Biblical Creationism and Self Deceit

[MikeEnders]

I propose that Creationism does the first approach and that science does the second. If you start out with the conclusion you can always find evidence. Doesn't Creationism work that way?

Actually you are wrong and its pretty easy to prove. Almost every single branch of science was started by a creationist. Thats a historical fact thats undeniable. There were few atheists around when various sciences were founded. Creationism came about because of man's first recognition of design in the world and the universe. Thats why almost every society we have found is religious. So it was a rational thesis that came about looking at the evidence. not the other way around. If you asked many of the founders of science they would have told you (and some even stated so in their writings) that God was a perfectly rational scientific conclusion to draw. It wasn't till the 1800s where that thesis was challenged by Darwin but Darwin didn't even address many of the reasons people found creationism compelling evidentially. He only took up the issue of life changing and evolving after we already had it, didn't touch the fine tuning of the universe and gave no answer to the creation of the universe that we still grapple with today.

Thats why most people still believe in God in almost every poll taken. Creationism had hundreds of years of observation of design and to this day Evolution only addresses (somewhat spottily and dubiously) what happens after we have the remarkable design of life.

SO to use your analogy. the criminal had already been arrested because the evidence pointed to him. Only recently did someone (darwin) claim he was not involved and and yet they (Darwin) never addressed all the evidence against the suspect we already had in custody

 

[KarjamP]

Like Jesus did? A servant is not greater than his master.



There may be a reason you don't say that, bub, but they need to hear it. Some people will honestly not care, however.

"Some", as in, many.

There's a difference between working for God and doing something stupid in the name of God. He only wants you to preach out to the open like that if he calls you to do so, like he did with the apostles and Paul. Even then, many people became angry with them to the point of attempting murder just to get rid of them.

There's a reason why Christianity is ironically one of the most persecuted religions in the world, and that's not just the fact that they're preaching the gospel.

 

[JustHisKid]

"Some", as in, many.

There's a difference between working for God and doing something stupid in the name of God. He only wants you to preach out to the open like that if he calls you to do so, like he did with the apostles and Paul. Even then, many people became angry with them to the point of attempting murder just to get rid of them.

There's a reason why Christianity is ironically one of the most persecuted religions in the world, and that's not just the fact that they're preaching the gospel.

Yea, the reason is because it's true. That's the only reason. People love their sin and that is why they hate Jesus.

 

[Hakan101]

If Creationism wants to represent itself as science which it clearly does, then the analogy most definitely applies. We are talking science here, not Christianity.

No it doesn't, and I explained why it doesn't apply...you didn't respond to the reasoning behind that.

The creation story presents itself simply as the truth, I can only assume when you say "science" you mean occurring through natural processes? I am sure there were many natural processes involved but it still required God's hand to make it happen. The Bible explicitly says God formed Adam's body with his own hand and breathed life into him, he was not born from a parent's womb, so he did not evolve if that is how other animals came to be. For all the simplicity of the Creation story that is a rather specific detail to mention. This is when you have to question the authenticity of God's Word, not rearrange the creation story to fit the conclusion you draw from the evidence.

I don't see how the scientific knowledge we have of the creation of the world is out of line with a literal account of Genesis. It just seems to me we must either take it as truth, or take it as a lie...and if you take this as a lie might as well take all of God's Word as a lie.

 

[Givemeareason]

No it doesn't, and I explained why it doesn't apply...you didn't respond to the reasoning behind that.

The creation story presents itself simply as the truth, I can only assume when you say "science" you mean occurring through natural processes? I am sure there were many natural processes involved but it still required God's hand to make it happen. The Bible explicitly says God formed Adam's body with his own hand and breathed life into him, he was not born from a parent's womb, so he did not evolve if that is how other animals came to be. For all the simplicity of the Creation story that is a rather specific detail to mention. This is when you have to question the authenticity of God's Word, not rearrange the creation story to fit the conclusion you draw from the evidence.

I don't see how the scientific knowledge we have of the creation of the world is out of line with a literal account of Genesis. It just seems to me we must either take it as truth, or take it as a lie...and if you take this as a lie might as well take all of God's Word as a lie.

I don't have issue with anything you said. The question posed is whether Creationism today which represents itself as science is actually science. Are you even familiar with what Creationists are doing? Have you seen that Creationist museum over in Kentucky?

 

[JustHisKid]

I don't have issue with anything you said. The question posed is whether Creationism today which represents itself as science is actually science. Are you even familiar with what Creationists are doing? Have you seen that Creationist museum over in Kentucky?

Why does creation scare you so?

 

[Hakan101]

I don't have issue with anything you said. The question posed is whether Creationism today which represents itself as science is actually science. Are you even familiar with what Creationists are doing? Have you seen that Creationist museum over in Kentucky?

Ok you need to make the distinction between Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism. Because that "Creationist" museum I bet is actually Young Earth. Which of course does not fit with the scientific record, and I already stated way back that Scripture does not definitively state that we have a Young Earth. It was an erroneous conclusion based on the notion that God made mankind within the first seven, 24 hour days of the earth's existence.

 

[MikeEnders]

I chose this avatar because I'm tired of people equating Christianity with "conservatism" of one form or another. Yes, I chose the avatar because it has a Communist flavour to it. NO, I am NOT a Marxist, but the FACT is that the early Church (as recorded in Acts) WAS Communist in the purest sense of the Word.

Dead wrong and yes I am aware of the passages in acts you would point to in them having all thing in common. However the early church did not require the selling of all goods into a communal as communism did. the story of Ananias bares out that it was a choice people could make or choose not to make . You are misapplying Acts to back up communism which is mandating distribution. Acts never stated that and no such command or principle was ever imposed on NT believer anywhere in the Bible

 

[MikeEnders]

No. The preposterous charge that evolution does the same.

evolution proponents Do actually do the same - though I figure as an atheist you will deny it (probably with the obligatory rhetoric claim that anyone that doesn't see it your way doesn't understand evolution). Convergent evolution would at this point be a pretty clear indication that there is a design at work if even we accepted evolution. Darwinists argue backways that similarities NOT inherited are part of evolution mainly because they assume it to be true and retrofit the facts to fit the theory.

 

[MikeEnders]

Ok you need to make the distinction between Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism.

Thats the silly thing he is doing. He is asking about creationism in general and then when he is answered he pretends like all creationism is the same. Even among YECs there is not one kind of YEC. I lean YEC and I don't limit genesis to 6,000 years . Further in even more ignorance he claims that you can't take Genesis literal and believe in an old earth which is false as well since many Jews believed in an old earth, took the days of genesis as 24 hour periods and the days as seven days and did so HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF YEARS BEFORE DARWIN.

 

[Hakan101]

That distinction was made clear earlier. Are you aware that religious schools even teach that garbage. This entire evolution debate is a concoction of creationism. You are likely even to come under attack by advocating your views. In any case when creationism attempts to force science to compromise with their views it becomes an exercise in deceit as evidenced by that stupid museum and the stuff taught in religious schools. And it exists because of a bunch of fundamentalists who hang themselves on every word of the bible being literal truth. I am not aware where fundamentalism in any religion at any time has ever done anything good that could not have been done better without it.

I am aware it's taught in schools, but I believe that to be a small minority of schools. We can use Scripture to prove that they are not correct, I agree it is stubborn fundamentalism of not wanting to admit they were wrong about Scripture.

However I maintain evolution is not conclusively proven, most notably concerning mankind, and Scripture clearly contradicts it. It's not forcing our views onto science, the science is incomplete and conclusions have been drawn by non-believers and believers who decided to compromise God's Word. If mankind evolved from the natural selection of previous species' offspring, that would make Scripture a definitive lie.

 

[Hakan101]

More nonsense. This thread has nothing to with evolution, soft tissue or whatever. This thread is about the deceit and ignorance being pushed by creationists. All you guys ever do is post arguments against science and mostly evolution. I am holding you accountable instead. And so far all the evidence of deceit and your failure to address the basic logic I posed has served to prove my assertions are correct.

