So apparently nobody actually believes in creationism.

[SkyWriting]

I don't know what any of this has to do with science.

Creationism has nothing to do with Science. We Creationists accept on faith that that God stepped in and created the Cosmos.
I can't reproduce the event so it's not scientific in any way. Just like the common origins theory.

 

[SkyWriting]

Scientists do seek truth. Just don't be so sad when they find something that may conflict with your firmly held beliefs

Christians seek real Truth. The kind that matters for an eternity.

SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED
BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS
​

ANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912) BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895) CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727) CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630) CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691) COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832) COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871) DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919) DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727) ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945) ELECTRODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879) ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867) ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907) ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS HENRI FABRE (1823-1915) FIELD THEORY MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867) FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903) GALACTIC ASTRONOMY WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822) GAS DYNAMICS ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691) GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884) GLACIAL GEOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873) GYNECOLOGY JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870) HYDRAULICS LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519) HYDROGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873) HYDROSTATICS BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662) ICHTHYOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873) ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916) MODEL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919) NATURAL HISTORY JOHN RAY (1627-1705) NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866) OCEANOGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873) OPTICAL MINERALOGY DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868) PALEONTOLOGY JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728) PATHOLOGY RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902) PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630) REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS JAMES JOULE (1818-1889) STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879) STRATIGRAPHY NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686) SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778) THERMODYNAMICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907) THERMOKINETICS HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829) VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)

 

[Catherineanne]

SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED

BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS​

ANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912) BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895) CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727) CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630) CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691) COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832) COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871) DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919) DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727) ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945) ELECTRODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879) ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867) ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907) ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS HENRI FABRE (1823-1915) FIELD THEORY MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867) FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903) GALACTIC ASTRONOMY WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822) GAS DYNAMICS ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691) GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884) GLACIAL GEOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873) GYNECOLOGY JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870) HYDRAULICS LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519) HYDROGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873) HYDROSTATICS BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662) ICHTHYOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873) ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916) MODEL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919) NATURAL HISTORY JOHN RAY (1627-1705) NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866) OCEANOGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873) OPTICAL MINERALOGY DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868) PALEONTOLOGY JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728) PATHOLOGY RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902) PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630) REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS JAMES JOULE (1818-1889) STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879) STRATIGRAPHY NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686) SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778) THERMODYNAMICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907) THERMOKINETICS HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829) VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)

It is not possible to libel the dead.

Shame, really.

Creationism is a belief that came about in reaction to the findings of Darwin et al about evolution. It is disingenuous to take scientists who largely predate the publication and widespread dissemination of those findings, and label them creationist. They were not. They may have accepted what everyone else accepted, without putting a label on it, they may have been sceptical, or they may even have been atheist. Without investigating each one in detail, it is not possible to say for sure.

The only thing it is possible to say for sure is that it is anachronistic to call them Creationist, in the sense that it is meant today. Creationism is NOT an ancient belief, dating back to the time of Abraham and Moses. It is a modern belief, which stands in contradistinction to modern scientific findings, for no apparent good reason.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationism is a belief that came about in reaction to the findings of Darwin et al about evolution.

Either that, or Adam wrote about it, and Jesus confirmed it.

It is disingenuous to take scientists who largely predate the publication and widespread dissemination of those findings, and label them creationist.

So scientists have a Get Out Of Jail Free card, just because they're scientists?

 

[Catherineanne]

Either that, or Adam wrote about it, and Jesus confirmed it.

There is no evidence whatever that Adam could write. Nor the Lord, for that matter.

So scientists have a Get Out Of Jail Free card, just because they're scientists?

Only if they are playing Monopoly.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no evidence whatever that Adam could write. Nor the Lord, for that matter.

Or breathe? or walk? or talk? or...?

 

[Norman321]

It is disingenuous to take scientists who largely predate the publication and widespread dissemination of those findings, and label them creationist.

You would have to predate Paul's sermon on Mars Hill. He straightened out the whole issue then.

Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein *,

You would also have to predate Dr Luke, as he would have been the first Creation Scientiest. "1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs," I think that perhaps today creation science would not be so bold as Luke to say they have "infallible proofs".

Mark, Paul, Luke & Peter were all Creationists. Mark 10 6 "But 'God made them male and female' from the beginning of creation"

 

[Catherineanne]

You would have to predate Paul's sermon on Mars Hill. He straightened out the whole issue then.

Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein *,

You would also have to predate Dr Luke, as he would have been the first Creation Scientiest. "1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs," I think that perhaps today creation science would not be so bold as Luke to say they have "infallible proofs".

Mark, Paul, Luke & Peter were all Creationists. Mark 10 6 "But 'God made them male and female' from the beginning of creation"

I believe that God made the world, and everything in it. I also believe that he made mankind in his own image. However, I am not a Creationist, as the term is understood today. The Creationist God is a God of deception, and has built deception into his creation. That is not the God of the Bible, who is Truth. It is satan who is a liar and the father of all lies, so any system with built in deception (misleading rock strata, planted fossils etc) is far more indicative of the kind of world he would have created, given the chance, not one which God could make.

God does not deceive; if the world indicates that it is billions of years old then it is telling the truth. We simply need a far bigger concept of who God is and what he can do. God cannot lie, and neither can his creation.

I accept what science has to tell us about how God created the world (as indeed the majority of Christians do), while accepting that he is the one who made it. As for Mark, Paul, Luke and Peter, they were no more Creationists than they were members of Amnesty International. And for the same reason.

