Not_By_Chance

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 25, 2015
813
176
70
✟62,306.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I've received an interesting e-mail today from creation.com. The article starts off by the author stating, "According to some people, denying evolution and believing biblical creation is like saying that NASA faked the Moon landings." It then goes on to discuss the alleged hoaxes/conspiracy theories, etc and makes the following comment, which is the part most relevant for Christians to consider:-

"These hoaxes, however, bear no resemblance to one doubting the flimsy historical/circumstantial evidence in support of Darwinian goo-to-you evolution over billions of years of Earth history or to one doubting the even flimsier historical/ circumstantial evidence in support of a big bang origin of this universe. Anyone drawing a correspondence demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the evidence against (or the lack of evidence for) the alleged origin of the universe from nothing in a big bang 13.8 billion years ago, the assumed naturalistic formation of stars and galaxies, the alleged formation of our solar system 4.6 billion years ago, the spontaneous origin of life on this planet 3.8 billion years ago, the alleged subsequent biological evolution adding billions of bits of specified complex code to all genomes as multiple organisms supposedly evolved on this planet culminating with the arrival of man some hundreds of thousands of years ago. Any claimed similarity is perverse.

The biblical creation worldview has a solid basis in historical science. Scientism, the belief that science can answer all questions of life and the universe, even origins questions, has corrupted that biblical worldview by removing the Creator from His own creation. There are those in the Christian church, misguided as they are, who say that the big bang is allegorically described in the Genesis account of creation. And there are those who claim that the texts of Scripture are consistent with evolution of all life on Earth. This situation resulted when Christians yielded the biblical worldview to atheistic scientism. Scientism attempts to explain the creation without its Creator.

The creation worldview results from logical reasoning minds looking at the evidence.
Even though the biblical creation worldview may not have all the answers, it does not require the invention of ‘unknowns’ or ‘gods of the gaps’ to fill in where the science goes haywire. In cosmology these ‘unknowns’ come in the forms of dark matter, dark energy, cosmic inflation, even the expansion of space itself, none of which has any basis in hard experimental facts. These are all make-believe made up to save the false paradigm from being discarded because the alternative (creation) is unthinkable. Talk about a hoax!

Many famous scientists (Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Copernicus, Faraday, Maxwell, etc) have held strong beliefs in the 6-day biblical creationist worldview. I personally know a JPL physicist, involved with the Cassini satellite mission to Saturn who is a 6-day biblical creationist. The creation worldview results from logical reasoning minds looking at the evidence around them. The Creation itself speaks of being created—the design arguments are many. To hold to such beliefs has no correspondence with conspiracy theories like the moon-landing hoax or the ‘Face on Mars’ ancient civilization and NASA cover-up."

I'd be interested to hear what other Christians maks of this. The full article can be found here: http://creation.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax
 

The Cadet

SO COOL
Apr 29, 2010
6,290
4,743
Munich
✟45,617.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Is there any actual content in there? Like, it doesn't actually seem to discuss any of the evidence, it just asserts that it's meaningless or not there. It makes bland assertion after bland assertion, but doesn't even attempt to back it up.

Oh, and it lies.

The biblical creation worldview has a solid basis in historical science.

Lie. There is absolutely no scientific basis for any of the supernatural claims in the bible. The flood of noah has no supporting evidence. The earth being a mere 6,000 years old has no supporting evidence. The idea that Adam and Eve were a real pair has no supporting evidence.

The creation worldview results from logical reasoning minds looking at the evidence.

Lie. None of the evidence supports a 6,000 year old earth or a global flood 4,000 years ago. Genesis is not supportable by scientific evidence. And no, disproving evolution gets you no closer to a 6,000 year old earth.

In cosmology these ‘unknowns’ come in the forms of dark matter, dark energy, cosmic inflation, even the expansion of space itself, none of which has any basis in hard experimental facts.

Lie. I don't know about the other objects, but dark matter is hypothesized because the mass of galaxies seems to be far greater than the observed matter present could account for. Therefore, it is most likely that there is some matter present we cannot observe directly with our telescopes. What's more, we've been able to directly observe one form of dark matter (neutrinos).

the alternative (creation) is unthinkable.

Lie, and a particularly filthy one at that. These hypotheses are not excuses to avoid the reality of creationism. Creationism is not some default position that automatically wins as soon as every other current viable explanation is ruled out. It requires its own supporting evidence - and I mean real supporting evidence, not your personal interpretation of a 2000-year-old book - and its own falsification criteria. The hypotheses we have today are not ways to "replace" creationism, they are an attempt to understand the universe we live in, based on the most parsimonious explanation of the evidence we have. If the evidence supported a 6,000-year-old earth, I would believe that the earth was 6,000 years old. And so would most of the scientific community, whether they accepted that a god was behind it or not.

But the evidence doesn't support that interpretation. At all. To the point where claiming that the evidence does support it, and that it's not just "the bible sez it, therefore it's true" is downright dishonest. In order to believe in a 6,000-year-old earth and a 4,000-year-old global flood, you have to discard to ignore almost everything we know about things like radiometric dating, dendrochronology, the geologic column, the fossil record, conservation of energy/matter, thermodynamics, and far, far more. And creationists have tried. They've issued objections, they've tried to explain away the facts, and they've constantly and consistently failed. None of their objections or explanations hold up to the slightest scrutiny. (Not that that bothers them; they still have their insultingly wrong claims up on the website, such as their article about the lost squadron.)

All in all, the analogy kinda fits. Moon hoaxers are convinced that they have evidence which says something about reality that goes against the mainstream, therefore they invent an alternative hypothesis for which they have no evidence but which they assume must somehow be true by default if the current mainstream explanation is wrong. They don't take any time whatsoever to double-check to see if their interpretations are right, they ignore all evidence to the contrary, and they invent fanciful conspiracies whenever anything would disprove their pet theory. This is the thought process of a conspiracy theorist, and Creationism absolutely falls into the same mold.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Cadet

SO COOL
Apr 29, 2010
6,290
4,743
Munich
✟45,617.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
All in all, the analogy kinda fits. Moon hoaxers are convinced that they have evidence which says something about reality that goes against the mainstream, therefore they invent an alternative hypothesis for which they have no evidence but which they assume must somehow be true by default if the current mainstream explanation is wrong.
Actually, I take it back. Normally, with conspiracy theories, something being out of place comes before the adopting of an unshakeable idea. In the case of Creationists, this is even more explicit. They have a belief from the outset which they must cling to, no matter what evidence goes against it. Creation.com straight-up says it in their statement of faith. They must believe this, and they must try to convince others to believe it too, no matter how nonsensical it is. It cuts to the core of their identity, and they cannot possibly be wrong.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
They must believe this, and they must try to convince others to believe it too, no matter how nonsensical it is. It cuts to the core of their identity, and they cannot possibly be wrong.

No you are wrong. There are a lot of TE people. They are faithful Christians and they believe in evolution. I don't like that. But their presence refutes what you just said.
 
Upvote 0

The Cadet

SO COOL
Apr 29, 2010
6,290
4,743
Munich
✟45,617.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
No you are wrong. There are a lot of TE people. They are faithful Christians and they believe in evolution. I don't like that. But their presence refutes what you just said.
You'll notice I was explicitly referring to creationists of the type present on Creation.com. YECs.
 
Upvote 0

Jan Volkes

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2015
1,302
231
44
UK
✟2,674.00
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
They must believe this, and they must try to convince others to believe it too, no matter how nonsensical it is. It cuts to the core of their identity, and they cannot possibly be wrong.
They believe it and assert that it's true for no other reason than it's what they believe, and they have the nerve to say that evolution is false? how they have lasted so long and been allowed to do so much damage to the brains of children is beyond me, has no one pointed out to them that just because they believe something it does not mean that it's true.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
You'll notice I was explicitly referring to creationists of the type present on Creation.com. YECs.

If so, your argument is not to the point. The YE view is what defines the Creationism. You do not question the definition if you intend to argue the content. So, the "core of belief" and "they have to say" are not useful argument. You are simply repeating the definition.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If so, your argument is not to the point. The YE view is what defines the Creationism. You do not question the definition if you intend to argue the content. So, the "core of belief" and "they have to say" are not useful argument. You are simply repeating the definition.

I appreciate what you say: Indeed, TE's are creationists, in an etymological sense. In context, though, he's talking about creation.com, which (from their email) excludes TE's. Creationism, for better or for worse, refers to ideas adhered to by a strict subset of people who are (etymologically) creationists, and so that is how most people use the term on these forums and elsewhere. Therefore, he is arguing against the ideas of people who self-identify in this way, such as those at creation.com. He uses the word in the same way as the email in the OP.

If you are a TE then feel free to fight the popular usage of "creationism." Start a thread to do it. If you are not a TE, however, don't feel the need to do so on our account. I'm perfectly happy to talk about creation outside of a "creationist" context, and sometimes do so in the Origins Theology subforum.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I appreciate what you say: Indeed, TE's are creationists, in an etymological sense. In context, though, he's talking about creation.com, which (from their email) excludes TE's. Creationism, for better or for worse, refers to ideas adhered to by a strict subset of people who are (etymologically) creationists, and so that is how most people use the term on these forums and elsewhere. Therefore, he is arguing against the ideas of people who self-identify in this way, such as those at creation.com. He uses the word in the same way as the email in the OP.

If you are a TE then feel free to fight the popular usage of "creationism." Start a thread to do it. If you are not a TE, however, don't feel the need to do so on our account. I'm perfectly happy to talk about creation outside of a "creationist" context, and sometimes do so in the Origins Theology subforum.

Well, you confused me. How could TE people be included as creationists? Creation and evolution are mutually exclusive.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, you confused me. How could TE people be included as creationists? Creation and evolution are mutually exclusive.

Okay, then I misunderstood you. What is your objection to what TheCadet wrote?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Cadet

SO COOL
Apr 29, 2010
6,290
4,743
Munich
✟45,617.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
I think he mistakenly suggest that all Christians are creationists.
Creation.com straight-up says it in their statement of faith. They must believe this, and they must try to convince others to believe it too, no matter how nonsensical it is.

Nope, "They" refers pretty explicitly to the kind folks at Creation.com.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I didn't see that. Can you cite the passage?

I don't see that either. :scratch:

This caught my eye quickly and I didn't like it: " They must believe this, and they must try to convince others to believe it too, no matter how nonsensical it is.". Yes, I exaggerated who "they" are. But this is simply wrong. I don't have to convince anyone that I am a creationist.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums