How many creationists practise what they preach?

[OzSpen]

I can't because there is no evidence for any religions creation stories, as such they are not designed to be taken literally.

You must be pulling my leg with that hyperbole! Are you blind to the evidence?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Theistic evolutionists use the same evidence as atheistic evolutionists.

They should... the helped find it.

Interestingly enough, they found it out in the field, not in the Bible.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You must be pulling my leg with that hyperbole! Are you blind to the evidence?

Why don't you provide the evidence instead of asking a question?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not true. Evolution theory, as a whole, is not fact, its theory. You shouldn't teach theory as fact. Teach biology, but not the theory of evolution.

Atomic theory.
Germ theory of desease.
Tectonic theory.
Theory of relativity.


Learn 2 science.

 

[Jay Follett]

You must be pulling my leg with that hyperbole! Are you blind to the evidence?

Yes I must be because I can't see it, could you help me please?

 

[AV1611VET]

Interestingly enough, they found it out in the field, not in the Bible.

Who gave them that field?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Who gave them that field?

That depends on whose opinion you believe.

 

[AV1611VET]

That depends on whose opinion you believe.

Then it's hardly scientific, is it?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Then it's hardly scientific, is it?

Nobody ever claimed theism was scientific, did they?

 

[bhsmte]

You must be pulling my leg with that hyperbole! Are you blind to the evidence?

What evidence, are you referring to?

 

[ScottA]

Starting at an assumed conclusion and working backwards is not science. It's why creationists lose in the court room time and time again. It's been demonstrated to be complete nonsense.

Facts are demonstrable. This is an extraordinary claim that will require extraordinary evidence. So....what verifiable and testable evidence do you have?

Claiming to have knowledge that others do not have the capacity to understand is arrogance.

Do you know the definition of a scientific theory?

We assume nothing, except that science has done its homework in its own area of study. But, science on the hand, assuming what it does not know is nonsense...is a joke (on science).

You error. While scientific facts are demonstrable, one cannot test God. You are not "extraordinary" enough, and unless you can demonstrate that you are...you are breaking your own rule.

Again you error in assumption. Since when is greater knowledge arrogance? Is he who has not learned more knowledgeable than he who has learned? You speak foolishness. Your reaction, simply shows you to be spiteful.

What has scientific theory to do with knowledge of God? [rhetorical]

 

[ScottA]

Facts are not a matter of opinion they are facts, do you know what a fact is? 2+2=4 and the earth revolves around the sun are both facts are not open to interpretation.
"limited to those who have access and capacity for such knowledge"? does that mean only available to people who have been indoctrinated into believing? it would seem to me that your thinking has been turned back to front, for you what's right is wrong and what's wrong is right, you have dumped reality and knowledge in favour of a belief.

Apparently, it is you who do not know what a fact is. You assume that your limited understanding of physical science is all there is to know. If a monkey did the same thing to a man, you would laugh. But we, having been lifted up above your known world, do not laugh. You have much to learn. You might start by loosing your arrogance, and your assumption that it is we who are arrogant because we talk over your head.

You should also know that "belief" is your term. What we know, we do not "believe", but "know."

 

[dad]

Facts are not a matter of opinion they are facts, do you know what a fact is? 2+2=4 and the earth revolves around the sun are both facts are not open to interpretation.
"limited to those who have access and capacity for such knowledge"? does that mean only available to people who have been indoctrinated into believing? it would seem to me that your thinking has been turned back to front, for you what's right is wrong and what's wrong is right, you have dumped reality and knowledge in favour of a belief.

Actually, I don't think I can say that the earth will revolve around the sun in the future mentioned in the bible.

 

[dad]

We assume nothing,

You assume everything when it comes for example to the future. Science does it's insane chicken little prophesies about the sun going dark one day and the universe, and earth not being able to support life etc etc. All total assumption and belief and worthless dirty low down dogma.

But, science on the hand, assuming what it does not know is nonsense...is a joke (on science).

You error. While scientific facts are demonstrable, one cannot test God.

False. We test God every day we live. We have done that since the world began, those of us who sought Him. Those that seek find. History is a discovery of God to those with eyes to see.

You are not "extraordinary" enough, and unless you can demonstrate that you are...you are breaking your own rule.

All believers are extraordinary and have extra ordinary eternal life and and extra ordinary Jesus.

Again you error in assumption. Since when is greater knowledge arrogance?

Since it exalts itself against God's word.

Is he who has not learned more knowledgeable than he who has learned?

Far far more if we learned from God not man.

You speak foolishness. Your reaction, simply shows you to be spiteful.

God determines wisdom and foolishness. Not silly science.

What has scientific theory to do with knowledge of God? [rhetorical]

Exactly!!

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

We assume nothing, except that science has done its homework in its own area of study.

Creationists do start at an assumed conclusion. They then work backwards, twisting facts to fit their conclusion. This is not science. Real science has done their homework. Evolution has been repeatedly tested and confirmed for 150 years. It's a fact.

But, science on the hand, assuming what it does not know is nonsense...is a joke (on science).

What exactly has science assumed? I don't think you understand how science works.

You error. While scientific facts are demonstrable, one cannot test God.

Which is why creationism is NOT science. On the other hand, evolution is testable. It's supported by an abundance of facts and contradicted by none.

You are not "extraordinary" enough, and unless you can demonstrate that you are...you are breaking your own rule

Is this your way of trying to shift the burden of proof? Creationism is your claim. Present your evidence.

Again you error in assumption. Since when is greater knowledge arrogance?

When you say that this knowledge is limited to a certain number of people who have the capacity for such knowledge. You are claiming that only you and a select few have access to this.

What you said in this post is arrogant:

Creation is, however, a known fact. Granted, it is not "known" by all, and is limited to those who have access and capacity for such knowledge.

Is he who has not learned more knowledgeable than he who has learned? You speak foolishness. Your reaction, simply shows you to be spiteful.

Hey Scott, instead boasting that you have access to knowledge that others do not, how about you present evidence for your claims. Or are you incapable of doing so?

You should also know that "belief" is your term. What we know, we do not "believe", but "know."

Knowledge is demonstrable. Show us your evidence.

 

[Jay Follett]

You should also know that "belief" is your term. What we know, we do not "believe", but "know."

I see, my apologies I did not know who I was talking to.

 

[Cearbhall]

Creationism isn't science and doesn't belong in science class: it belongs in history class.

If you accept that the idea doesn't stand up to science, then how can you call it history?

 

[Hoghead1]

That isn't quite accurate about theistic evolutionists. I could well be so labeled, though I would prefer another label. But that is another story. I also strive to avoid all either-or thinking, as I think this is a too-limited way to view reality. The way I see it, Christianity is not a monolithic religion, not just one way. Christianity represents a rich tapestry of diverse beliefs which often conflict with one another. I think of Christianity as representing a spectrum from right-wing or conservative to left-wing or liberal. I am on the liberal end. I attended a liberal Christian seminary, am a member of a liberal Christian church, and work from a liberal theological perspective. I am al working out of the academic world. I think the latter is important. There is a huge town-gown gulf between he laity and the academic. I don't mean to offend any laity, but often many laity have rather naïve expectations about what the world of scholarly biblical studies and theology is like. Many have the idea it is somehow very much like their world of church and Sunday school. Bottom line: Forget it. The academic world is a wholly different ballgame, with different rules, goals, and often reaches conclusions that, unfortunately, when they filter down to the laity appear quite threatening. Education alienates, Occupational hazard. My view on Scripture is that it is definitely not a work in metaphysics or systematic theology. It tells us very little about how God is build, the internal architecture of God. Furthermore, I do not think anyone comes to Scripture, with a blank mind. Everyone views Scripture through some sort of lens. Many view Scripture through the lens provided by their church's traditions and teachings, which are often taken to be unquestionable. Many come to Scripture with the idea firmly fixed in their minds that Scripture is some sort of inerrant answer book to all questions. The way the Bible says things happened is the way they did happen. There is doubt at it. Nothing else will do or even be considered. In the scholarly world of biblical studies, that is about the worst thing you can do. You come to Scripture, with on open mind. You view Scripture through as lens provided by a healthy skepticism for traditional teachings. Maybe it is inerrant, maybe not. Let's do some serious literary and historical work and check out this inerrancy theory and ten come to a conclusion. My conclusion is that Scripture was never intended to be an inerrant source of cosmology or geophysical information. After all, since the 16 century we have all been aware that the biblical cosmology, with its flat earth and geocentric universe, is totally obsolete. That is no shock or surprise. Divinely inspired as it may be, the Bible is the product of a semi-barbaric culture and then subject to these limitations. One would not expect it to contain accurate scientific information about the universe. God is like a careful carpenter. God always works with the grain, not over and against it. God can move only as fast as we are ready and capable. So it would be ridiculous that God ever intended to impart advanced scientific knowledge to the biblical writers. That would be on a par with expecting that God should have given Columbus a nuclear sub and say have at it, here are the keys. So I think it is totally an abuse of Scripture to pit it against modern science.
Many Christians assume the classical or traditional model or picture of God as he or she is in his or her own nature comes directly from the pages of Scripture. Again, sorry, but that is very naïve. In point of fact, the classical model came largely from certain schools of Hellenic philosophy, not Scriptures. That was bound to be the case, as Scripture is not a book of metaphysics. As the church worked its way into the highly educated classes, many metaphysical questions were posed, and either the church could provide answers or it would have never survived. Hence, it was essential to borrow much from "pagan" metaphysics. Incidentally, the church fathers prided themselves in so doing, in finding God's "treasures" among the so-called pagans. Without getting into a longer and longer post, this classical model ahs been seriously challenged in modern times. Many theologians are at work giving the traditional picture of God a major face lift.
Today, it is no longer a matter of a supernatural God or evolution. The old classical model of God as wholly supernatural, the complete and total negation of creation, the chief exception to all metaphysical principles has been replaced with the concept of God as a supra-natural being, the chief exemplification of all metaphysical principles. This makes it possible to reconcile a truly transcendent God with modern scientific concepts such as evolution. I believe that creation is God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into self-consciousness and self-actualization. So, for me, it is not a question of either God or evolution. They both belong together. Naturally, more needs to be said here. However, I don't want to go into any further details here and would sooner wait for questions.

