Creationism is willful ignorance

[Biblewriter]

@ Gregg, sorry for the delay. Things to do.
Perhaps I was a bit vague. 'It's" being the evidence for evolution, the developing fossils, pentadactyl limbs etc. Secondly, God created man on what, day 5? that means out of the total of 7 days, 1,2,3,4 man was not around, 5,6 & 7 he was. Therefore man is what, 43% as old as time?
“You're going to have to present the refuting data.” ? I’m sorry? The simple truth is that there is at least one smidgen of evidence or physical proof for the proposal that man evolved. ONE EXAMPLE =Pentadactyl limbs from the lungfish which emerged as a very effective amphibian. There is no evidentiary proof that there is a ‘God’.
I cite you for “creationists are made from something different than materialists”, you said it in your last post. You said “while Creationists hold that they weren't created by matter” implying that creationists are made of different stuff. Logically, how can this be? When religious denomination is not pre-determined, unless you wish to delve into the ‘soul’ bit where God pre-determines where you will go etc etc.
“You cannot provide [purely naturalistic] proof or [purely naturalistic] enlightening evidence for it, so why acknowledge it?” True, but can still provide some form of physical proof that leads to hypothesis and observational conclusions. I repeat. Evolution is a THEORY. It is not cemented fact. However, Christians present the works of Jesus and the word of God and his existence as a fact. You cannot provide any proof or enlightening evidence, purely naturalistic or not, of His/Her/Its existence.
You can give evidence for effect of magnetic fields on a compass. Stick a magnet next to it. Take a compass to the north/south poles.

I get tired of all this nonsense about evolution being "proved." It is proved in exactly the same way that human caused global warming is proved, that is, by cherry picking certain data and ignoring all conflicting evidence. In my university days, I had a PhD professor who ranted continually to his lab assistant about his upstart student (me) who did not believe in evolution. What he did not know was that I was dating that lab assistant. And she told me that in a reflective moment he confided to her that evolution was actually not a very good explanation of the facts.

I wrote a senior level genetics paper based on all research available at the time. It demonstrated that there was no more than a 50% chance the ratio of beneficial mutations to deleterious mutations was any higher than one in ten thousand, with zero evidence as to how much smaller the rate might be. The only person in my entire class that did not understand what I was doing was the professor. He actually imagined that I had produced evidence for evolution! The class filed out shaking their heads in disbelief.

At the same university my brother, who was one year behind me, was taught that the theory of recapitulation proved evolution. Two years later the same professor taught him that the theory of recapitulation was "actually outside of the facts."

Through the many years since then, I have discussed the evidence fro geology with various professional geologists. I have repeatedly confronted them with the evidence that the geological record does not show gradual change at all, that it actuslly shows a long series of stable ecosystems that appeared suddenly (in a geological time scale), flourished virtually unchanged for a long period of time, and then suddenly disappeared, only to be immediately replaced by a different stable ecosystem.

Every one on them denied this, and then, after discussion, had admitted that they already knew the evidence that proved this. They just had never realized its significance.

One answer from such a discussion stands out in my memory. It was, "You have by no means convinced me, but at least you have raised the first serious doubts I have ever had that evolution is correct." Another petulantly said, "you make everything seem sooo reasonable!" (These ware not geologists.)

You started out with the assumption that matter and energy have always existed. That is indeed current theory. But not so very long ago it was positively proved fact that neither matter nor energy could be created or destroyed. And a very little while before that (in terms of the time scale of human history) it was absolutely proven fact that the surface of the earth was flat!

Scientific knowledge progresses, what is well known fact one day is often disproved another. I was horribly shaken in my faith of the modern scientific community as a whole when, in my senior year in the university, it was suddenly discovered that we were mistaken about the number of chromosomes contained in a human cell! Up to that year, everyone knew there were 48 pairs. Suddenly it was discovered that there were only 46 pairs. Sombody had said it and everyone had accepted it without question. And this was something that anyone with a microscope could check for himself!

So do not speak so rashly, willfully ignorant, for that is indeed what you are.

 

[willfullyignorant]

Biblewriter, thankyou for that insight into the flaws of evolution theory. How many times must i repeat that it is the theory of evolution and that it is not a proven fact. Physical evidence is constantly being re-evaluated to fit hypothesis. I AM NOT ASCERTING THAT EVOLUTION IS 100% FOOLPROOF. I am merely asking for similar attempts to try and justify the belief that the bible and Christian belief is considered foolproof and completely and utterly unquestionable by such religious individuals. If you are willing to question evolution in such a manner and try and disprove the theories of evolution in such a tried and effective manner, are you also open to testing the legitimacy of religious doctrine and its accuracy in assumptions made?
Yes, scientific knowledge advances, and through time we gain insights into areas where we were previously ignorant. Does religious knowledge shift and develop over time? I believe it has remained relatively dormant in its fundamentals........christian belief has not shifted as new interpretations have come into view. There have been schisms within the religion that have given rise to different denominations, but the essence is still there and relatively consistent with previous beliefs.

