A General Case for Creationism

clue · Sep 30, 2002

Hi All,

I'm new to this forum but have been reading the posts here for a while now.  I thought it was about time for me to chime in.

Since we are mostly Christian here, I wanted to ask the other Christians why is it so hard for them to believe in Creationism.

You believe in God, yes?  You believe in His Son Jesus Christ, yes?  You believe He tries to communicate with you through His Word, yes?  Then why is it so hard to believe that in trying to communicate with you, He would have been as lucid as possible?  Why do you try to take 6 days and make it into millions/billions of years?

Add the fact that there are Ph.D. scientists in all respected fields who also hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis, I don't see how you can go wrong with holding fast to God's Word.  When there's room to budge, go ahead and budge (e.g. healing hands, speaking in tongues).  But when the Bible could not be any more clear in what it has stated, question all the other sources before you question it.

Now I know I haven't gone into anything scientific with regards to proving Creation.  But other threads have been started trying to debate this.  And from what I can tell, they have failed.  And I think one of the major problems with debating an issue like this:

1. you need some initial definitions first

2. different issues should have a separate topic of its own (e.g. radiometric dating, speciation, archeology, should ALL be different topics but still focusing on the same issue - whether they support Creation or Evolution or what).

I've read things like "Please learn what evolution is before you try to debate it" or "It's sad to see how little you actually know of what you are talking about."  I think definitions will help in reducing comments like these.

So, back to my original question.  Why do self professing Christians not try to conservatively adhere to Biblical teachings instead of believing in man made, fallible theories??

MSBS · Sep 30, 2002

Clue,

    Maybe I'm not someone you would like to respond to this-- I am not a commited christian at this time, call me a christian leaning agnostic for lack of a better term.

Here are my problems with your ideas of creationism.  You say you expect God to be as lucid as possible with his communication with us, right?  Well I for one would then expect that not only of the bible to of the universe in general.  Just as you don't expect God to lie in the bible, I don't expect him to lie in the real world.  Scientific evidence contradicts a literal interpretation of a week long creation event fallowed by only 6000 years of history.  The "book of creation," that is the universe, doesn't lie to us.  To believe in YEC you have to believe things like God creating the universe as a "mature" universe, with light from distant stars already traveling towards us or things like rocks being created in the earth with the appearance of great age.  In otherwords you have to believe that God intentionaly lied to us.  That's not very appealing to me.

So then, you have three choices- you can believe  that the bible is 100% literal in all things and ignore any other evidence, you can believe that maybe the translations of the bible lost a bit in their translations and that some seeming contradictions between the bible and the universe stem from that, or you can look at the bible as being about a spiritual message and that it was never meant to be used as a science book.

Closing your eyes to evolution and denying it is, to me, like sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the world.  I'm not saying this in order to insult people, I'm saying it to make the point that, to me, YECs are choosing to only contemplate a very limited universe.  Without too much looking you can find people on the internet that disbelieve in a spherical earth and a heliocentric solar system based on what they believe the bible says.  To me, YEC is much the same thing.

Edited to add a link to just such a site:

 

http://geocities.com/armedconventicle/geocentrism.html

clue · Sep 30, 2002

Originally posted by MSBS
Here are my problems with your ideas of creationism.  You say you expect God to be as lucid as possible with his communication with us, right?  Well I for one would then expect that not only of the bible to of the universe in general.  Just as you don't expect God to lie in the bible, I don't expect him to lie in the real world

I would expect this also MSBS.

Scientific evidence contradicts a literal interpretation of a week long creation event fallowed by only 6000 years of history.  The "book of creation," that is the universe, doesn't lie to us.  To believe in YEC you have to believe things like God creating the universe as a "mature" universe, with light from distant stars already traveling towards us or things like rocks being created in the earth with the appearance of great age.[/B]

I think God created the universe.  And what we would normally attribute to the passing of time has not really happened. 

Take for example Adam.  At the moment God created Adam, how old was he?  1 second old.  But how old did he look?  He probably looked to be grown man (18 to mid 20s).  That's what I think YEC mean when they say God created things with the appearance of age - we would normally attribute time with something that would not necessarily bind an ominpotent God.  But YEC in no way uses this excuse to explain that's how 6 days became billions of years.  Let me not confuse the issue.

There is a theory behind the age of distant stars that otseng posted here.   Check out post #40.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/22832-4.html

"[R]ocks being created in the Earth with the appearance of age" - I'm not sure I know what you are talking about exactly.  But if these rocks were radiocarbon dated, then I have my reservations about radiocarbon dating.

Freodin · Sep 30, 2002

The basic problem: YEC tells us that we cannot rely on our experience. Everything may be different from what it apprers to be. The universe could have been created last Tuesday, for what it´s worth.

We have no way to know this - but one: the Bible.

