If creationism is divinely inspired...

[AV1611VET]

Since learning about creationism in the first place.

If you would have truly learned about creationism, then you wouldn't have made the errors you made in the OP ... including the title.

I pointed them out; but since the focus of your long-winded OP is simply, "Why do Christians have different interpretations of Genesis 1," I haven't dwelled on them much.

And for the record, I think I effectively answered it: tares among the wheat.

If you want a technical term: psychoheresy.

Anything else I can help you to understand?

And I'll say this again: If you understand creationism, I understand thin layer chromatography.

In your ... ahem ... expert opinion ... do I believe in Last Thursdayism?

If not, can you tell me the difference between Last Thursdayism and Embedded Age Creation with respect to history?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yet most creationists seem unconcerned as to whether they have a way of validating their ideas with respect to others.

What do you call this then?

1. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
3. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
4. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

 

[pitabread]

If you would have truly learned about creationism, then you wouldn't have made the errors you made in the OP ... including the title.

I don't think you understand the OP. You appear to be simply suggesting that other people are wrong.

That's not the point; the point is how one distinguishes correct from incorrect ideas with respect to creationism.

 

[pitabread]

What do you call this then?

Missing the point.

 

[AV1611VET]

 

[Aman777]

If that were the case, creationists wouldn't exist in the first place...

False, since we have old earth and new earth creationists. We also have people who believe the theology of ancient Hebrews which does not agree with science nor history. We have others who read Scripture literally and seek to find God's Truth which agrees with every discovery of mankind, like me. [Staff edit].

 

[pitabread]

False

I'm talking about science as a whole. The whole existence of creationists is largely predicated on rejection of conclusions in various branches of science, including biology.

If creationists agreed with everything in science, they wouldn't be creationists.

 

[juvenissun]

... then why are there so many different forms of creationism?

God creates is the belief EVERY creationist holds.
HOW does God create is everyone's guess.
Understand?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Because science has sown tares into the story.

Science has chosen evidence as its guiding light. Scientists have shared what that evidence shows us. People who, like you, prefer to cling to their own opinions instead of accepting evidence will then say things like you just did here. But since God is the one who laid down the evidence as a natural consequence of creating the universe . . . you are risking being at odds with God when you do so. And indeed, if you give up on following evidence, one wonders what you DO follow, and why you have reasons to follow such ideas that do not depend on reason.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What do you call this then?

1. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
3. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
4. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

So you agree, then, with Martin Luther when he declared the astronomers who asserted the earth rotates as the cause of day and night were in error, based on scripture stating the sun moves?

 

[AV1611VET]

And indeed, if you give up on following evidence, one wonders what you DO follow,

My Boolean (Heuristic) Standards:

1. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
3. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
4. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances is the Bible to be contradicted.

 

[pitabread]

My Boolean (Heuristic) Standards:

1. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
3. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
4. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

But this goes back to the point of the thread: Different people come with different versions of the "Bible says X".

Which raises the question as to how creationists are supposed to be able to compare and differentiate ideas. Thus far, it seems to be a free-for-all of everyone just believing whatever they want to believe.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you agree, then, with Martin Luther ...

The one who persecuted the Anabaptists?

 

[AV1611VET]

Which raises the question as to how creationists are supposed to be able to compare and differentiate ideas. Thus far, it seems to be a free-for-all of everyone just believing whatever they want to believe.

Are you bragging or complaining?

Most disagreements just may be resolved at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.

Care to join us?

Or are you going to be like Lucille van Pelt who said she didn't want to be born until the whole world's problems were settled first?

 

[pitabread]

Are you bragging or complaining?

Neither. Just pointing out the reality of the situation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Neither. Just pointing out the reality of the situation.

Care to join us?

 

[pitabread]

Care to join us?

No.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm talking about science as a whole. The whole existence of creationists is largely predicated on rejection of conclusions in various branches of science, including biology.

If creationists agreed with everything in science, they wouldn't be creationists.

Oh baloney, you can believe in science and still be a young earth creationist.

 

[pitabread]

Oh baloney, you can believe in science and still be a young earth creationist.

Belief in Young Earth creationism requires rejecting findings in almost every branch of natural science (biology, geology, astronomy/cosmology, physics) as well as a number of the social sciences (i.e. history/anthropology).

 

[mark kennedy]

Belief in Young Earth creationism requires rejecting findings in almost every branch of natural science (biology, geology, astronomy/cosmology, physics) as well as a number of the social sciences (i.e. history/anthropology).

Again baloney, astronomy, cosmology, physics and geology have nothing to do with it. In evolutionary biology the only difference is the point of origin. [Staff edit].