The unrefuted argument for creationism

[AV1611VET]

Cosmic microwave background:

Ah, yes.

Remnants of a time (4004 BC) when this universe was bathed in Shekinah energy.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ah, yes.

Remnants of a time (4004 BC) when this universe was bathed in Shekinah energy.

Ah, yes. You making stuff up.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, yes. You making stuff up.

Like how you guys interpret Genesis 1 and Joshua 10:13.

Note: The way the Joshua passage is interpreted shows a willingness to suspend relativity to make the Bible look wrong.

Einstein is turning over in his grave!

 

[Loudmouth]

Like how you guys interpret Genesis 1 and Joshua 10:13.

Note: The way the Joshua passage is interpreted shows a willingness to suspend relativity to make the Bible look wrong.

Einstein is turning over in his grave!

Interpretations of stories have nothing to do with reality.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

What we see is more than enough to confirm the BB theory.

Cosmic microwave background:

I'd have to watch the relevant parts of the video again, but the latest DVD from creation astronomy adds additional information that you are not revealing here and casts significant doubt on what you have stated above.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'd have to watch the relevant parts of the video again, but the latest DVD from creation astronomy adds additional information that you are not revealing here and casts significant doubt on what you have stated above.

I don't doubt that a creationist organization has misrepresented the science. That's pretty much their modus operandi.

 

[farout]

Are you saying it is an effective strategy by creationist leaders to deceive the gullible masses? If so, I agree with you.


I am making a statement AV, not a question. The statement is; the evidence is there but creationist use intellectual immature arguments to deny them.

I think that if you really did serious research, instead of being ready to jump at creationists being stupid or ignorant, you would have a better idea why we who do believe in a seven day creation. I most certainly am not a ignorant country boy in overalls sitting smoking acorn cob pipe in a barn. I would say I am fairly well educated, but I have looked at both sides of the coin, and feel that it is not necessary to attack those who think differently than I do.

If you think a Masters in Evolution qualifies a person to belittle others who think other wise, I surely do not respect that.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think that if you really did serious research, instead of being ready to jump at creationists being stupid or ignorant, you would have a better idea why we who do believe in a seven day creation. I most certainly am not a ignorant country boy in overalls sitting smoking acorn cob pipe in a barn. I would say I am fairly well educated, but I have looked at both sides of the coin, and feel that it is not necessary to attack those who think differently than I do.

If you think a Masters in Evolution qualifies a person to belittle others who think other wise, I surely do not respect that.

As a general rule, the creationists we see here just repeat what they read on creationist sites, never understanding the material, and definitely not understand why that information is false. From these types of interactions alone, it is pretty easy to see that the reason they believe in creationism has nothing to do with the scientific evidence since no honest appraisal of that evidence would ever lead to the conclusions they hold. It is more a case of Christians putting their faith in other Christians (i.e. creationists), and those Christians letting them down.

Even worse, when we discuss topics like genetics, phylogenomics, radiometric dating, and so on, they rarely show that they understand the basics of those fields. For example, we once had a creationist who tried to claim they were an expert in genetics while not understanding why bacteria do not have recessive genes.

Any informed discussion requires the participants to at least be able to get the gist of a primary paper and be able to discuss how the data presented supports the conclusions. I have rarely, if ever, found a creationist who is capable of doing that. At the same time, many of us on the evolution side can and do read the primary lit and understand it. While it may not require a masters degree in the specific field of science to read peer reviewed paper, it is a rather large hurdle for the newcomer to get over.

 

[farout]

As a general rule, the creationists we see here just repeat what they read on creationist sites, never understanding the material, and definitely not understand why that information is false. From these types of interactions alone, it is pretty easy to see that the reason they believe in creationism has nothing to do with the scientific evidence since no honest appraisal of that evidence would ever lead to the conclusions they hold. It is more a case of Christians putting their faith in other Christians (i.e. creationists), and those Christians letting them down.

Even worse, when we discuss topics like genetics, phylogenomics, radiometric dating, and so on, they rarely show that they understand the basics of those fields. For example, we once had a creationist who tried to claim they were an expert in genetics while not understanding why bacteria do not have recessive genes.

Any informed discussion requires the participants to at least be able to get the gist of a primary paper and be able to discuss how the data presented supports the conclusions. I have rarely, if ever, found a creationist who is capable of doing that. At the same time, many of us on the evolution side can and do read the primary lit and understand it. While it may not require a masters degree in the specific field of science to read peer reviewed paper, it is a rather large hurdle for the newcomer to get over.

Thank you for a forth right respectful reply. I personally am not real familiar with many of the subject you have listed, no do I pretend to be. If I don't know something, I either don't respond, or ask for more information, at least I hope that is the way I come across.

I do subscribe to ACTS & FACTS witch is a creationists magazine, which I do trust. I believe there will always be debate between those who accept the Bible as accurate and those who totally disagree with the Bible. However there is always a chance to dialogue with respect and kindness. For sure I do believe in what Scripture says, as I think you would expect. I may not agree with someone, and hopefully rather than becoming rude I would just drop out of a thread. I hope this give a little better understanding of who I am and that I believe respect is a key to any dialogue on such an important topic.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thank you for a forth right respectful reply. I personally am not real familiar with many of the subject you have listed, no do I pretend to be. If I don't know something, I either don't respond, or ask for more information, at least I hope that is the way I come across.

Going back to the previous post:

"I most certainly am not a ignorant country boy in overalls sitting smoking acorn cob pipe in a barn. I would say I am fairly well educated, but I have looked at both sides of the coin, and feel that it is not necessary to attack those who think differently than I do."--farout

I mean this in the most polite connotation of the term possible, you are ignorant of the science by your own admission. You haven't looked at the flip side of the coin. If you don't understand the science, then how do you know that it is wrong?

I do subscribe to ACTS & FACTS witch is a creationists magazine, which I do trust. I believe there will always be debate between those who accept the Bible as accurate and those who totally disagree with the Bible.

The majority of Christians in the world who accept the Bible as accurate also accept evolution, an old Earth, and the lack of a literal global flood. Your real battle is with the facts of the universe, not with atheists.

However there is always a chance to dialogue with respect and kindness. For sure I do believe in what Scripture says, as I think you would expect. I may not agree with someone, and hopefully rather than becoming rude I would just drop out of a thread. I hope this give a little better understanding of who I am and that I believe respect is a key to any dialogue on such an important topic.

The raw nerve in these discussions is the hubris that most creationists exude. Without any real knowledge of the sciences they discuss, they will pronounce 150 years of science and millions of educated and knowledgeable scientists as being wrong, simply because the science goes against the creationists' preferred translation of the Bible. Creationists throw fuel on the fire by making such statements as "we are using the same evidence" when they are clearly not. It is obvious from the start that no evidence will change the mind of a creationist, which makes the whole scientific discussion a moot point from the start.

 

[farout]

Going back to the previous post:

"I most certainly am not a ignorant country boy in overalls sitting smoking acorn cob pipe in a barn. I would say I am fairly well educated, but I have looked at both sides of the coin, and feel that it is not necessary to attack those who think differently than I do."--farout

I mean this in the most polite connotation of the term possible, you are ignorant of the science by your own admission. You haven't looked at the flip side of the coin. If you don't understand the science, then how do you know that it is wrong?



The majority of Christians in the world who accept the Bible as accurate also accept evolution, an old Earth, and the lack of a literal global flood. Your real battle is with the facts of the universe, not with atheists.



The raw nerve in these discussions is the hubris that most creationists exude. Without any real knowledge of the sciences they discuss, they will pronounce 150 years of science and millions of educated and knowledgeable scientists as being wrong, simply because the science goes against the creationists' preferred translation of the Bible. Creationists throw fuel on the fire by making such statements as "we are using the same evidence" when they are clearly not. It is obvious from the start that no evidence will change the mind of a creationist, which makes the whole scientific discussion a moot point from the start.

For me those denomination's that accept evolution usually have other major issues with the Bible. I believe how one accepts the beginning of the Bible determines how you interpret the end as well. I am not a fundamentalist, more of a conservative believer. In other words I am not a KJV only person at all. I was educated in a American Baptist Seminary but Southern Baptist College. So my back ground is eclectic, liberal in understanding how other understand the Bible, but very solid in my own theology and doctrine. I hope this give you a little more idea. I mainly studied Theology, Missionology, and Bible, and Psychology. So I think I have a wide background to at least dialogue on some issues.

I honestly wonder how much Theological understanding of creation many evolutionists have. Perhaps they are not fully aware of the significance of Biblical Creation, and I am not referring to Theistic-Evolution. For me that theory has some holes that I can't fill. I am not wanting to argue any point jus giving you information to consider, respectfully.

 

[SkyWriting]

"Tribalism" seems a much more fertile opening concept.
Also "superstimulus": the production of exaggerated responses and reactions by exaggeratedly stimulating natural reflexes.

Nope. No work on that front either.
Any others?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=Tribalism
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=superstimulus

 

[SkyWriting]

Kudos for proofreading!

-
There is another axiom in publishing circles: Don't wait till it's perfect before you publish.
So I hit "Post" too fast many times...Oh well.

 

[SkyWriting]

Perhaps they are not fully aware of the significance of Biblical Creation, and I am not referring to Theistic-Evolution.

Don't believe anyone with an Australian accent who tells you that
a young earth is an important stand to take. He's blowing smoke
not in the letter of ICR recommendations for biblical interpretation.

 

[farout]

Don't believe anyone with an Australian accent who tells you that
a young earth is an important stand to take. He's blowing smoke
not in the letter of ICR recommendations for biblical interpretation.

I understand your point. I however respectfully do not agree.

 

[AV1611VET]

-
There is another axiom in publishing circles: Don't wait till it's perfect before you publish.
So I hit "Post" too fast many times...Oh well.

Yup.

Publish or Perish!

 

[Hoghead1]

I'm not clear on your education, Farout. You attended a seminary, but, I gather, are not ordained. Is that correct? Or are you saying the seminary was simply associated with the college you attended? I am also wondering what exactly you are asking about evolutionary people. How much education they have had in theology? If so, that would be a difficult question to answer. If you mean scientists, their education can considerably vary. Some have had a solid education in the humanities, others not. Some have had education in the philosophy of science, some not. I have a graduate degree in teh behavioral sciences, specifically clinical psychology. I know for a fact many behavioral scientists have little, if any, background (i.e., college-level courses) in philosophy or theology or related areas, and tend to view such areas of study with disdain, unfortunately. There are really two separate worlds in academia, the sciences and the humanities, both with different agendas. The problem I have with most creation-science literature is that I find it promoted by individuals who do not have sufficient credentials in either science or theology, along with the fact bogus degrees are also often presented.

 

[SkyWriting]

I understand your point. I however respectfully do not agree.

According to Henry M. Morris, Young Earth Creationists are not reading scripture correctly.
That's not what he said, but that's what he said.

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to Henry M. Morris, Young Earth Creationists are not reading scripture correctly.
That's not what he said, but that's what he said.

Yes, but we all know that he had no clue when it came to geology.

What questions do you have on geology? I could probably help you.

 

[SkyWriting]

What questions do you have on geology? I could probably help you.

How do you avoid Logical Fallacy: Affirming the Consequent ?

https://www.google.com/search?pws=0&q=the+fallacy+of+affirming+the+consequent&gws_rd=ssl