Biblical Creationism and Self Deceit

[redleghunter]

The answers to those questions are obvious - Old Earth Creationists believe the scientists's claims when it comes to how old the Earth is and whether or not evolution's true. We get our guidance through the bible, and some Christian denominations, such as the Roman Catholic Church, also get their guidance through an important leader (the Pope, in the case of the Roman Catholics).

What are you trying to prove by asking those questions? That our faiths are meaningless? The ones who are misusing God's name for their own evil means aren't proper Christians in the true sense of the word.

This thread isn't to discuss where we get our own guidance from. It's to discuss the stubbornness pride of Young Earth Creationists.

Oh I'm seeing some pride here alright...but not from any of the YECs.

 

[redleghunter]

You just can't get back on topic, can you? What you are doing is engaging in the ancient practices of condemning heretics. Rather than trying to understand what I am saying you are trying to trip me. This is typically seen as condemning someone by virtue of the accusation. This also is deceitful and completely off topic. It is also a common form of fallacious reasoning. It is also useful in deceiving yourself because you seem to think that if you can discredit me you will have then discredited everything I have said. I will let you decide who is the fool

Sir, I did nothing of the kind. I am engaging in debate. I threw you a softball above:

Which is more foolish?

That Christ was crucified, died and three days later resurrected from the dead incorruptable?

Or

An uncreated Creator creating the heavens and the earth in six literal days as the Israelites understood days?

Those are honest questions.

 

[Smidlee]

If you read post 109 you will get a better idea of what is going on. Everything you just said is wrong but you don't seem to have the ability to understand why. I am certain many computer simulations have taken place on the manners of how solar systems might form. So your quest should be for one in which a single planet forms first and then the star and all the other planets orbiting around it form afterwards. If you cannot explain that in scientific terms your theory of Creation doesn't have much to support itself.

Post 109 tries to pretend that secular pride is somehow different kind of pride which I disagree.
Computer simulations are only as good as the assumptions that is put in them. Even then they computer simulations have totally fail how the solar system was created. This is why they try to explain away why the evidence doesn't fit their model. For example Mercury doesn't fit their model so they assume Mercury had to be developed farther away from the sun then somehow move to a closer orbit we find today.

You didn't read Mathias Rose's reply to that post which refuted it in a more polite way. As I said, us Christians are just as guilty of doing stuff like this.

All Mathias post is trying to make secular pride sounds less prideful.
Pride is something every human being has to deal with.

 

[paulm50]

The answers to those questions are obvious - Old Earth Creationists believe the scientists's claims when it comes to how old the Earth is and whether or not evolution's true. We get our guidance through the bible, and some Christian denominations, such as the Roman Catholic Church, also get their guidance through an important leader (the Pope, in the case of the Roman Catholics).

What are you trying to prove by asking those questions? That our faiths are meaningless? The ones who are misusing God's name for their own evil means aren't proper Christians in the true sense of the word.

This thread isn't to discuss where we get our own guidance from. It's to discuss the stubbornness pride of Young Earth Creationists.

I'm trying to prove you're led by men and have been from the beginning. Which can be good, more often it turns out to be men more interested in getting what they need. The one's misusing god's name fall into both categories, good and evil. If you want me to list the evil Popes and church leaders I can do. It's a very long list running up to today. And the faithful followed them without thinking.

The solution to why we are here, is everywhere around you. It's because of nature and how it adapts or can be made to adapt. It needs no help from any god.

 

[Givemeareason]

Oh, they have pride! Let's not be coy. But it works differently.

First of all, they have professional pride, and ego. This leads them to pursue the glory of new answers to deeper questions.

But there is also the pride of being in the mainstream, dominant opinion. What is infuriating to mainstream scientists is to have people object to their methods or conclusions based on wholly discredited methodologies and sources of data. They respond emotionally, and pridefully. In a secular world, they have every right to. It would be like a three year old explaining to an electrical engineer that there is no such thing as electricity, but rather that it is fairy juice, and what they think are generators are actually magic fairy bubbles. The engineer might think it's cute the first time or two, but when this idea starts to propagate as a "viable alternate theory" of electricity, he's going to have apoplexy. His professional pride is wounded.

New, we don't understand everything about electricity, but we know enough to know that it's something a lot more explainable, measurable, and comprehensible than this "fairy juice" -- so, to some degree, the pridefulness of the engineer is totally comprehensible.

But what happens is the engineer responds from his place of pride with sneering contempt for the fairy juice crowd, who feel attacked, disregarded, and become defensive about their beliefs. Pride begets pride.

The emotional cycle continues to polarize.

Fortunately, at least for now, my fairy juice powered air conditioner continues to function.

The parable I am responding to here depicts the so called debate between Creationism and science. Creationism is just fundamentalist theology in disguise. It only seeks to promote the idea that Genesis is a literal account of creation. Millions of Christians view Genesis as an allegorical story and when taken in proper context it is seen as creation story for a group of primitive nomadic people who could not know what we know today. Science has far better answers explaining creation today but in no way denies God unlike what many are being told. That is a subject of great speculation. But the problem Creationism poses is dragging Christianity down and the US is increasingly turning away from it as a result. It is the duty of all Christians to be concerned of this.

 

[redleghunter]

The parable I am responding to here depicts the so called debate between Creationism and science. Creationism is just fundamentalist theology in disguise. It only seeks to promote the idea that Genesis is a literal account of creation. Millions of Christians view Genesis as an allegorical story and when taken in proper context it is seen as creation story for a group of primitive nomadic people who could not know what we know today. Science has far better answers explaining creation today but in no way denies God unlike what many are being told. That is a subject of great speculation. But the problem Creationism poses is dragging Christianity down and the US is increasingly turning away from it as a result. It is the duty of all Christians to be concerned of this.

In your observation how does science explain the Resurrection of Jesus Christ? Are Christians engaging in an unreasonable literal manner when proclaiming Jesus Christ was resurrected three days after his death? Are there millions of Christians who believe the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was allegory as well?

 

[Givemeareason]

In your observation how does science explain the Resurrection of Jesus Christ? Are Christians engaging in an unreasonable literal manner when proclaiming Jesus Christ was resurrected three days after his death? Are there millions of Christians who believe the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was allegory as well?

The all or nothing approach. Right. Next thing you are going to say is that a person cannot believe in Jesus without believing Genesis. Right again. This is so ridiculous and off topic I don't know what to say.

 

[MikeEnders]

Again it says the earth was created before the sun and the stars. Do you have evidence to support that theory beyond your belief, intuition or whatever?

Where? The Bible I read says that light should appear in the firmament of heaven (sky) and says nothing aobut when the source from which the light came was created . It also says the heavens (which in multiple places in the Bible includes stars) was made first. Thats the inherent problem with you asking for evidence. You are asking for evidence of your interpretation of Genesis which no one is obliged to accept not even Creationists.

 

[redleghunter]

The all or nothing approach. Right. Next thing you are going to say is that a person cannot believe in Jesus without believing Genesis. Right again. This is so ridiculous and off topic I don't know what to say.

No sir, I am making a logical comparison. If you choose not to answer that is fine, but the question still stands for those who want to engage in debate (this is the forum for such) and not rely on talking points as 'fact.'

 

[Givemeareason]

No sir, I am making a logical comparison. If you choose not to answer that is fine, but the question still stands for those who want to engage in debate (this is the forum for such) and not rely on talking points as 'fact.'

No, you are still attempting to conduct your inquisition which is perfectly fine with me as you are doing a good job of illustrating my points for me. If you go back to my first post you will better understand the topic.

 

[MikeEnders]

The central problem with Genesis one is that it is now so controversial and fought over that no one and I mean NO ONE (not atheist, not agnostic, not believer not OECs, not YECs not the OP) comes to it without their preconceived assumptions. Let me prove it. The following are obvious straight statements in genesis one which defy many ideas people have in their head

A) the text nowhere says each animal was created individually. It says the exact opposite. Life was create by just three commands of God and individual animals came out of just three commands

B) the passage never says God poofed animals into creation directly or even created animals directly. Instead God commands the Earth and the waters to do it.

C) the passage point blank states that days only begin once you have light and the earth was in existence even when it was dark. The days are light centric not passing of the clock centric

I could go on with several more things that are plainly in the text but no one talks about because they are too busy telling each other and their opponents what they think is in the text rather than reading it objectively.

 

[Givemeareason]

The central problem with Genesis one is that it is now so controversial and fought over that no one and I mean NO ONE (not atheist, not agnostic, not believer not OECs, not YECs not the OP) comes to it without their preconceived assumptions. Let me prove it. The following are obvious straight statements in genesis one which defy many ideas people have in their head

A) the text nowhere says each animal was created individually. It says the exact opposite. Life was create by just three commands of God and individual animals came out of just three commands

B) the passage never says God poofed animals into creation directly or even created animals directly. Instead God commands the Earth and the waters to do it.

C) the passage point blank states that days only begin once you have light and the earth was in existence even when it was dark. The days are light centric not passing of the clock centric

I could go on with several more things that are plainly in the text but no one talks about because they are too busy telling each other and their opponents what they think is in the text rather than reading it objectively.

I like what you are saying and since you are not advancing this idea as science I have have no problem. You are illustrating the proper and Christian way of addressing this IMO.

 

[MikeEnders]

If you go back to my first post you will better understand the topic.

Unfortunately the first post is a disingenious setup (although I can allow for it not being intentional just misguided)not an honest attempt to discuss pros and cons. You simply attempt to paint anyone that doesn't agree with you as doing so based on pride so you can level the assertion against them in the entire thread.

YECs are not born with anymore pride than you have. Plus some of your points are circular and even contradicting. IF Science is self correcting then those that question it are not outside of the process of science but in it. Skeptics and agnostics such as yourself always attempt this. They claim one of the benefits of science is that it is self correcting but then take objection to anyone that thinks science might be wrong (and hence need correcting). Its mismash of illogic.

IF Science is self correcting then you should welcome those that think it may well be wrong

 

[MikeEnders]

I like what you are saying and since you are not advancing this idea as science I have have no problem. You are illustrating the proper and Christian way of addressing this IMO.

LOL... I have a sneaking impression you will think differently when you realize where the proper logic I am advancing goes.Especially since I am a YEC of sorts (though not the 6,000 year old earth type).

 

[JustHisKid]

The Bible warns of self deception.

"We live in a world full of lies, and deceit comes from many sources. There are lying spirits who lead astray (1 Timothy 4:1); there are “evildoers and impostors” looking for dupes (2 Timothy 3:13); and, perhaps most insidious, we have ourselves to deal with. Self-deception is common in our fallen world. Our own hearts are deceitful—so much so that we easily fool ourselves (Jeremiah 17:9).Isaiah 44:20speaks of an idolater who is misled by his own “deluded heart.” The prophet Obadiah identifies arrogance as one of the roots of self-deception: “The pride of your heart has deceived you” (Obadiah 1:3). Human pride always blinds us to truth. It promises honor, but it delivers disgrace: “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18)".
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-self-deception.html#ixzz3eIxT19EA

Yet there are many Christians who on prideful faith accept the idea that Genesis is the literal account of how Creation took place. And they believe a group of lying imposters of science claiming that this is true. All while they fail to confirm for themselves if they are being told the truth. They choose instead to see themselves as the persecuted people against the world while refusing to check it out themselves. And when they are shown to be wrong they close their eyes refusing to even see the evidence proving them wrong when it is right in front of them. They fail to recognize their own pride they have taken in their beliefs. They continue to argue on trying to punch holes in scientific facts while thinking they have valid arguments while failing to realize that even if all of human knowledge could be disproven it would not bring them one step closer to what they want to believe.

"The pride of your heart has deceived you." Obadiah 1:3

When has scientific study ever proven creation to be false?

 

[KarjamP]

Reg Leg Hunter, why do you appose those with differing opinions as to how to interpret the book of Genesis? That is arrogance, a form of pride, whether you believe it's pride or not. Thus, you're actually proving Givemeareason's point about them being prideful.

