Great article from CMI: What creationist arguments should and shouldn't be used anymore

Yeah I've been reading through it before but I guess it was a different article  This one is newer perhaps

I couldn't find a date for it.  But is there a newer or even better list that is available?  That would be great to have if you know of any other sources, articles, links, etc. that discuss this issue.

@Kjvav

I noticed that CMI's list includes the 1 Timothy 6:20 verse we had a lively discussion about.  Although, we ended up disagreeing, CMI's position is one I could get behind that also seems like a good compromise between our different points of view.  They speak favorably about the KJV translation of the verse, while also noting the points I made about "science" coming from the Latin scientia for "knowledge" and the connection of "knowledge" to the heresy of Gnosticism that the early church faced.  What do you think?  A good middle ground to adopt?

   I will say the “Gospel in the stars” thing has always been laughable to me. If you grab an encyclopedia and look up almost any constellation you chose (some exceptions) it will seem ridiculous that we are supposed to see what is supposed to be there. 5 stars in a random pattern and “Look, it’s a hunter holding up a rabbit by the ears and wearing sandals and holding a sword”. By those loose standards I could find a constellation of my house and my truck in the driveway and look in the window to see my wife cooking diner wearing a cowboy hat and a tutu and swim flippers, but that’ll probably take a dozen stars.

   Not trying to be a jerk on this, but I don’t adopt middle ground on my belief of Scripture. What’s for dinner, what are we going to watch on TV, Coke or Pepsi, I can be a surprisingly conciliatory guy, but not on what I believe the Bible teaches.

Once again you misunderstand.  Who said anything about compromising when it comes to Scripture?   I certainly didn't.  You read ideas and motivations into my words that aren't there.  When people expressed different views about who the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 are contrary to what you am I said (which we were both in agreement on) are those other people making "compromises" with Scripture or do they just have a legitimate disagreement in what's being said?  If anything, I was trying to be nice and polite by noting the supportive statement CMI made about the KJV.  But if you aren't interested in finding common ground (NOT compromising ground), then alright.  No big deal, we will keep it focused on the verse then.  Thus, I will point out to you that everything I said about the proper way to understand and interpet 1 Timothy 6:20 is exactly the same thing that CMI says as well.  So far from any comprise, I have stated the truth about this verse without compromise and what I stated matches CMI's position too.

Ok, maybe I misunderstood your point on 1 Timothy 6:20. Your post said that people who believe the Biblical teaching of an approximate 6000 year old creation should not believe that this verse applies to the theory of evolution, and my position as stated to you in other forums is that it very much does apply to the theory of evolution or any other misunderstanding of “science”. That is still my position and I assume that yours is still that it does not apply to the theory of evolution,so please tell me specifically what middle ground you are referring to.

   I can tell I’m making you mad, and I guess I understand that, I’m usually very blunt with my writing and don’t care to beat around the bush when it comes to doctrine and I’ve told you that before. It isn’t meant to be insulting, rather it is intended to make myself clearly understood with the least amount of repetition. If you were a woman, I’d treat you differently. If you were a child, I’d treat you differently. If I believed you were not saved and were open to the gospel I’d treat you much more softly. I believe communication (especially written) that is unclear is frustrating for all involved and a waste of time. I’m not mad at you because you don’t believe what I believe the Bible teaches on the Creation.

Nope, not making me mad at all (but you might want to change that comment about women, because that might offend some women!)

I think I’ve shown that’s not a concern of mine.😁

   Let me do this one over. It would be a concern to me if I offended a woman and would not want to, that is why I said I would treat a woman differently than a man in conversation, more politely and conciliatory. A woman who would be offended because I treat her with more care than a man, well, we would both be happier if we parted company.

He will offend feminists, not women.

   I read my original post #10 and it was very smug, smart alecky and not true, and needed to be corrected. I know I come across as abrasive on more occasions than I would want to, but I actually don’t want to be offensive to anyone, and I especially cannot stomach a man who is abusive in any way to a woman.

OP #1I would like to see the list that could or should be used.

#5 "differently" is a kind of used as a weasel-word, adjusting the level of the discussion/argument to the audience is fine, but all need to be treated with respect, however, respect does not mean dumbing down or less rigorous arguments

Since my last post I have done quite a bit of research and can find zero scientific theories, notation or clarity in any of the books of the Bible.

Science or knowledge and the pursuit of knowledge requires observation, notation, theories and clarity which can all be verified, tested, observed and re-tested.

Every week it seems we see new evidence of 30.000 year old early canines, 60,000 year old human settlements, 50,000 year old cave art etc all backed up apparently with good solid science and the sheer volume of all of this evidence cannot be disregarded because some early adherents calculated the age of the bible to 6,000 years and therefore the age of the earth must be in-line.

The Bible deals with the human spirit, soul and the divine spark and does not, as far my research goes, (so far), delve into any scientific examinations whether following the scientific method or not.

So, where i am at right now, my thinking is along the lines of "I can see no use for any science in any faith discussion and absolutely no reason to bring the Bible into any science discussion" the two are dealing with distinctly different aspect of the human experience.

I know my position has moved (and I may no longer be welcome with my now heretic viewpoint in this club) however I believe my position is defendable without having to revert to any shenanigans* which the Discovery Institute have tried and used previously, some of which are now discarded (see above) and yet are still propagated as part proof to the literal veracity of the Bible or at least the parts we want to be literal.

Thoughts, comments queries all welcome.

@king2queensside,

Regarding your comments, I would distinguish between science as a valuable resource for faith (archaeology, textual criticism, sindonology, empirical study, etc.) vs. trying to find modern science in the Bible.  With regard to the latter, I agree with you that modern science is neither in the Bible (it doesn't have to be, nor was modern science even a thing in Bible times), nor should we try to interpret the Bible through a modern scientific lens.  That would be erroneous and anachronistic.  I further agree with you (while noting that there are many here who would disagree) that the current weight of scientific evidence supports an old age earth and universe.  I would further state that this is not problematic nor does it contradict the Genesis creation account in any way for the same reasons you have given: the Genesis creation account is not a modern scientific account of origins, but a theological statement of universal truths about God and his relationship to humanity, and also an anti-pagan polemic against Ancient Near East cosmologies of the time.

But I wouldn't go so far to say the Bible and science should keep out of each others' way.  I see them as complimentary: the Bible (God's special revelation) + scientific study of nature (God's general revelation)