder how many are really truly "possessing" Christians that don't believe in His word and would rather believe in men's explanation of creation?

I'll check this out if you'll check out Psalm 118:8....which coincidentally is the exact center of the bible.