Biblical Creationism and Self Deceit

[JustHisKid]

Source?

Right, as if you would accept any source that didn't conform to your agenda.

 

[Cearbhall]

Right, as if you would accept any source that didn't conform to your agenda.

So not only do you not have a source, but you wish to distract me from that fact with a logical fallacy? No evidence is supposed to make me agree with you? And you want me to be intellectually honest...

 

[JustHisKid]

So not only do you not have a source, but you wish to distract me from that fact with a logical fallacy? And you want me to be intellectually honest...

I do have a source but you will just mock me and I will not lay myself on your altar.

 

[Cearbhall]

I do have a source but you will just mock me and I will not lay myself on your altar.

What exactly makes you think that I'm a bad person? We're having a scientific discussion. I happen to disagree with you on evolution. This is not an issue of morality. Now I'm just confused.

I do not aim to mock you. If you have a peer-reviewed article from a scientific journal that supports your viewpoint, I would be happy to take a look at it.

 

[SteveB28]

I do have a source but you will just mock me and I will not lay myself on your altar.

When people start the presentation of their evidence with statements like this, it shouts loudly that they doubt its veracity themselves. A logical person of science, living and thinking in reality, will unhesitatingly present their case.

Because, there is no 'down side' for the realist. If it turns out that his current understanding is proven incorrect, he benefits from an improved one that better matches the evidence!

However, the stakes for the creationist.....?

 

[redleghunter]

If you would give me the post number I would be glad to look at it. I don't have lots of time today. From a scientific perspective it is virtually impossible they could be right. And since they purport to be science that is how they should be judged. Science does not start with the conclusion and then look for the evidence. Science looks at the evidence and then works toward a conclusion. The first methodology is how YEC works and consequently that approach can prove just about anything and is just plain wrong. As for Schools I am referring to religious schools but it has been a terrible battle keeping Creationism out of public schools. Education has suffered because of it. And universities are still what you described but the reason you think God has been kicked out is because everyone is sick and tired of the Creationist garbage. There are more important matters to deal with in their views. What do you think would be gained by a debate with a YEC? There are plenty of those online and I just read a debate here the other day where the Christian lost miserably. My ego needs no such gratification. I am just trying to expose the lies and deceit you guys have bought into.

Here's the Augustine link:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/may/22.39.html?start=1

On the issue of schools keeping God out of any mention...It was never about creationism. It was about a misquided interpretation of the 1st Amendment. If YEC is the concern, why are Intelligent Design studies forbidden in public schools?

Here's a link on Intelligent Design. Let me know if you want this omitted from schools too:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1999/november15/9td026.html

I received a classical education. A hallmark of such an education is to examine various views and not omit any. How is one to seek truth if not all the evidence is examined?

As a Christian I do not condemn nor ridicule YEC or call theistic evolutionists heretics. Origins had the witness of God as the Creator of all things. God chose to reveal to us Creation in Genesis 1 and 2. As I stated earlier in the thread...God handed Moses and Israelites the account of His sovereign act of Creation. God did not hand them a periodic table.

 

[bhsmte]

Right, as if you would accept any source that didn't conform to your agenda.

Some accept verifiable evidence.

Have any?

 

[bhsmte]

I do have a source but you will just mock me and I will not lay myself on your altar.

Why do you think you will be mocked?

If the source is good and the evidenced can be verified, why would you have this concern?

 

[redleghunter]

No, evidence is objective in nature. You are confusing evidence with opinion when you claim it to be subjective. For something to qualify as 'evidence' it must be able to be examined by more than just the person proposing it.

Thank's for clarifying the above. I've seen the words 'proof' and 'evidence' thrown around this forum a lot. Yes, evidence is objective in nature.

 

[redleghunter]

I think I am stuck on the first sentence. Creation is ongoing. Augustine clearly did not have much insight on what was to come. What's your view on it?

Free yourself of the first sentence. He explains it later in the article.

 

[bhsmte]

Here's the Augustine link:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/may/22.39.html?start=1

On the issue of schools keeping God out of any mention...It was never about creationism. It was about a misquided interpretation of the 1st Amendment. If YEC is the concern, why are Intelligent Design studies forbidden in public schools?

Here's a link on Intelligent Design. Let me know if you want this omitted from schools too:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1999/november15/9td026.html

I received a classical education. A hallmark of such an education is to examine various views and not omit any. How is one to seek truth if not all the evidence is examined?

As a Christian I do not condemn nor ridicule YEC or call theistic evolutionists heretics. Origins had the witness of God as the Creator of all things. God chose to reveal to us Creation in Genesis 1 and 2. As I stated earlier in the thread...God handed Moses and Israelites the account of His sovereign act of Creation. God did not hand them a periodic table.

Are you familiar with the Dover trial from the 90's, when the ID folks were in court to get ID into public schools?

If you really want to understand it well, you can google the trial and read the transcripts of the same and the evidence that was presented. You can also read the testimony of the ID's key witness, Michael Behe, which did not go well for the ID folks and they were exposed. They had their chance to show ID was legit and they couldn't do it.

The judge on the case was a conservative Christian judge and he scolded the ID folks for presenting something, they wanted taught in science class, when it clearly was not science.

 

[redleghunter]

We have a responsibility to our children to teach them as many things we can that are true, or are supported by evidence. Fantasy stories are also important, but we need to help them recognise the boundary between the real and the fantastic.

The enormous problem for those who fancy a biblical creationist view of the world is that they do not have a single skerrick of evidence, to support that view, whereas there are mountains of it to support what you characterise as a 'pond scum to humans' process. That you choose to ignore that evidence is your own problem and to your detriment.

There's evidence, but the evidence is quickly dismissed. Many here like to beat on YEC when Intelligent Design is labeled bogus. There's ample evidence looking outward of design in our world and universe. However, to even concede or even consider such a proposition brings in the thought of an uncreated Creator (designer); and that sets off atheist bells and whistles and ID is quickly dismissed.

Frankly, I have found that those hanging to a chaotic view of origins (Big Bang), and then an evolution of chance plus a lot of time are a lot more 'dogmatic' these days than Christians are on Origins.

Take for example the reaction of scientists and politicians when some other scientist takes issue with global climate change. In the same manner the Catholic church repressed scientists in the Middle Ages, we have a host of global warming/climate change 'high priests' who omit fellow scientists from peer reviews; an onslaught of unfounded accusations and 'demonization.' That's 'modern' science for you. The community has turned into self-serving "Jesuit like" dogmatics not open to criticism and worse, foresaking other educational disciplines such as philosophy and theology.

I commended you for your post on defining evidence as objective in nature. Part of the objective approach is to examine the evidence. Not throw it out the window and dismissed.

 

[redleghunter]

Like i said you would present. All you did was quote acts out of context. I am unimpressed. You are not the only here that spouts nonsense with no backing so I am not surprised. Jesus at no time commanded every single disciple to sell all that they had (for example he told the demoniac to go home not to sell all or even follow him). and as Peter told Ananias he was free to retain his land just not lie that he sold it.

Acts 5:4
"While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God."

See anywhere where Peter told him he had to have sold it? Giving in the church was always voluntary NOT a requirement that they had to do. Read the book before you make up false doctrines. Christianity equals communism is only a fact in your own mind. Its unbiblical.

The contents and context of Acts also show us that Paul had to get donations from the Greek Gentile and diaspora Jews to support the Judean church. Did this happen because they sold and used all that they had? Or was it the famine in the land at the time. It could be both.

It is also evident from Acts 1, the early disciples/apostles believed Jesus' second coming would be within their life time. It was not until later they realized it may be coming later as the gospel must reach the world. God never forbids in His Law for us to store up 'for winter.' He does indicate all that we have is His gift to us and we are to help out our brothers and sisters in Christ and support our families.

So in a word, I agree with your statements. I also agree with the gentleman you responded to in the manner of what we have belongs to the Lord and we are to use it in Christian Love. But I don't think we bankrupt ourselves putting our families on the streets. Paul tells us all to work and support ourselves and family.

 

[Givemeareason]

Here's the Augustine link:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/may/22.39.html?start=1

On the issue of schools keeping God out of any mention...It was never about creationism. It was about a misquided interpretation of the 1st Amendment. If YEC is the concern, why are Intelligent Design studies forbidden in public schools?

Here's a link on Intelligent Design. Let me know if you want this omitted from schools too:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1999/november15/9td026.html

I received a classical education. A hallmark of such an education is to examine various views and not omit any. How is one to seek truth if not all the evidence is examined?

As a Christian I do not condemn nor ridicule YEC or call theistic evolutionists heretics. Origins had the witness of God as the Creator of all things. God chose to reveal to us Creation in Genesis 1 and 2. As I stated earlier in the thread...God handed Moses and Israelites the account of His sovereign act of Creation. God did not hand them a periodic table.

Thanks, I read the link to Augustine. I don't have much to say about it. And the first amendment is a constitutional issue. The reason Intelligent design is forbidden is because it also is not science. Arguing that something has to have a supernatural explanation because you don't have a natural explanation is not science either. Pope Benedict was an advocate of intelligent design. Pope Francis is not. Neither were advocates of Creationism which is ridiculous because it seeks to prove a literal interpretation of Genesis. And eliminating Creationism does nothing on the order of denying the Creator. It merely puts Genesis in better perspective by realizing the people that Genesis was intended for. Creationism is a concoction of fundamentalism which is a group of people whos entire faith hangs on the principle that every word of Scripture has to be literally true or they would lose their belief. Thereby it creates self deceit in order to believe that and it has created a huge array of deceit for others to the detriment of Christianity itself. Christians and wannabes like myself need to very concerned about this. And please let's not go back into questioning my faith. That is an entirely separate issue.

 

[Belk]

There's evidence, but the evidence is quickly dismissed. Many here like to beat on YEC when Intelligent Design is labeled bogus. There's ample evidence looking outward of design in our world and universe. However, to even concede or even consider such a proposition brings in the thought of an uncreated Creator (designer); and that sets off atheist bells and whistles and ID is quickly dismissed.

Frankly, I have found that those hanging to a chaotic view of origins (Big Bang), and then an evolution of chance plus a lot of time are a lot more 'dogmatic' these days than Christians are on Origins.

