Biblical Creationism and Self Deceit

[redleghunter]

Truth to be told, the Young Earth Creationists are amongst the most vocal of us Christians in spite of being in the minority to such an extent, that many detractors of Christianity stereotype Christians as being mainly them.

Most of us are Old Earth Creationists. That is, we believe the scientists when they say the world is millions of years old and that evolution had taken place. In fact, most Christian denominations of the world accept evolution as being true. Even the Roman Catholic Church.

What I don't like about Young Earth Creationists is that they tend to use questionable tactics in an attempt to prove that they're right, whether or not they're aware of this fact. Questionable tactics being misinterpreting the actual science involved, using logical fallacies to make it seem like they're stumping non-Young Earth Creationists or even misquoting reputable scientists.

Frankly no one but God knows the age of the earth. Old Earth theories are good to duck out of atheist cocktail parties. Throughout the Bible Humans are a special creation. Not something that evolved. Where do you stand on Moses parting the Red Sea? Did that literally happen?

When God revealed the following words to Moses and the Israelites, did He define a 'day' as one they would understand or mean "a long, long time in a galaxy far away..."

Exodus 20:

11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. (NKJV)

So was 'day' above different than in Genesis 1 or did God explain somewhere else the days were millions and billions of years? Was God communicating something beyond their comprehesion? If so why not just tell them "Hey I created everything, end of story." God did not. He was just as specific here as He was in Genesis.

My main issue with folk, especially Christians departing from what God literally revealed is that is downplays the Majesty and Glory of God. And we think in the 21st century as created beings we know better. Should we now go to Dawkins for issues of morality?

 

[Givemeareason]

Who says you? Show me where science can 100% 'prove' (subjective vs. evidence is objective) an uncreated Creator did not create the world. Show me how something coming from nothing is supported by science...you can't.

You are creating a straw man to attack me. I did not say anything against God or creation. I am only saying the literal reading of Genesis is not scientifically accurate.

 

[redleghunter]

He didn't say it wasn't inspired. He's essentially saying that the creation account, as portrayed within the book of Genesis, shouldn't be interpreted as a literal 24 day week simply because scientists say "no". Please don't misinterpret the argument of others.

Are you moderating this discussion? I will let him explain his mix of what can be or not taken as inspired.

 

[redleghunter]

There are many Christians who accept science and would disagree.

I accept science. Observable science. That's real science. We can prove gravity together. A swimmer specie with gills becoming a bird...no we cannot observe that.

 

[Givemeareason]

Are you moderating this discussion? I will let him explain his mix of what can be or not taken as inspired.

And if the literal reading of Genesis is not scientifically accurate the foundation of Creationism is not either.

 

[Smidlee]

You think goat herders from several thousand years ago would have understood cosmology? The Genesis story was just fine for back then. It just doesn't work today.

What does cosomology has to do with being primitive? Modern cosmology deals with the supernatural why not accept Genesis account?

I don't know why you guys even bother to try disputing evolution. You are going to have a lot more issues trying to advance your theory that the earth was somehow created before the sun.

Why is it a problem for the earth created before the sun? Since no one was around and man still doesn't know how solar systems are formed all we have to go by is revelation or speculation. I personally put my trust in God's revelation over man's speculation.

 

[redleghunter]

I would be happy to in a different thread.

Ping me when you set it up. But since Christians believe the Son of God is the Creator it has relevance here.

 

[redleghunter]

Most of us Christians don't often state our beliefs about Earth's age.

Nonetheless, arguing about this is irrelevant on one's beliefs in Christ. In fact, we shouldn't even be trying to prove others wrong in the first place unless their beliefs blatantly contradicts the core teachings of the bible.

Yes, he could defy the laws of reality, but who's to say he didn't use "evolution" to create the world millions of years ago? After all, he can do literally anything. Even bring dragons into existence.

When the original poster says that the Young Earth Creationists are prideful, he's referring to the fact that many of the Young Earth Creationists are people who believe that their beliefs are the only ones that's right and that everyone else's interpretation is wrong (even if they're of the same religion). Something very akin to arrogance (or hubris).

Good points. However these discussions do go down rabbit holes. That is why I mentioned the miracles of the OT and NT. I usually ask people where they stand on them. If someone does not believe who Jesus Christ said He was and don't believe in the miracles and His resurrection, then what game is one playing with creation? Just a question for all.

 

[redleghunter]

Then why did a Christian think of it? This is not about the Big Bang. This is about the book of Genesis the foundation of Creationism.

You talking about Thomas Aquinas? If you are his theory was of the unmoved Mover; the uncreated Creator. He never denied the Catholic Church's stance on creation.

 

[redleghunter]

Do you presume your answer to that is going to be more believable than another?

Just asking for your answer. Do you believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ that He is the Son of God and that He did miracles that defied the laws of physics? If you don't then creation is a mute point.

 

[redleghunter]

I have done no such thing. And this thread is not about Jesus so I would prefer you stay on topic.

Yes this is all about the Son of God Jesus Christ. By the NT He created all that there is that was created. So yes this is about Truth and Jesus Christ.

 

[redleghunter]

And if the literal reading of Genesis is not scientifically accurate the foundation of Creationism is not either.

Maybe you should ask God why He did not hand Moses a periodic table instead of the Law. Did it occur to you that the uncreated Creator, God does things in a glorious manner and He loves sharing the major muscle movements with His creation? The written text in not only Genesis but also Exodus says 'days.' Days are communicated to the Israelites in the wilderness. It is a concept they understood because they lived in days, months and years. They also understood many years too, but that is not what is communicated to the Moses and the Israelites.

 

[Givemeareason]

What does cosomology has to do with being primitive? Modern cosmology deals with the supernatural why not accept Genesis account?

Why is it a problem for the earth created before the sun? Since no one was around and man still doesn't know how solar systems are formed all we have to go by is revelation or speculation. I personally put my trust in God's revelation over man's speculation.

If you believe that can you offer a scientific explanation of how the earth would have formed first and then somehow came into gravitational orbit along with all the other planets which are not even mentioned around our sun that was not created till the fourth day. Is there evidence which supports that?

 

[Givemeareason]

You talking about Thomas Aquinas? If you are his theory was of the unmoved Mover; the uncreated Creator. He never denied the Catholic Church's stance on creation.

No, I am referring to a Catholic priest back in 1931. And please don't start disparaging Catholics.

 

[Smidlee]

If you believe that can you offer a scientific explanation of how the earth would have formed first and then somehow came into gravitational orbit along with all the other planets which are not even mentioned around our sun that was not created till the fourth day. Is there evidence which supports that?

In case you didn't know scientist doesn't really know how our solar system was created. As Newton mention gravity explain the motions of objects in our solar system but doesn't explain the origins of the solar system. All man can do is speculate. Which do you put your faith in? Man's speculation or God's revelation?

 

[Givemeareason]

I accept science. Observable science. That's real science. We can prove gravity together. A swimmer specie with gills becoming a bird...no we cannot observe that.

So I guess you also realize there are things that are not observable too. I don't see any point.

 

[KarjamP]

Frankly no one but God knows the age of the earth. Old Earth theories are good to duck out of atheist cocktail parties. Throughout the Bible Humans are a special creation. Not something that evolved. Where do you stand on Moses parting the Red Sea? Did that literally happen?

When God revealed the following words to Moses and the Israelites, did He define a 'day' as one they would understand or mean "a long, long time in a galaxy far away..."

Exodus 20:

11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. (NKJV)

So was 'day' above different than in Genesis 1 or did God explain somewhere else the days were millions and billions of years? Was God communicating something beyond their comprehesion? If so why not just tell them "Hey I created everything, end of story." God did not. He was just as specific here as He was in Genesis.

My main issue with folk, especially Christians departing from what God literally revealed is that is downplays the Majesty and Glory of God. And we think in the 21st century as created beings we know better. Should we now go to Dawkins for issues of morality?

We're arguing in circles, here. Genesis chapter 1 also says "six days". It's safe to assume that the word "day", here, can be meant in a metaphorical sense.

The nuances of the original Hebrew isn't easy to convey in English. Heck, I've even seen a Old Earth Creationist supporting his views by quoting the original Hebrew version of the book of Genesis, then explaining the nuances within the original Hebrew that would've allowed Old Earth Creationism to be interpreted as being possible.

I accept science. Observable science. That's real science. We can prove gravity together. A swimmer specie with gills becoming a bird...no we cannot observe that.

By your logic, amongst other things, God's miracles, like Jesus's resurrection, didn't happen because they're not observable science.

 

[Givemeareason]

Maybe you should ask God why He did not hand Moses a periodic table instead of the Law. Did it occur to you that the uncreated Creator, God does things in a glorious manner and He loves sharing the major muscle movements with His creation? The written text in not only Genesis but also Exodus says 'days.' Days are communicated to the Israelites in the wilderness. It is a concept they understood because they lived in days, months and years. They also understood many years too, but that is not what is communicated to the Moses and the Israelites.

I don't presume to understand God as well as you think you do. Creationism still purports to be science though when it is clearly not. It misleads people and on that basis alone it is clearly not the word of Jesus.

 

[Smidlee]

I don't presume to understand God as well as you think you do. Creationism still purports to be science though when it is clearly not. It misleads people and on that basis alone it is clearly not the word of Jesus.

No creationist I know mistaken truth for science. Since Jesus is Truth then He's above man's science. There is nothing wrong with a creationist like Jones doing science to support their worldview. That's exactly what evolutionist do.

 

[KarjamP]

No creationist I know mistaken truth for science. Since Jesus is Truth then He's above man's science.

What has that to do with what he's arguing?

His original argument was that Young Earth Creationists are suffering from too much pride simply because of how vocal they're are. He's now defending himself from said vocal Young Earth Creationists who are trying to prove to him how their beliefs are true.

Even I agree with him on this, and I consider myself to be a Christian strong in faith. It's people like them that embarrass the rest of us and gives us a bad image as they're going against mainstream science even if they claim that they don't.

Note that I don't have a thing against Young Earth Creationism. Just the fact that the people who are tend to be rather vocal about it as well as the fact that they're arguing wrong by misunderstanding, presenting misinterpreted evidence, using logical fallacies or even misquote the bible or reputable scientists. Heck, I've seen a few Young Earth Creationists here in this thread use these exact same tactics I've mentioned in an attempt to get their way.