Also, please stop trying to appeal to the fact that God can do literally anything because we all know that. In fact, he could've may as well really did use evolution as his means to mold the Earth to the way it is nowadays the same way as him being able to mould the world within six 24-hour days and the same way he can bring dragons into existence.

Unfortunately the first post is a disingenious setup (although I can allow for it not being intentional just misguided)not an honest attempt to discuss pros and cons. You simply attempt to paint anyone that doesn't agree with you as doing so based on pride so you can level the assertion against them in the entire thread.

YECs are not born with anymore pride than you have. Plus some of your points are circular and even contradicting. IF Science is self correcting then those that question it are not outside of the process of science but in it. Skeptics and agnostics such as yourself always attempt this. They claim one of the benefits of science is that it is self correcting but then take objection to anyone that thinks science might be wrong (and hence need correcting). Its mismash of illogic.

IF Science is self correcting then you should welcome those that think it may well be wrong

He didn't say there are those who think that it's wrong. Nor he didn't say skeptics aren't inside science. Simply the fact that many YECs tend to display some prideful attributes when it comes to science to the point of them deceiving themselves when it comes to some stuff.

Case in point, many YECs tend to misquote credible scientists as supporting their views, and when this particularly bad practice is pointed out by those who actually did their research and know the actual context as to the quotes, the YECs tend to bash those people simply because they are essentially telling YECs they're doing research wrong.

 

[Givemeareason]

Unfortunately the first post is a disingenious setup (although I can allow for it not being intentional just misguided)not an honest attempt to discuss pros and cons. You simply attempt to paint anyone that doesn't agree with you as doing so based on pride so you can level the assertion against them in the entire thread.

YECs are not born with anymore pride than you have. Plus some of your points are circular and even contradicting. IF Science is self correcting then those that question it are not outside of the process of science but in it. Skeptics and agnostics such as yourself always attempt this. They claim one of the benefits of science is that it is self correcting but then take objection to anyone that thinks science might be wrong (and hence need correcting). Its mismash of illogic.

IF Science is self correcting then you should welcome those that think it may well be wrong

Oh, and I do welcome those that legitimately think it is wrong. Science always welcomes that too. But what I am addressing here are the motivations of YECs who advocate a position they cannot defend and instead just stir the pot of so called scientific debate in the attempt to create the illusion that Creationism has scientific merit. It is deceitful, misleading and a disgrace to Christianity.

 

[Givemeareason]

When has scientific study ever proven creation to be false?

It never has. You have evidently just been misled if you think that to be the case.

 

[redleghunter]

The Bible warns of self deception. Yet there are many Christians who on prideful faith accept the idea that Genesis is the literal account of how Creation took place. And they believe a group of lying imposters of science claiming that this is true. All while they fail to confirm for themselves if they are being told the truth. They choose instead to see themselves as the persecuted people against the world while refusing to check it out themselves. And when they are shown to be wrong they close their eyes refusing to even see the evidence proving them wrong when it is right in front of them. They fail to recognize their own pride they have taken in their beliefs. They continue to argue on trying to punch holes in scientific facts while thinking they have valid arguments while failing to realize that even if all of human knowledge could be disproven it would not bring them one step closer to what they want to believe.

"The pride of your heart has deceived you." Obadiah 1:3

Above are your opening assertions. I say assertions because you offer absolutely no evidence to support your claim. The thrust of your assertions is that YEC "continue to argue on trying to punch holes in scientific facts while thinking they have valid arguments [which you don't list out for all to see] while failing to realize that even if all human knowledge could be disproven it would not bring them one step closer to what they want to believe."

That's quite an assertion. Someone could say the same thing about your existence!

Now my logical comparison.

The creation of all we see around us is a miracle. God revealed this miracle in Genesis.

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is a miracle. He was dead three days and raised with an incorruptable body.

So my question is based on your assertions of YEC challenging what you call scientific facts, where do you stand on Christians proclaiming the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which is a miracle and defies all scientific explanation?

 

[Givemeareason]

LOL... I have a sneaking impression you will think differently when you realize where the proper logic I am advancing goes.Especially since I am a YEC of sorts (though not the 6,000 year old earth type).

Logic is not exclusive to science so what is your idea?