But how, then, do we know that the Bible tells us the truth?

clue · Sep 30, 2002

Originally posted by Freodin
The basic problem: YEC tells us that we cannot rely on our experience. Everything may be different from what it apprers to be.

This is a false statement.

Originally posted by Freodin
We have no way to know this - but one: the Bible.

Click to expand...

The Bible was written for one main purpose - to detail God's redemption of man.  It was NOT meant to be used as a science book.  But where the Bible and science would seem to clash, as a Christian, shouldn't we take the Bible's view until we are FORCED to do otherwise?

Originally posted by Freodin
But how, then, do we know that the Bible tells us the truth?

Click to expand...

This is a TOTALLY different topic.

MSBS · Sep 30, 2002

You can't radiocarbon date rocks. That is useful only for previously living things and has a range going up to something like 30k years. Radiometric dating (which would be used to date rocks) uses the ratio between parent/daughter isotopes to determine the age of things. If you don't accept this type of dating you have to assume that God created the rocks with the appearence of age by making them with an isotope ratio that would make them look old to us when we had developed the technology to do this kind of testing. What would the purpose of that be if not to fool us?

Pete Harcoff · Sep 30, 2002

Originally posted by Freodin
The basic problem: YEC tells us that we cannot rely on our experience. Everything may be different from what it apprers to be. The universe could have been created last Tuesday, for what it´s worth.

We have no way to know this - but one: the Bible.

But how, then, do we know that the Bible tells us the truth?

Actually, the universe was created by Ragoraxxaxx, the Supreme Dragon of holy divinity, who belched the universe into existence with his fiery breath. Ragoraxxaxx also created the Bible as a test to see if his believers would stay truthful to their origins. Sadly, as I am the only one who believes in Ragoraxxaxx, I will be the only one basking in his everlasting warmth in the afterlife.

This silly example is a (feeble) attempt to illustrate the inherent flaw in the "God made it look old" argument. If you believe that, then God (or whoever) could have made anything look like anything whenever He wanted to. Suddenly, it becomes impossible to trust anything. You need to have some sort of rational starting point, and believing the Earth and Universe aren't lying or deceiving us about their respective origins is a good basis from which to work.

clue · Sep 30, 2002

Originally posted by MSBS
Radiometric dating (which would be used to date rocks) uses the ratio between parent/daughter isotopes to determine the age of things. If you don't accept this type of dating you have to assume that God created the rocks with the appearence of age by making them with an isotope ratio that would make them look old to us when we had developed the technology to do this kind of testing.

Radiometric dating has the same inherent faulty assumptions that radiocarbon dating has, doesn't it?

Originally posted by MSBS
If you don't accept this type of dating you have to assume that God created the rocks with the appearence of age by making them with an isotope ratio that would make them look old to us when we had developed the technology to do this kind of testing.

I don't understand your conclusion right here.  If I don't accept this type of dating, than any date it comes up with is anybody's guess.

So, are you saying that any self respecting geologist can see the truth in the rocks?

clue · Sep 30, 2002

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
This silly example is a (feeble) attempt to illustrate the inherent flaw in the "God made it look old" argument.

What about my Adam example?

RufusAtticus · Sep 30, 2002

clue,

Please educate yourself on radiometric dating with the followig link.

Radiometric dating: A Christian perspective

LiveFreeOrDie · Sep 30, 2002

Originally posted by clue
Radiometric dating has the same inherent faulty assumptions that radiocarbon dating has, doesn't it?

Such as?

Do you really think scientists are so naive as to rely on a method based on faulty assumptions?

So, are you saying that any self respecting geologist can see the truth in the rocks?

That pretty well sums it up, yes.

otseng · Sep 30, 2002

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
This silly example is a (feeble) attempt to illustrate the inherent flaw in the "God made it look old" argument. If you believe that, then God (or whoever) could have made anything look like anything whenever He wanted to. Suddenly, it becomes impossible to trust anything. You need to have some sort of rational starting point, and believing the Earth and Universe aren't lying or deceiving us about their respective origins is a good basis from which to work. [/B]

I cannot believe the argument that "God made it look old" argument either. Yet, I also believe that there are reasonable explanations for things that "appear" old. One example is light from distant stars/galaxies that I've already explained in another thread that Clue pointed to above.

Freodin · Sep 30, 2002

Originally posted by clue
The Bible was written for one main purpose - to detail God's redemption of man.  It was NOT meant to be used as a science book.  But where the Bible and science would seem to clash, as a Christian, shouldn't we take the Bible's view until we are FORCED to do otherwise?

If the Bible is not meant to tell us anything about science, why should we use it when we have a scientifc question?

It IS the basic question: if our senses tell us one thing, and the Bible something else, by your conclusion the Bible should be preferred.

But, first, we would never know when and why our senses are reliable, and, second, we would have to establish why the Bible gives us true informations when our senses do not.