 

[Jay Follett]

That isn't quite accurate about theistic evolutionists. I could well be so labeled, though I would prefer another label. But that is another story. I also strive to avoid all either-or thinking, as I think this is a too-limited way to view reality. The way I see it, Christianity is not a monolithic religion, not just one way. Christianity represents a rich tapestry of diverse beliefs which often conflict with one another. I think of Christianity as representing a spectrum from right-wing or conservative to left-wing or liberal. I am on the liberal end. I attended a liberal Christian seminary, am a member of a liberal Christian church, and work from a liberal theological perspective. I am al working out of the academic world. I think the latter is important. There is a huge town-gown gulf between he laity and the academic. I don't mean to offend any laity, but often many laity have rather naïve expectations about what the world of scholarly biblical studies and theology is like. Many have the idea it is somehow very much like their world of church and Sunday school. Bottom line: Forget it. The academic world is a wholly different ballgame, with different rules, goals, and often reaches conclusions that, unfortunately, when they filter down to the laity appear quite threatening. Education alienates, Occupational hazard. My view on Scripture is that it is definitely not a work in metaphysics or systematic theology. It tells us very little about how God is build, the internal architecture of God. Furthermore, I do not think anyone comes to Scripture, with a blank mind. Everyone views Scripture through some sort of lens. Many view Scripture through the lens provided by their church's traditions and teachings, which are often taken to be unquestionable. Many come to Scripture with the idea firmly fixed in their minds that Scripture is some sort of inerrant answer book to all questions. The way the Bible says things happened is the way they did happen. There is doubt at it. Nothing else will do or even be considered. In the scholarly world of biblical studies, that is about the worst thing you can do. You come to Scripture, with on open mind. You view Scripture through as lens provided by a healthy skepticism for traditional teachings. Maybe it is inerrant, maybe not. Let's do some serious literary and historical work and check out this inerrancy theory and ten come to a conclusion. My conclusion is that Scripture was never intended to be an inerrant source of cosmology or geophysical information. After all, since the 16 century we have all been aware that the biblical cosmology, with its flat earth and geocentric universe, is totally obsolete. That is no shock or surprise. Divinely inspired as it may be, the Bible is the product of a semi-barbaric culture and then subject to these limitations. One would not expect it to contain accurate scientific information about the universe. God is like a careful carpenter. God always works with the grain, not over and against it. God can move only as fast as we are ready and capable. So it would be ridiculous that God ever intended to impart advanced scientific knowledge to the biblical writers. That would be on a par with expecting that God should have given Columbus a nuclear sub and say have at it, here are the keys. So I think it is totally an abuse of Scripture to pit it against modern science.
Many Christians assume the classical or traditional model or picture of God as he or she is in his or her own nature comes directly from the pages of Scripture. Again, sorry, but that is very naïve. In point of fact, the classical model came largely from certain schools of Hellenic philosophy, not Scriptures. That was bound to be the case, as Scripture is not a book of metaphysics. As the church worked its way into the highly educated classes, many metaphysical questions were posed, and either the church could provide answers or it would have never survived. Hence, it was essential to borrow much from "pagan" metaphysics. Incidentally, the church fathers prided themselves in so doing, in finding God's "treasures" among the so-called pagans. Without getting into a longer and longer post, this classical model ahs been seriously challenged in modern times. Many theologians are at work giving the traditional picture of God a major face lift.
Today, it is no longer a matter of a supernatural God or evolution. The old classical model of God as wholly supernatural, the complete and total negation of creation, the chief exception to all metaphysical principles has been replaced with the concept of God as a supra-natural being, the chief exemplification of all metaphysical principles. This makes it possible to reconcile a truly transcendent God with modern scientific concepts such as evolution. I believe that creation is God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into self-consciousness and self-actualization. So, for me, it is not a question of either God or evolution. They both belong together. Naturally, more needs to be said here. However, I don't want to go into any further details here and would sooner wait for questions.

You are free to rationalise it any way you want because you are the only one who needs to be convinced and pleased.

 

[Jay Follett]

Actually, I don't think I can say that the earth will revolve around the sun in the future mentioned in the bible.

Whatever floats your boat.