Take for example the reaction of scientists and politicians when some other scientist takes issue with global climate change. In the same manner the Catholic church repressed scientists in the Middle Ages, we have a host of global warming/climate change 'high priests' who omit fellow scientists from peer reviews; an onslaught of unfounded accusations and 'demonization.' That's 'modern' science for you. The community has turned into self-serving "Jesuit like" dogmatics not open to criticism and worse, foresaking other educational disciplines such as philosophy and theology.

I commended you for your post on defining evidence as objective in nature. Part of the objective approach is to examine the evidence. Not throw it out the window and dismissed.

The problem is that there is no evidence that would separate a designed universe from a non designed one. There is no definitive way to claim design or non design.

 

[Givemeareason]

There's evidence, but the evidence is quickly dismissed. Many here like to beat on YEC when Intelligent Design is labeled bogus. There's ample evidence looking outward of design in our world and universe. However, to even concede or even consider such a proposition brings in the thought of an uncreated Creator (designer); and that sets off atheist bells and whistles and ID is quickly dismissed.

Frankly, I have found that those hanging to a chaotic view of origins (Big Bang), and then an evolution of chance plus a lot of time are a lot more 'dogmatic' these days than Christians are on Origins.

Take for example the reaction of scientists and politicians when some other scientist takes issue with global climate change. In the same manner the Catholic church repressed scientists in the Middle Ages, we have a host of global warming/climate change 'high priests' who omit fellow scientists from peer reviews; an onslaught of unfounded accusations and 'demonization.' That's 'modern' science for you. The community has turned into self-serving "Jesuit like" dogmatics not open to criticism and worse, foresaking other educational disciplines such as philosophy and theology.

I commended you for your post on defining evidence as objective in nature. Part of the objective approach is to examine the evidence. Not throw it out the window and dismissed.

The big bang is not what you claim nor is it it a denial of God because the origin of the idea came from a Catholic priest. Creationists really need to stop mistaking the facts. And climate change is an observed phenomena for which we are still trying to predict the consequences. Personally I have faith that what needs to be done will be done as the consequences if any become more apparent.

 

[Givemeareason]

The problem is that there is no evidence that would separate a designed universe from a non designed one. There is no definitive way to claim design or non design.

You are correct. But that does not eliminate belief. We just. need to be less pushy with our beliefs.

 

[redleghunter]

Nearly %1 per year in the US alone.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/17/us-usa-health-virgins-idUSBRE9BG1F020131217


Sometimes, yes.

http://listverse.com/2013/11/20/10-people-who-were-mistakenly-believed-to-be-dead/


Yup
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier



Not really.

Actually, yes the resurrection of Jesus Christ goes against any medical or forensic science we know of. However, you would have to believe the eye witness testimony given to the gospel and epistle writers. Most of which were eye witnesses themselves. The manuscript evidence for the New Testament contains nearly 25,000 ancient manuscripts discovered and archived so far, at least 5,600 of which are copies and fragments in the original Greek.. So it's up to the seeker or skeptic to examine the veracity of the claims.

The claims being, (1) two secular (Roman) and over three of the opposing religious sect (Sanhedrin) confirmed the death of Jesus Christ and put a seal on his tomb. (2) Jesus Christ's dead body was securely wrapped by and prepared within Jewish custom by more than two witnesses. (3) After three days Jesus Christ's body was no longer in the tomb and the seal broken and stone rolled away. (4) Over 500 witnesses encountered the risen Christ in His incorruptable body still showing His wounds. This body defied our laws of physics but could also eat food.

Search the evidence. A secular lawyer of reknown once did and came to some interesting conclusions:

Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853)

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html

 

[redleghunter]

It would be if it weren't true.

Sounds like your school failed at teaching it.

Well more accurately, mankind was created from the 'dirt' or 'dust.' That's how we all end up anyway.

 

[redleghunter]

I'm sorry no one ever explained it to you properly, but let's hope that a higher percentage of children receive a better science education in the next generation. This is why it's important for kids to learn about it.

I'm not trying to be condescending, so I apologize if it comes across that way, but you can't expect me to agree with the people who don't know anything about it instead of the overwhelming majority of scientists. Being ignorant of something does not make you an expert, much less put you ahead of the experts.

Your comments are bit misleading. You use 'science' in general seeking to claim Christians reject science in education. What is absent from this discussion is the lack of historical knowledge in the forum. If it was not for the Reformation, there would never have been a Western scientific revolution. People were taught to read by using the Bible. The Bible printed in multiple languages had the effect of nomalizing diction and language. It was this revolution in education, with the Bible as the catalyst, which gave us in the 17th Century the likes of Galileo Galilei, René Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton and many others. Many of which approached scientific discovery with a pre-supposition of a God of Creation, and 'umoved Mover', an uncreated Creator. A Master Designer. Post-modern science departed from the concept of intelligent design and has embraced the philosophy of Darwin et. al. that origins happened chaotically, by accident and continued by chance, and a whole lot of time.

Christians do not reject science. We reject scientists who somehow 'know' there cannot be an uncreated Creator.