MSBS · Sep 30, 2002

Originally posted by clue
Radiometric dating has the same inherent faulty assumptions that radiocarbon dating has, doesn't it?

and these would be?

So, are you saying that any self respecting geologist can see the truth in the rocks?

Yep.  Rocks don't lie.

Hank · Sep 30, 2002

Originally posted by clue
Add the fact that there are Ph.D. scientists in all respected fields who also hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis, ...

Can you give me a hint which scientist is a creationist?

Before you answer, science makes a theory and goes out into the world and tests a theory. If it can be proven the theory stays. Creationists go out in this world and use an unscientific book and try to prove it. They do not have theories. Their premise is that the Bible is fact. Since they do not have an option to dismiss any portion of the Bible, they are stuck. Not sure how to phrase that, but you can not be a scientist and a creationist at the same time, unless you are open to dismiss part or all of the Bible as facts.

Pete Harcoff · Sep 30, 2002

Originally posted by clue
What about my Adam example?

What about it? Where does it state that God made Adam "mature"?

Where does it state in the Bible that God made the Earth with the appearence of age? Where does it state that He laid down various fossils of extinct species in different rock strata and gave them the appearence of millions of years old? Where does it state that He accelerated the speed of light to allow us to see stars that are 20,000,000 years old (or whatever explanation you want to use)?

Sinai · Sep 30, 2002

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
This silly example is a (feeble) attempt to illustrate the inherent flaw in the "God made it look old" argument. If you believe that, then God (or whoever) could have made anything look like anything whenever He wanted to. Suddenly, it becomes impossible to trust anything.

Ya mean we are all a part of the Matrix????

Pete Harcoff · Sep 30, 2002

Originally posted by Sinai
Ya mean we are all a part of the Matrix????

I doubt it. No matter how much I try to make myself believe it, I still don't know kung-fu.

Sinai · Sep 30, 2002

Originally posted by clue

Since we are mostly Christian here, I wanted to ask the other Christians why is it so hard for them to believe in Creationism....

If by "Creationism" you mean the belief that God created the universe (including our planet), life and our soul, then I am also a creationist.

Why do you try to take 6 days and make it into millions/billions of years?

What do you think is meant by "6 days"? Before you answer here, first go to this thread, thoroughly read the original post on that thread, answer the poll, and then post both on that thread and on this one why you answered the way you did. Thank you.

Why "millions/billions of years?" Because that's what the evidence says--and I have no reason to doubt it. I also have no reason to doubt the Biblical account set out in the first chapter of Genesis, having examined the words in the original Hebrew and having seen what ancient Jewish writers and sages had to say about the meanings of key words and phrases in the first two chapters of Genesis. Why is it that young earth creationists seem to insist on only using certain English translations of the Hebrew? Why do they think it is so important to needlessly paint themselves into corners?

But when the Bible could not be any more clear in what it has stated, question all the other sources before you question it.

Which passages do you have in mind when you say the Bible could not be any more clear in what it has stated?

Let me ask you to do one more thing. Please go to this thread, vote in the poll there, and then post (again, both places--its an easy way for you to increase the number of your posts!) your reasons. I will then be happy to continue to try to answer your questions as to why many (probably most) Christians do not believe the universe is only 6,000 years old.

Didaskomenos · Sep 30, 2002

Originally posted by clue
The Bible was written for one main purpose - to detail God's redemption of man. It was NOT meant to be used as a science book.

Period. Well said. But be careful - you're sounding "liberal"!

But where the Bible and science would seem to clash, as a Christian, shouldn't we take the Bible's view until we are FORCED to do otherwise?

Wrong question - it's not about taking the Bible's view, but determining the Bible's view. For years, the majority of people everywhere wholeheartedly believed in the Creation account as literal history. Then they read God's commentary on how to interpret the Bible - it's called nature, and science has helped them translate it. I believe what you mean is to hold to a literal interpretation of Scripture "until we are FORCED to do otherwise," which is frankly quite foolish. Why form an opinion on whether something's literal or not before examining God's other testimony, the testimony through space (astronomy) and DNA (genetics) and the rocks (geology)?

Even if we initially went with a blindly literal intepretation until "FORCED" to do otherwise, those who have studied science with open hearts and minds have concluded that it is necessary to believe that Genesis' creation account is not literal history. Don't focus on the relatively few YEC's with PhD's (which Kent Hovind affectionately refers to as "post-hole diggers). I think you'll find that there are so many more Christians with PhD's who do not believe Genesis was meant for us as literal history.

A General Case for Creationism

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Active Member

Well-Known Member

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Active Member

Active Member

PopGen Grad Student

Science Officer

Active Member

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Well-Known Member

has the Right to be wrong

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Well-Known Member

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Well-Known Member

Voiced Bilabial Spirant

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency