Biblical Creationism and Self Deceit

[JustHisKid]

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

Oh good. I was just wondering how I was deceiving myself. I guess I'm not.

 

[Givemeareason]

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?

Jesus is not the subject of this thread and I resent your continued attempt to use Jesus to justify your foolishness. The evidence of what Creationists do is all around us on this board. I do not need to prove the obvious. Show me one instance where Creationists are trying to advance a theory other than what is in the book of Genesis.

 

[redleghunter]

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.



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.

I was making no appeal but making a logical comparison. The author of this thread decided to use Creation to promote his assertions. He offered no facts (nor did you) of the pride of YECs. Thus the question of the Resurrection. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul instructs either the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is real or it is not. If not then we as Christians have no hope or argument. As with Creation, the Resurrection is a miracle and defies scientific laws. Science cannot prove an uncreated Creator, nor can it disprove such. Science also rejects based on observable scientific evidence that someone can be raised from the dead three days later with an incorruptable body.

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is central to this discussion.

1 Corinthians 15: NKJV

12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. (NKJV)

 

[redleghunter]

Jesus is not the subject of this thread and I resent your continued attempt to use Jesus to justify your foolishness. The evidence of what Creationists do is all around us on this board. I do not need to prove the obvious. Show me one instance where Creationists are trying to advance a theory other than what is in the book of Genesis.

Of course Jesus Christ, the Son of God IS the center of my rebuttal to you. He is the Creator. I am arguing that Creation was a miracle. The Resurrection was a miracle. Both involved the Son of God. You take issue with the Creation miracle, I am asking you if one believes in a Risen Christ, does that make them 'prideful' in proclaiming such even though modern science cannot observe a Resurrection? See the linkage. Could you address that?

 

[Givemeareason]

I was making no appeal but making a logical comparison. The author of this thread decided to use Creation to promote his assertions. He offered no facts (nor did you) of the pride of YECs. Thus the question of the Resurrection. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul instructs either the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is real or it is not. If not then we as Christians have no hope or argument. As with Creation, the Resurrection is a miracle and defies scientific laws. Science cannot prove an uncreated Creator, nor can it disprove such. Science also rejects based on observable scientific evidence that someone can be raised from the dead three days later with an incorruptable body.

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is central to this discussion.

1 Corinthians 15: NKJV

12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. (NKJV)

That's awfully presumptuous that you would accuse science of rejecting all that. The fact is science does not even concern itself with that. And your attempt to portray science in that way is just the old straw man approach of misrepresenting something so you tear it down when you have the inability to address it in honest terms. The inquisition continues.

 

[Givemeareason]

Of course Jesus Christ, the Son of God IS the center of my rebuttal to you. He is the Creator. I am arguing that Creation was a miracle. The Resurrection was a miracle. Both involved the Son of God. You take issue with the Creation miracle, I am asking you if one believes in a Risen Christ, does that make them 'prideful' in proclaiming such even though modern science cannot observe a Resurrection? See the linkage. Could you address that?

What rebuttal? You have failed miserably. But thanks for the help in illustrating my points for me.

 

[KarjamP]

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?

Yes. Creation's a miracle. Yes, Jesus's resurrection is a miracle. Yes, the book of Genesis did say God created the heavens and the Earth. But it doesn't say that the first chapter in Genesis must be interpreted within as six 24-hour days.

It is indeed a logical fallacy to assume something is proof of an entirely unrelated thing. In this case, the mere fact that God has done miracles does not automatically mean Earth's created within a period of six 24-hour days.

Besides, scienctific evidence considered to be irrefutable must line up with scripture or else either the evidence, itself, or scripture would cause doubts. Heck, even the bible itself says to test everything: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

If the evidence for an old Earth is indeed irrefutable, and the YEC's claims about how old the Earth is turns out to be correct, it's like saying, "God deliberately plants evidence to the contrary as to test our faith". That's essentially saying God is willing to lie to us. Something that's very problematic to a Christian's faith.

 

[MikeEnders]

What rebuttal? You have failed miserably. But thanks for the help in illustrating my points for me.

If he has failed so have you because outside of claims I have not seen you present any evidence. He also has a point. Genesis one presents itself as a miracle of God not a natural process. Lots of people seem to forget this. NO one through hundreds of years presented it or read it as anything else but divine actions by God. What you have failed to show is that Genesis one contradicts any unchangeable uncorrectably facts of science or that genesis even claims God created by a natural process.

YECs do not claim that genesis one is a natural process. they claim the exact opposite that it is God acting and then they show how that is not inconsistent with real unchangeable "science". You claim that God creating the earth first and then the sun is inconsistent with science but that would only be the case if Genesis or YECs believed that God created through a natural process. Like it or not intelligent design advocates have shown a lot of good reasons to believe the universe was designed and thats usually what YECs point to NOT claim creation follows a natural process.

 

[KarjamP]

Are you guys trying to shift the burden of proof? Because doing so is technically also a logical fallacy.

True, stuff like the Big Bang do indeed have problems even non-Christians can attest to, but that's only because our knowledge about the universe is incomplete. That's why scientists exist in the first place: to figure out how the world works.

 

[MikeEnders]

If the evidence for an old Earth is indeed irrefutable, and the YEC's claims about how old the Earth is turns out to be correct, it's like saying, "God deliberately plants evidence to the contrary as to test our faith". That's essentially saying God is willing to lie to us. Something that's very problematic to a Christian's faith.

Two problems with your claim

A) you seem to assume that all YEcs have one age in mind which is false. Not all hold to 6-10,000 years for example
B) what exactly would god have planted to deceive anyone if say the earth were 100,000 years old

Please say something else besides radiometric dating on B

 

[KarjamP]

Two problems with your claim

A) you seem to assume that all YEcs have one age in mind which is false. Not all hold to 6-10,000 years for example
B) what exactly would god have planted to deceive anyone if say the earth were 100,000 years old

Please say something else besides radiometric dating on B

A) I didn't say that. I'm technically skeptical of both Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism because I don't know what to believe. However, what I can attest to is the fact that the bible never says how old the Earth is.

Incidentally, it's called "Young Earth Creationism" for a reason - Youn Earth Creationists believe that the world was created only recently.

B) Okay. Uranium–lead (U–Pb) dating. It's considered one of the oldest and most reliable dating methods in existence. Did you honestly think "Carbon dating" is the only method scientists use to date the Earth? Even they know it's only accurate to about several thousand years.

 

[MikeEnders]

Are you guys trying to shift the burden of proof? Because doing so is technically also a logical fallacy, especially when done incorrectly.
.

What burden of proof? Please don't be lazy. You are as required as anyone else to present evidence of your claims. To say the earth was created by purely natural means is not a defacto positions which requires no proof to claim. Our universe is ordered, mathematically logical and by all accounts of the facts without appealing to other multiverses fine tuned for our existence. therefore We do not need to show a "burden of proof" to say a a logical system or person may have been involved in its creation.

Claiming your position is the defacto true position requiring a burden of proof to overturn without you referencing any evidence to begin with is a SUPREME logical fallacy

 

[KarjamP]

What burden of proof? Please don't be lazy. You are as required as anyone else to present evidence of your claims. To say the earth was created by purely natural means is not a defacto positions which requires no proof to claim. Our universe is ordered, mathematically logical and by all accounts of the facts without appealing to other multiverses fine tuned for our existence. therefore We do not need to show a "burden of proof" to say a a logical system or person may have been involved in its creation.

Claiming your position is the defacto true position requiring a burden of proof to overturn without you referencing any evidence to begin with is a SUPREME logical fallacy

We're asking you to prove that the Earth's young and that the Earth's created within 6 24-hour days. You're asking us to prove that the Earth's old and that the Earth was created over billions of years ago through natural means (God's willing to use anything for his will, including coincidences).

That's why I'm accusing you of trying to shift the burden of proof - you're asking us to prove the opposite of what we want you to prove.

 

[MikeEnders]

Incidentally, it's called "Young Earth Creationism" for a reason - Youn Earth Creationists believe that the world was created only recently.

Thank you for that "duh" moment like everyone doesn't know that

B) Okay. Uranium–lead (U–Pb) dating. It's considered one of the oldest and most reliable dating methods in existence. Did you honestly think "Carbon dating" is the only method scientists use to date the Earth? Even they know it's only accurate to about several thousand years.

Thank you for that second "duh" moment since I said to skip radiometric dating which refers to all such dating not just carbon as you seem to erroneously believe. Multiple studies now show that decay rates can be affected by physical phenomenon and not the constant once believed. Here is just one

http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2010/100830FischbachJenkinsDec.html

Radiometric wouldn't even begin to qualify as something God put to fool people. that would be people making assumptions about radiometric decay and samples

 

[KarjamP]

I know that. That's why I said I don't know whether to specifically believe in Young Earth Creation or Old Earth Creationism.

Scientists know that as well. That's why they try to calibrate it in an attempt to make it more accurate, and even then, they take absolute dates with a pinch of salt.

https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/calibration.html

Anyone can cite sources in an attempt to make them seem to be correct. In order to know the truth, one has to seek the answers for themselves. Heck, that's what the people of a city within New Testament times did when they listened to the teachings of one of the Apostles - check the old testament to see what they preach is the absolute truth.

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure you said "Carbon dating" before you've edited your post. If you really did say "Carbon dating", then you've changed it to "radioactive dating", then I'll understand, but I'll get mad if you did that with the intention of making me think "radioactive dating" means "carbon dating".

 

[Givemeareason]

If he has failed so have you because outside of claims I have not seen you present any evidence. He also has a point. Genesis one presents itself as a miracle of God not a natural process. Lots of people seem to forget this. NO one through hundreds of years presented it or read it as anything else but divine actions by God. What you have failed to show is that Genesis one contradicts any unchangeable uncorrectably facts of science or that genesis even claims God created by a natural process.

YECs do not claim that genesis one is a natural process. they claim the exact opposite that it is God acting and then they show how that is not inconsistent with real unchangeable "science". You claim that God creating the earth first and then the sun is inconsistent with science but that would only be the case if Genesis or YECs believed that God created through a natural process. Like it or not intelligent design advocates have shown a lot of good reasons to believe the universe was designed and thats usually what YECs point to NOT claim creation follows a natural process.

I just pointed out the evidence. The people who are representing Creationism are the evidence. I am not engaging in the ridiculous disputes that commonly go on because I am not interested in furthering the illusion that Creationism has scientific credibility. It is all deceit and that is point of this thread. In order to advance any idea you have to have something to base it on. Basing something on a literal translation of Genesis is ridiculous. I guess thats why all we ever see them do is just going around trying to poke holes in science.

 

[MikeEnders]

We're asking you to prove that the Earth's young and that the Earth's created within 6 24-hour days. You're asking us to prove that the Earth's old and that the Earth was created over billions of years ago through natural means (God's willing to use anything for his will, including coincidences).

Are you a child? I ask because I don't debate with children and you are reasoning like one. No one asked anything in the OP of this thread. There is not a single question (if so please show us all the question mark in the thread title or even in the OP) instead it makes claims about all Yecs being full of pride and self deceit and no not all YECs believe each day is 24 hours - they just don't believe its 10 million years either. I haven't asked you to prove anything but that the assertion made in the OP that Genesis one cannot be taken as literal be shown.

However at this point in time if you wish to prove something to me please go ahead and show me the evidence that all the soft tissue being found in fossils can actually survive as long as claimed. Schweitzer's explanation for that shocker doesn't cut it and now they are even finding in tact proteins

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=13504

 

[JustHisKid]

I just pointed out the evidence. The people who are representing Creationism are the evidence. I am not engaging in the ridiculous disputes that commonly go on because I am not interested in furthering the illusion that Creationism has scientific credibility. It is all deceit and that is point of this thread. In order to advance any idea you have to have something to base it on. Basing something on a literal translation of Genesis is ridiculous. I guess thats why all we ever see them do is just going around trying to poke holes in science.

Do you believe in absolute truth?

 

[Givemeareason]

What burden of proof? Please don't be lazy. You are as required as anyone else to present evidence of your claims. To say the earth was created by purely natural means is not a defacto positions which requires no proof to claim. Our universe is ordered, mathematically logical and by all accounts of the facts without appealing to other multiverses fine tuned for our existence. therefore We do not need to show a "burden of proof" to say a a logical system or person may have been involved in its creation.

Claiming your position is the defacto true position requiring a burden of proof to overturn without you referencing any evidence to begin with is a SUPREME logical fallacy

Back to the misrepresentations again. When given a choice between a natural explanation or a supernatural one which is the logical choice. The natural does not rule out the possible influence of the supernatural. Most people don't need Genesis explained. It is the insistence of fundamentalist views that have created this monster called Creationism.

 

[KarjamP]

Are you a child? I ask because I don't debate with children and you are reasoning like one. No one asked anything in the OP of this thread. There is not a single question (if so please show us all the question mark in the thread title) instead it makes claims about all Yecs being full of pride and self deceit and no not all YECs believe each day is 24 hours - they just don't believe its 10 million years either. I haven't asked you to prove anything but that the assertion made in the OP that Genesis one cannot be taken as literal be shown.

However at this point in time if you wish to prove something to me please go ahead and show me the evidence that all the soft tissue being found in fossils can actually survive as long as claimed. Schweitzer's explanation for that shocker doesn't cut it and now they are even finding in tact proteins

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=13504

Now you're doing "Ad Honimen", or "To the man" - attacking the arguer instead of actually arguing.

You're also doing "Appeal to Authority", which, while it's not necessarily a logical fallacy on its own, can be if said authority's reasonings or your own are also not sound.

Do you believe in absolute truth?

What has "absolute truth" have to do with this debate? If you say the Chapter 1 of Genesis is the absolute truth, then you're essentially saying both the Old Earth Creation ideas and the Young Earth Creation ideas are sound as there's more than one interpretation of that chapter.