Why do people laugh at creationist?

[theIdi0t]

Why do people laugh at creationists?

I found this series of youtube videos posted on an Atheist Forum. The title of the thread is the title of the video serious, and I'm not posting these videos to ridicule creationists. The video series does not ridicule creationists for being creationists, but the author of the video ridicules creationists by "showing" them as being wrong.

In watching the videos I couldn't help but recall the words of Augustine:

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation."

– The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]

People are welcome to comment as they wish, but I am curious about one question.

What do creationists feel about Augustine's view here? Do they agree with it (even if they don't feel they fit into the type of Christians Augustine warned against)? Would you agree with Augustine here about Christians in the past who opposed Heliocentrism on theological grounds? Would you claim believers who advocate Heliocentrism to the degree that creationists argue creationism should be discouraged for reasons similar to Augustine's?

Please, don't take my questions or my post as an attack on your position, but I am sincerly interested in hearing your views.

 

[Mallon]

CreationistS!

Does anyone here know anything about that young man being critiqued in the video? I've seen his videos before, and he seems so confident in everything he says, despite the fact that he's always wrong. I'm curious to know more about him and what he does.

 

[juvenissun]

but the author of the video ridicules creationists by "showing" them as being wrong.

So, when the author presented his or her view about these issues, then you would agree. Right?

 

[crawfish]

The video is ridiculous. They pick on some poor guy who doesn't know what he's talking about and paint him as an example of all creationists.

Of course, your point it absolutely correct. People who have absolutely no scientific qualifications are presenting themselves as "experts" in order to push the creationist dogma. Many of them also have absolutely no clue of science OR its claims, only in their concept of the bible. They parrot (many times incorrectly) whatever arguments they've heard elsewhere. It's no wonder that the vast majority seem to be unintelligent.

 

[Mallon]

The video is ridiculous. They pick on some poor guy who doesn't know what he's talking about and paint him as an example of all creationists.

Well, much of what the "poor guy" (I found out he goes by the name "VenomfangX") espouses is taken directly from the creationist literature. His ideas are hardly his own.

 

[busterdog]

What do creationists feel about Augustine's view here? Do they agree with it (even if they don't feel they fit into the type of Christians Augustine warned against)? Would you agree with Augustine here about Christians in the past who opposed Heliocentrism on theological grounds? Would you claim believers who advocate Heliocentrism to the degree that creationists argue creationism should be discouraged for reasons similar to Augustine's?

Please, don't take my questions or my post as an attack on your position, but I am sincerly interested in hearing your views.

I don't really know what to say that hasn't been said already.

Augustine was prolific and would have made a great M. Scott Peck or modern preacher like D. James Kennedy. However, I am less impressed with his hermeneutics as the years pass. He missed the boat completely on prophecy and the importance of Israel. If you "spiritualize" those issues, spiritualizing Gen. 1-3 is pretty easy to do.

As for the heliocentrism mistake, lets not forget that scientists made the same mistake. I am not sure why we need to draw disproportionate caution from this story.

 

[busterdog]

What do creationists feel about Augustine's view here? Do they agree with it (even if they don't feel they fit into the type of Christians Augustine warned against)? Would you agree with Augustine here about Christians in the past who opposed Heliocentrism on theological grounds? Would you claim believers who advocate Heliocentrism to the degree that creationists argue creationism should be discouraged for reasons similar to Augustine's?

Please, don't take my questions or my post as an attack on your position, but I am sincerly interested in hearing your views.

I don't really know what to say that hasn't been said already.

Augustine was prolific and would have made a great M. Scott Peck or modern preacher like D. James Kennedy. However, I am less impressed with his hermeneutics as the years pass. He missed the boat completely on prophecy and the importance of Israel. If you "spiritualize" those issues, spiritualizing Gen. 1-3 is pretty easy to do.

As for the heliocentrism mistake, lets not forget that scientists made the same mistake. I am not sure why we need to draw disproportionate caution from this story.

Obviously the ego that prepared the video has many years on the kid in the video. Do we also get to do a video on the stupidity of teen atheists who messed up their information? That would be no less pathetic and no more productive.

The right thing to do with a kid, if not most adults, is to understand the essence of what they are saying. The kid is referring to a sudden release of water from an ice dam as the "5 minute" event. Now whether a meandering channel is the result of the catastrophic release of water from an ENORMOUS glacial lake is beside the point -- if the kid is wrong on that point, he has been challenged, but probably not laughed at. The guy ridiculed him over the 5 minute thing. To me, the narrator is a jerk. No one should make that mistake. But that is one reason why people laugh at creationists, because they ignore the essence of what is said. Let's face it, people can be ham handed in trying to get at concepts. This is true of evolutionists as well -- in high school or otherwise.

 

[juvenissun]

The video is ridiculous. They pick on some poor guy who doesn't know what he's talking about and paint him as an example of all creationists.

Of course, your point it absolutely correct. People who have absolutely no scientific qualifications are presenting themselves as "experts" in order to push the creationist dogma. Many of them also have absolutely no clue of science OR its claims, only in their concept of the bible. They parrot (many times incorrectly) whatever arguments they've heard elsewhere. It's no wonder that the vast majority seem to be unintelligent.

So, you know some sciences. What would you say to their comments about the Genesis Flood?

I don't think you can do better than that kid.

Try.

 

[theIdi0t]

Augustine was prolific and would have made a great M. Scott Peck or modern preacher like D. James Kennedy. However, I am less impressed with his hermeneutics as the years pass. He missed the boat completely on prophecy and the importance of Israel. If you "spiritualize" those issues, spiritualizing Gen. 1-3 is pretty easy to do.

I didn't ask what you thought of Augustine, but if you agreed (at least to some degree) with Augustine's view on the erroneous use of science.

As for the heliocentrism mistake, lets not forget that scientists made the same mistake. I am not sure why we need to draw disproportionate caution from this story.

Well, I wasn't creative enough to invent another example, but the question remains on how do you feel about believers that incorporate an erroneous science with their theology (even if your science is not erroneous)? And are your views in somewhat of an alignment with Augustine here? Do you accept that incorporating bad science into theology has the potential for serous trouble?

 

[juvenissun]

Do you accept that incorporating bad science into theology has the potential for serous trouble?

I agree.

So, we SHOULD include and promote GOOD science into theology.

Are you a scientist? Are you doing that?

 

[theIdi0t]

I agree.

So, we SHOULD include and promote GOOD science into theology.

Are you a scientist? Are you doing that?

I don't support incorporating science into theology period! I take offense when theistic evolutionist such as Rev. Michael Dowd do it, and I take offense to creationist who do it. Christians who resort to science worship are as easily dismissible to me as atheist who do the same thing. Christ is sufficient for me, and I'm always eager to share the Gospel, and not too eager to tell children, Behemoth was a dinosaur, and bananas are an atheist's worst weapon.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't support incorporating science into theology period! I take offense when theistic evolutionist such as Rev. Michael Dowd do it, and I take offense to creationist who do it. Christians who resort to science worship are as easily dismissible to me as atheist who do the same thing. Christ is sufficient for me, and I'm always eager to share the Gospel, and not too eager to tell children, Behemoth was a dinosaur, and bananas are an atheist's worst weapon.

If so, why do you visit this forum?

How do you discuss origin theology without talking about science?

 

[theIdi0t]

If so, why do you visit this forum?

How do you discuss origin theology without talking about science?

Well, I rarely talk about science, and it seems that other TEs here who do talk about science, talk about science as science, not science as theology. I don't think a single TE here will claim that his theology is dependent on evolution, or even science. I don't care too much for the bad science, as I do for the bad theology.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, I rarely talk about science, and it seems that other TEs here who do talk about science, talk about science as science, not science as theology. I don't think a single TE here will claim that his theology is dependent on evolution, or even science. I don't care too much for the bad science, as I do for the bad theology.

I see.

So, let me ask you this: IF the science promoted by Creationist were so bad, then why do they do it? They are NOT stupid. What is the motivation for Creationist to teach church congregation bad science? or according to you, bad theology? What do they try to achieve? Have they got any success? Sorry for so many questions. But I want to know your opinion (since you started this thread).

 

[theIdi0t]

.

 

[gluadys]

I see.

So, let me ask you this: IF the science promoted by Creationist were so bad, then why do they do it? They are NOT stupid. What is the motivation for Creationist to teach church congregation bad science? or according to you, bad theology? What do they try to achieve? Have they got any success? Sorry for so many questions. But I want to know your opinion (since you started this thread).

I won't speak for theIdi0t, but here is my take on things.

Creationism tied itself into a modernistic box. It accepted the rationalistic dictum that a true statement is always a factual statement i.e. it factually describes an object, event or process that can be objectively observed.

Starting with this premise, virtually nothing in scripture can be a story. It has to be a "literal, historic event" or its not real, not true.

No subjective experience, no story can be true or real apart from an objective verifiable fact.

In the last Harry Potter book, Dumbledore says of an experience "Of course it's all in your head, Harry. But why on earth would that mean it's not real?"

To a creationist, that question is nonsensical. By definition, something that is only in your head or only in a story cannot be real or true.

So, given the stories of scripture, stories of creation and the flood, the creationist must assure himself that these are factual descriptions of actual events, for if they are not real in that sense, the Bible may as well go on the shelf with Mother Goose rhymes.

Of course, the quid pro quo is that the world of nature then becomes unreal since it does not conform to the alleged factual reality of these stories.

 

[busterdog]

I didn't ask what you thought of Augustine, but if you agreed (at least to some degree) with Augustine's view on the erroneous use of science.



Well, I wasn't creative enough to invent another example, but the question remains on how do you feel about believers that incorporate an erroneous science with their theology (even if your science is not erroneous)? And are your views in somewhat of an alignment with Augustine here? Do you accept that incorporating bad science into theology has the potential for serous trouble?

Well, to be someone flip, everything has the potential for trouble.

Perhaps to make it somewhat less flippant, since all creation science is regarded as wrong, how is this more complicated than just saying don't be a creationist? Or for that matter, never use completely unsupported science or theology, which for just about every evolutionist I can think of means the same thing as "never whisper a word of young earth creationism?"

I am sure bad science is bad.

Maybe I don't understand the question.

 

[juvenissun]

So, given the stories of scripture, stories of creation and the flood, the creationist must assure himself that these are factual descriptions of actual events, for if they are not real in that sense, the Bible may as well go on the shelf with Mother Goose rhymes.

Well said.

So, we can say that Creationists are trying to "maintain the integrity of the Bible".

If we admit that the Bible has ONE fiction-like paragraph, then any other paragraph in the Bible will allow a room for similar degradation. (I thought this idea was debated. But somehow, I was never impressed). People attacked the science in the Bible, because it apparently is an easy target (based on the understanding in their pinhead). If the science in the Bible is wrong, then the theology "could" also be wrong. Then Jesus could also only be a "wise man", or even only a "normal person" who could not even save himself.

That is why every Christian should feel the need to defend scientific message in the Bible. You may insist: there is no scientific message in the Bible. But people who attacked your faith will attack the science regardless what you think. There is no use to hide your head in the sand. The attack will not go away just because you said the target is not there. Whether is there science in Bible or not, Christian NEEDs to defend it.

Unfortunately, due to our ignorance, it is not that easy to defend the attacks on Genesis 1-11 with a complete scientific answer. Creationists are doing their best on that. They are also trying to arm up general church congregation for the defense. No matter their science is good or bad. I will absolutely support them. We need to recognize that this is not a war about science, it is a war about theology and faith. The general Christians do not need to know how good the science is. They just need to have some scientific statements to fight back. We can not allow the shake on their faith because people attack the science in the Bible.

If people ridicules Christian on their limited knowledge of science, then we who know better, should stand up and fight back with good, or at least, acceptable science. In fact, since nobody knows the truth answer, it is pretty easy to refute any of those so-call "scientific truth". For example, the video said that 5 minutes is not enough for the flood water to run through the Grand Canyon. How do you rebuke it? Very simple, nobody is suggesting the water ran "along" the canyon. It would only take one second for the water to cover all the canyon if it came at a right angle to it.

If I had a chance to coach the boy in the video. I could make him defend every accusations very successfully in just 5 minutes.

 

[gluadys]

Well said.

So, we can say that Creationists are trying to "maintain the integrity of the Bible".

Of course, but they misidentify "integrity". They are like horses trying to run when they are hobbled, because they have equated "integrity" with "scientifically verifiable fact."

If we admit that the Bible has ONE fiction-like paragraph, then any other paragraph in the Bible will allow a room for similar degradation.

See what I mean? You are equating "fiction" with "degradation". Do you know how insulting that sounds to a student of literature? We are not students of degradation. The Bible is a wonderful, beautiful, noble collection of literature. To call it "degraded" because it is literature and not science is a highly prejudicial and insulting statement.

If the science in the Bible is wrong, then the theology "could" also be wrong.

That's a stupid slogan if I ever heard one. The science of the bible must be "wrong" for one age or another. If it is right for its time, it is wrong for ours. If it is right for our time, it is wrong for its own time. And if it agrees with some science we haven't developed yet it is wrong for our time and its own time.

So for some period of time the bible will always be scientifically wrong. However, we believe it is always theologically right, and that is what counts.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Well said.

So, we can say that Creationists are trying to "maintain the integrity of the Bible".

If we admit that the Bible has ONE fiction-like paragraph, then any other paragraph in the Bible will allow a room for similar degradation. (I thought this idea was debated. But somehow, I was never impressed). People attacked the science in the Bible, because it apparently is an easy target (based on the understanding in their pinhead). If the science in the Bible is wrong, then the theology "could" also be wrong. Then Jesus could also only be a "wise man", or even only a "normal person" who could not even save himself.

That is why every Christian should feel the need to defend scientific message in the Bible. You may insist: there is no scientific message in the Bible. But people who attacked your faith will attack the science regardless what you think. There is no use to hide your head in the sand. The attack will not go away just because you said the target is not there. Whether is there science in Bible or not, Christian NEEDs to defend it.

Unfortunately, due to our ignorance, it is not that easy to defend the attacks on Genesis 1-11 with a complete scientific answer. Creationists are doing their best on that. They are also trying to arm up general church congregation for the defense. No matter their science is good or bad. I will absolutely support them. We need to recognize that this is not a war about science, it is a war about theology and faith. The general Christians do not need to know how good the science is. They just need to have some scientific statements to fight back. We can not allow the shake on their faith because people attack the science in the Bible.

If people ridicules Christian on their limited knowledge of science, then we who know better, should stand up and fight back with good, or at least, acceptable science. In fact, since nobody knows the truth answer, it is pretty easy to refute any of those so-call "scientific truth". For example, the video said that 5 minutes is not enough for the flood water to run through the Grand Canyon. How do you rebuke it? Very simple, nobody is suggesting the water ran "along" the canyon. It would only take one second for the water to cover all the canyon if it came at a right angle to it.

If I had a chance to coach the boy in the video. I could make him defend every accusations very successfully in just 5 minutes.

So you actually believe that God led the Israelites out of Egypt with a literal outstretched arm?