 

[Biblewriter]

Biblewriter, thankyou for that insight into the flaws of evolution theory. How many times must i repeat that it is the theory of evolution and that it is not a proven fact. Physical evidence is constantly being re-evaluated to fit hypothesis. I AM NOT ASCERTING THAT EVOLUTION IS 100% FOOLPROOF. I am merely asking for similar attempts to try and justify the belief that the bible and Christian belief is considered foolproof and completely and utterly unquestionable by such religious individuals. If you are willing to question evolution in such a manner and try and disprove the theories of evolution in such a tried and effective manner, are you also open to testing the legitimacy of religious doctrine and its accuracy in assumptions made?
Yes, scientific knowledge advances, and through time we gain insights into areas where we were previously ignorant. Does religious knowledge shift and develop over time? I believe it has remained relatively dormant in its fundamentals........christian belief has not shifted as new interpretations have come into view. There have been schisms within the religion that have given rise to different denominations, but the essence is still there and relatively consistent with previous beliefs.

Actually, knowledge of what the Bible actually says advances. Psalm 119:99 says, "I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation." Every generation should be able to say this. But unfortunately, many cannot. I have written extensively about little known details of what the Bible says is coming in the future. While most of what I write about has gone unnoticed for a century or more, some of the best known leaders in the field of eschatology have highly recommended my book. So knowledge that is new is not simply rejected, if its basis can indeed be demonstrated.

But the basic tenants of the Christian faith cannot evolve, for one simple reason. They are based on faith that Jesus is indeed the son of God and the savior of all who believe in him. So the basic reference point on which Christian faith is based is fixed and unchangeable. The Christian faith is not based upon intellectual persuasion for one simple reason. Belief is an act of choice. You believe what you want to believe.

If you come home late and your wife refuses to believe your explanation of why you were late, you will get angry. Why? because if she really loved you, she would believe you. If she chooses to not believe you, she is not acting in love. God wants our love, so He wants us to believe him without "proof." If He wanted to "prove" that He exists, He could in a moment. But then we would not have the opportunity to choose to believe. We would only be forced to admit the truth. This will indeed happen when He comes to judge the world, but then the time for choosing to believe will be over.

The Bible explicitly says that there would be people like you in the last days.

" Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." (2 Peter 3:3-7)

I pray that you will give up your willful ignorance.

 

[Greg1234]

@ Gregg, sorry for the delay. Things to do.
Perhaps I was a bit vague. 'It's" being the evidence for evolution, the developing fossils, pentadactyl limbs etc.

That's not evidence, just trite arguments from homology The mechanism is impotent.

There is no evidentiary proof that there is a ‘God’.

Of course not, you're a materialist after all.

You cannot provide any proof or enlightening evidence, purely naturalistic or not, of His/Her/Its existence.

Again how is this news? You're a materialist. Jut present the data, chief.

You can give evidence for effect of magnetic fields on a compass. Stick a magnet next to it. Take a compass to the north/south poles.

What magnetic fields? We don't know the cause.

 

[willfullyignorant]

In regards to my post to Harry

"Harry, I see the sense in your comment and I agree that there are of course things we do not know, and perhaps cannot??
What I would like to question is why would God choose to save some people afflicted by alcoholism, drug addiction etc if he is all loving? Surely then, this benevolent God should not pick and choose between those who are sick or needing of care? Perhaps you would argue that those who he does not cure are non-believers? Yet still that rejects the idea that he is all loving to his creations, and Jesus died to repent for our sins as a sacrifice. I think there is a very high probability that there are sick and afflicted creationists/Christians. Maybe there is a grand scheme that we cannot grasp, and that god in his infinite wisdom has chosen a select few to spare. that defies the whole idea of that same god."

Was wondering if someone could please provide some enlightenment?

Greg could you also please explain your comment regarding Creationsts and their composition of alternate substance?

 

[TammyRae]

"What I would like to question is why would God choose to save some people afflicted by alcoholism, drug addiction etc if he is all loving? Surely then, this benevolent God should not pick and choose between those who are sick or needing of care?"

I view it as similar to someone who loves cats and creates a large property for cats to live providing bountiful mice and tidbits to catch, sun to roll around in and woods to adventure in. Some cats will be fearful of human contact and will go their own way, possibly getting into scrapes or illnesses that hurt them. The property owner can call and try to approach the fearful cats to get them to come toward them for a relationship and help, but not all cats will trust enough to let the owner touch or help them.

Then you have other cats that do come to trust and want a relationship with the owner. That relationship makes the owner joyful that the cats freely came to him or her, and the cats enjoy the love, protection and help the owner wishes to give.

Eventually, the Owner brings those cats right into His house with many rooms

 

[willfullyignorant]

Ok, I can understand that view. But does the owner of this cat ranch judge and send the cats that don't choose his way of life to hell on judgement day? The non believers are left behind eh? Likening it to a cat rancher sort of downplays God's awesome power doesn't it? Does this cat rancher have the 'ability' to instantly absolve and save everyone? No. God does, yet he chooses not to save those children of his that don't abide by a lifestyle that some others do.
Also your signature line
"Atheism.... the belief that nothing, suddenly and for no apparent reason, exploded into everything."
Creationism isn't the same...........? Instead of attributing the beginning of the universe to a dense point of energy, where perhaps all energy was slowly drawn into one point by gravity, and under enormous pressure and friction and heat exploded outwards sending that energy elsewhere, you envisage an individual stating something that occurs.
Quote from a religious site entertaining the creation story "And then God began to speak into existence his creation." So this cat rancher merely states something and it occurs. Then why can't he state that he wishes to save all his creations instead of those he picks and chooses? Not really all that benevolent to me. Merely rewarding those who did something nice for me. Scratch my back and i'll scratch yours?

 

[Research3]

- One would have to ask, if you are an atheist who doesn't believe in God, afterlife, creationism etc why are you wasting your life debating something (creationism) you don't believe in?

Surely you should be out enjoying yourself? Instead it seems 99.9% of atheists spend their time obsessed with creationism, which seems to stem from a deep insecurity.

 

[Greg1234]

- One would have to ask, if you are an atheist who doesn't believe in God, afterlife, creationism etc why are you wasting your life debating something (creationism) you don't believe in?

Surely you should be out enjoying yourself? Instead it seems 99.9% of atheists spend their time obsessed with creationism, which seems to stem from a deep insecurity.

Or what he's even doing in a section where he shouldnt be. These guys would follow you into the bathtub.

 

[willfullyignorant]

Would like some answers to those questions previously posted please.
I'm in a creationism section. This has something to do with creationism doesn't it?
It not wasted if I believe it has some merit. Surfing the net during ad breaks while watching TV with family doesn't seem like such a waste to me.
My 'obsession' with creationism- resulting in this one post stems from a curiosity as to why you would believe something as you do, rather than an insecurity in my own place in the world.

 

[Research3]

Would like some answers to those questions previously posted please.
I'm in a creationism section. This has something to do with creationism doesn't it?
It not wasted if I believe it has some merit. Surfing the net during ad breaks while watching TV with family doesn't seem like such a waste to me.
My 'obsession' with creationism- resulting in this one post stems from a curiosity as to why you would believe something as you do, rather than an insecurity in my own place in the world.

I've studied both evolution + creation for years. I'm open to aspects of them both, however at the same time very skeptical.

You ask why people believe in creationism. The main answer lies in the fact there is no evidence for an alternitive.

Macroevolution has never been observed, tested etc. As far as empirical science is concerned macroevolution (i.e the idea man sprung from an ape) is a fairytale. However at the same time creationism cannot be observed or tested.

The difference is though we have the Bible and other origin creation accounts of myths - the evolutionists don't have anything.

 

[Dieselman]

Willful ignorance of evidence that proves otherswise. I'm sorry, but the idea that God created the world in 7 days, regardless of whether or not you interpret 1 year as 1000 years as Harold Camping does -.- it is physically impossible within the laws of physics and chemistry to create a landmass the size of the earth out of nothing. It defies all laws of science, matter cannot be created or destroyed.

So that I'm clear, your position is that if there is a supernatural God who created the universe, that He would be bound by the physical laws of the universe He created? This sounds logical to you? I'm not sure how many miracles there are in the Bible, but I've counted 150. Each of them have the same thing in common; they defy the laws of physics. That's kind of what makes them miracles and not card tricks.

Let's suppose, however, that we follow the second law of thermodynamics which tells us that matter is in a constant state of decay, or increasing entropy. That proves that the universe is not eternal, but rather slowly fading from order to disorder. The first law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot come from nothing; that it cannot be created or destroyed only changed in form. Now we know that it had to have an origin, though origination of matter is impossible. Could the universe, then, have a natural origin within the laws of science? In a word, no.

Science is the study of the physical world around us. As it cannot study the supernatural, it can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. In light of the fact that there are NO scientifically valid explanations for origination and I'm pretty sure we're all here, the thought that the impossibility of an action in the natural world could disprove that action by a supernatural entity is quite simply willful ignorance of evidence. Sorry. The impossibility of origination is a greater evidence of God than a validation of Big Bang cosmology.

 

[Martyrs44]

So that I'm clear, your position is that if there is a supernatural God who created the universe, that He would be bound by the physical laws of the universe He created? This sounds logical to you? I'm not sure how many miracles there are in the Bible, but I've counted 150. Each of them have the same thing in common; they defy the laws of physics. That's kind of what makes them miracles and not card tricks.

Let's suppose, however, that we follow the second law of thermodynamics which tells us that matter is in a constant state of decay, or increasing entropy. That proves that the universe is not eternal, but rather slowly fading from order to disorder. The first law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot come from nothing; that it cannot be created or destroyed only changed in form. Now we know that it had to have an origin, though origination of matter is impossible. Could the universe, then, have a natural origin within the laws of science? In a word, no.

Science is the study of the physical world around us. As it cannot study the supernatural, it can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. In light of the fact that there are NO scientifically valid explanations for origination and I'm pretty sure we're all here, the thought that the impossibility of an action in the natural world could disprove that action by a supernatural entity is quite simply willful ignorance of evidence. Sorry. The impossibility of origination is a greater evidence of God than a validation of Big Bang cosmology.

A prudent answer. Willfullyignorant is willfully ignorant.

 

[Dieselman]

What I would like to question is why would God choose to save some people afflicted by alcoholism, drug addiction etc if he is all loving? Surely then, this benevolent God should not pick and choose between those who are sick or needing of care...

You might as well ask, why did God create evil? I've asked myself the same question. Now I think I know the answer. He didn't. We did.

When I look around me I see reflected light. I cannot add darkness, only take away light. Darkness, then, is the absence of light. Conversely, I can generate heat but not cold. Cold is the absence of heat. To cool something I must transfer the heat away from it. I cannot measure sobriety, only the presence or absence of alcohol. I cannot measure aridity, only the saturation of water.

Evil, then, is the absence of goodness. When Adam defied God he introduced man to a separation form God. Pain and suffering come not from God, but by man's separation from God. It all stems from the curse of defiance.

The addict takes chemicals into his body which alter its functioning. This is also known as sorcery, and it's not without its repercussion. He can reach out to God for the peace to deal with his addiction, but like Peter, if he takes his eyes off the Lord he will sink. God offers us all peace, comfort and eternal life. The thing is, you have to die to get there.

 

[Sophrosyne]

A prudent answer. Willfullyignorant is willfully ignorant.

and if you look at the date of his last post you will realize most likely he won't reply to it after the thread has gone dead for over a year.

 

[BondiHarry]

Willful ignorance of evidence that proves otherswise. I'm sorry, but the idea that God created the world in 7 days, regardless of whether or not you interpret 1 year as 1000 years as Harold Camping does -.- it is physically impossible within the laws of physics and chemistry to create a landmass the size of the earth out of nothing. It defies all laws of science, matter cannot be created or destroyed.
Whilst we do not know where this energy came from to create bonds between chemicals and atoms to create matter. Whilst the Big bang has flaws, there is scientific evidence to back up the formation of matter, and The big bang theory is just that. A theory. It is not accepted as fact and scientists continue to try and prove its occurence in order to explain the origin of matter.
Willful ignorance in the belief that there is an almighty being that has to create this on the other hand is simple stupid and can almost be considered insane. I don't know whether or not you draw some kind of satisfaction that there is a 'greater being' that guides your lives because you are worried about what happens in the 'afterlife', but belief in something that has absolutely NO basis in fact is.....well....it defies explanation. The idea that you have to believe in a tolerant, benign, loving god to gain entrance into heaven completely contradicts the idea of that same benevolent God! If he is so loving and Jesus died for our sins, then he will allow you entrance to heaven regardless of whether you have atoned or not!
I do not deny that there is a historical figure called Jesus, but the idea that he is a divine being is a bit too far. Belief in God lacks proof and is simply a way of providing comfort that you do not simply die. Hate to break it to you.....but that's what happens. These spiritual visions people have when they die and come back to life cannot be explained by science because we simply do not know enough about the nervous system and how the brain works. Whether it is the lack of bloodflow to the brain, lack of oxygen, nerve systems playing tricks, we don't know and we do not SURMISE. We simply leave it as an unexplained occurance. But attributing them to a divine being because you 'believe God was with you' is simply arguing a case without any evidence!
When writing a thesis for a university degree, an essay for school or another work, you always need to provide evidence for your arguments. You cannot simply state something and have it unanimously accepted without proof. You cannot state it in the first place!
Im sorry, but implying the idea that there is a creator without any proof is invalid.

The funny thing is there have been atheists who decided to debunk Christianity, dug into the evidence ... and became believers.

The test of reality is not 'does it make sense to men or do we have the evidence to prove or disprove a belief'. Reality IS whether man can sense it, reason it out, grasp it or accommodate it.

To deny the truth of Christianity one must deny the many witnessed 'miracles', the life, death and RESURRECTION of Jesus Christ, the transformation of the apostles from fearful men at the death of Jesus to fearless preachers of God's word even in the face of brutal execution over recanting their faith (not to mention the many martyrs who have similarly died), the efficacy of all that God teaches that benefits man, the vast body of sociological evidence that what God has called 'sin' does indeed harm man <a reminder though, this is a Christian site so those who are doubters or deniers, please don't start citing OT 'sins' that have never applied to Christians>, and the very real impact that God has had on countless millions of believers.

Willful ignorance is believing man is particularly wise, observant or honest. All one has to do is look at the results of the secularization of America to see this. Americans are trading the liberty and economic system that made the United States the freest and most prosperous nation the world has ever seen for the tyranny of the state and economic practices that always lead to poverty. We trade God's truth for belief in things that require far more faith to believe (and that faith is more truly a blind faith compared to the faith of Christians who have good cause to have confidence in the word, wisdom and reality of God) such as the non-humanity of babies in the womb, a belief that life as we know it could just spontaneously start and not only start but at the very same instant acquire the ability to sustain and replicate itself and the obvious degeneration of moral values in society (as Benjamin Franklin commented "if men are this evil with religion, imagine what they'll be like without it").

The idea that you have to believe in a tolerant, benign, loving god to gain entrance into heaven completely contradicts the idea of that same benevolent God! If he is so loving and Jesus died for our sins, then he will allow you entrance to heaven regardless of whether you have atoned or not!

Oh please, those who love sin would HATE being in heaven where there is no sin and surely it must be obvious even to you that if one loves virtue they must HATE sin, if one loves justice one cannot embrace injustice yet that is just what you would have God do. You want a love that is not love but tolerance for any and all things even when they are mutually exclusive ... that is a love that is an abrogation of the very concept of love.

 

[Smidlee]

and if you look at the date of his last post you will realize most likely he won't reply to it after the thread has gone dead for over a year.

Unless he's one who continues to open new threads under a different name. The user name is usually a good clue.

 

[jilfe]

The very fact that the OP. admitted to being a person who is willfully ignorant against the evidence of God's existence when it is made perfectly evident by God Himself to all mankind, as the Bible states no one is without excuse, means then everything the OP. wrote can be disgarded as foolishness, since it came from the foolish mind.

For the Bible states about the foolishness of man.

Prov:1:7: The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Prov:9:6: Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding.
Prov:10:14: Wise men lay up knowledge: but the mouth of the foolish is near destruction.
Prov:12:23: A prudent man concealeth knowledge: but the heart of fools proclaimeth foolishness.

 

[mark kennedy]

The very fact that the OP. admitted to being a person who is willfully ignorant against the evidence of God's existence when it is made perfectly evident by God Himself to all mankind, as the Bible states no one is without excuse, means then everything the OP. wrote can be disgarded as foolishness, since it came from the foolish mind.

For the Bible states about the foolishness of man.

Prov:1:7: The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Prov:9:6: Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding.
Prov:10:14: Wise men lay up knowledge: but the mouth of the foolish is near destruction.
Prov:12:23: A prudent man concealeth knowledge: but the heart of fools proclaimeth foolishness.

Don't forget the New Testament references:

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (Romans 1:19-23)​

It should be understood that Paul's indictment isn't against all those sinners out there in the world, he is talking about you. Same thing with the Proverbs, if you don't realize that the fool in the parable is you then you have missed the whole point.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[BondiHarry]

Don't forget the New Testament references:

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (Romans 1:19-23)​

It should be understood that Paul's indictment isn't against all those sinners out there in the world, he is talking about you. Same thing with the Proverbs, if you don't realize that the fool in the parable is you then you have missed the whole point.

Grace and peace,
Mark

That's rather harsh Mark, especially since you are a member of a political party that supports the killing of unborn babies, covetousness, theft by government proxy and the banning of God's word in the <public> education of children.