QED.

 

[Norman321]

Neither were Mark, Paul, Luke and Peter. They were no more Creationists than they were members of Amnesty International.

That would depend on what dictionary you use and what you mean by Creationist.

 

[Catherineanne]

Or breathe? or walk? or talk? or...?

There is evidence in Genesis that Adam could breath, walk and talk.

There is similar evidence for the Lord in the Gospels and elsewhere.

Come on, AV, you can do better than that. Reading and writing are not innate abilities; they are learned. Not every society is a literate one.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is evidence in Genesis that Adam could breath, walk and talk.

There is similar evidence for the Lord in the Gospels and elsewhere.

Come on, AV, you can do better than that. Reading and writing are not innate abilities; they are learned. Not every society is a literate one.

So Adam could marry, have children, work a job, and name the animals; but Adam couldn't write?

 

[Catherineanne]

That would depend on what dictionary you use and what you mean by Creationist.

I would say it is more about having a clear understanding of what is, and what is not, anachronistic.

Believing that God made the world is not a sufficient definition for Creationism as the word is used at present; there is a whole lot more baggage that goes along with this term, which would NOT have applied to people in earlier days accepting what the Church taught about how God made the world.

 

[Catherineanne]

So Adam could marry, have children, work a job, and name the animals; but Adam couldn't write?

Yes; billions of people all over the world can still marry, have children and work, and even give a name to their animals, and yet not be able to read or write.

Where does the Bible say he could? Traditionally, the Pentateuch was written by Moses, not Adam.

 

[Guy1]

So Adam could marry, have children, work a job, and name the animals; but Adam couldn't write?

Much the same way you can marry, have children, work a job, and make up names; yet have no idea how to weave a basket.

 

[SkyWriting]

It is not possible to libel the dead.Shame, really.Creationism is a belief that came about in reaction to the findings of Darwin et al about evolution. It is disingenuous to take scientists who largely predate the publication and widespread dissemination of those findings, and label them creationist. They were not. They may have accepted what everyone else accepted, without putting a label on it, they may have been sceptical, or they may even have been atheist. Without investigating each one in detail, it is not possible to say for sure. The only thing it is possible to say for sure is that it is anachronistic to call them Creationist, in the sense that it is meant today. Creationism is NOT an ancient belief, dating back to the time of Abraham and Moses. It is a modern belief, which stands in contradistinction to modern scientific findings, for no apparent good reason.

First, your premise is wrong. Several states extend libel to include the deceased so you are in luck if you are seeking legal prosecution. I'm not sure why you'd like to be sued for libel, but that's your business.

If you'd like to offer evidence to support your claim that there were Christians who did not support the idea of God creating the world in 6 days, nobody is stopping you. Maybe in certain states, but go ahead and risk it.

But I do suggest you pick any name and research their background and let us know what you find. I did this before I posted this type of information years ago. I found no chinks in the armor of the argument that these men were literal Biblical Creationists.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes; billions of people all over the world can still marry, have children and work, and even give a name to their animals, and yet not be able to read or write.

Where does the Bible say he could? Traditionally, the Pentateuch was written by Moses, not Adam.

QV please: Tablet Theory.

 

[Catherineanne]

If you'd like to offer evidence to support your claim that there were Christians who did not support the idea of God creating the world in 6 days, nobody is stopping you.

Once again, this is misleading. Certainly people took the Bible literally on this point. This does NOT mean they are Creationists in the modern sense of the term. They were not choosing a position of ignoring evidence, or creating a deceptive God, or suggesting that science is contrary to what God does.

Science and faith were congruent on this point, so they did not stand in contradistinction to scientific evidence. THAT is where the difference comes in, and that is what makes modern day Creationism different from ancient beliefs in the literal nature of the Bible.

Modern day Creationists have to make a deliberate choice to disregard thousands upon thousands of scientific findings, in order to retain a belief in a literal Bible. There is NOTHING in Scripture to warrant such behaviour; we are told to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. We are not told to stop using our minds, stick our fingers in our ears, close our eyes and then say, 'Evidence, what evidence?'

But I do suggest you pick any name and research their background and let us know what you find. I did this before I posted this type of information years ago. I found no chinks in the armor of the argument that these men were literal Biblical Creationists.

The problem here is not the evidence, but your ability to see it.

 

[Catherineanne]

QV please: Tablet Theory.

Scraping the barrel somewhat, aren't you?

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12011-pentateuch

 

[AV1611VET]

Scraping the barrel somewhat, aren't you?

No ... I have just as much right to believe what I believe as you do to believe what you believe.

I not only believe Adam wrote Genesis 1-3, I believe he wrote it in English.

If that's anathema to you, that's too bad.

And for the record, I've been accused of being backwater, and I've been accused of being brainwashed -- both sides of the the coin -- so anything you say in reply will be taken by me with a grain of salt.

I've heard it all before.

 

[SkyWriting]

We are not told to stop using our minds, stick our fingers in our ears, close our eyes and then say, 'Evidence, what evidence?'

I don't know what you mean. Jesus caused the lame to walk. Everyone in the world knows that the blind remain blind and the lame don't just rise up and walk. The "evidence" of a man walking points to a series of operations followed by an lengthy series of visits to rehab. Everyone knows that.

Do you expect me to stick my fingers in my ears and ignore the reality of physical Rehab?