I think most of the people here agree YE Creationism does not hold water. We know there is scientific evidence the earth is much older than YEC would assume (both geological evidence and images of the vastness of space, some planets and galaxies would take millions of lightyears for us to see them), we also know there were creatures and lifeforms that existed before mankind, and also that angels and Satan existed well before mankind. I don't think it follows that Satan just up and rebelled a few years after the start of his existence, and surely it took him some time also to corrupt 1/3 of the angels. Evil already existed before mankind ever set foot on the earth.

So I don't know what the point of this thread is besides saying YE Creationism is wrong. It seems like you were referring to Creationism in general, and that caused the confusion for me.

 

[Hakan101]

More malarkey. maybe you should check some polls

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx

As of 2012 nearly half the US population believes in strict creationism. Nearly unchanged in the last 20 year . a remaining third still believe in a form of creationism. So for you to say Creationism has been driving people from converting is just nonsense. Sex is probably the number one reason the church has lost any converts in the US (or maybe boring church services edges that out)but thats only in the US. IN china and south america Christianity is booming

Here's a more recent but still slightly outdated one.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

 

[MikeEnders]

Here's a more recent but still slightly outdated one.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

Nah thats not outdated. You cant get much better than 2014 and the numbers within margin of error ( ±4 percentage points) are just about the same from 20+ years ago. it wobbles a few points either way over the years

 

[Givemeareason]

Here is the post that started the old thread.

As many of us here know, Barna research* has shown that the denial of scientific data about reality is one of main reasons ex-Christians give for why they left Christianity. A major (perhaps biggest) source of this reality denial in churches is creationism. <br /><br />Now we have data as to how many people are leaving Christianity in the US. <br /><br />It turns out to be over 1% , or over 3 million people each year. That's nearly 10,000 each day, or 366 per hour - about a person every 10 seconds. In the time it took you to read this far, another 5 people left their church, never to return. Christians lose ground, &amp;#039;nones&amp;#039; soar in new portrait of US religion - Religion News Service <br /><br />Creationism is, of course, only part of why they leave. But how big a part, on average? If it's only 10%, then that's still about 40 people a day leaving due to creationism. If creationism makes up most of the reason, then that could be as high as hundreds of people a day. <br /><br />What do you think? You can vote for your estimate.<br /><br />In Christ-<br /><br />Papias<br /><br />*Barna data says that around 25% cite this as a reason they left - among teens. https://www.barna.org/teens-next-gen-articles/528-six-reasons-young-christians-leave-church

 

[Hakan101]

Here is the post that started the old thread.

As many of us here know, Barna research* has shown that the denial of scientific data about reality is one of main reasons ex-Christians give for why they left Christianity. A major (perhaps biggest) source of this reality denial in churches is creationism. <br /><br />Now we have data as to how many people are leaving Christianity in the US. <br /><br />It turns out to be over 1% , or over 3 million people each year. That's nearly 10,000 each day, or 366 per hour - about a person every 10 seconds. In the time it took you to read this far, another 5 people left their church, never to return. Christians lose ground, &amp;#039;nones&amp;#039; soar in new portrait of US religion - Religion News Service <br /><br />Creationism is, of course, only part of why they leave. But how big a part, on average? If it's only 10%, then that's still about 40 people a day leaving due to creationism. If creationism makes up most of the reason, then that could be as high as hundreds of people a day. <br /><br />What do you think? You can vote for your estimate.<br /><br />In Christ-<br /><br />Papias<br /><br />*Barna data says that around 25% cite this as a reason they left - among teens. https://www.barna.org/teens-next-gen-articles/528-six-reasons-young-christians-leave-church

I actually think this article has pretty legitimate points. Most churches I've been to do seem like oppressive social clubs that are anti-science rather than groups that rightly divide God's Word. Of course that is a topic for a wholly different thread.

 

[Givemeareason]

Nah thats not outdated. You cant get much better than 2014 and the numbers within margin of error ( ±4 percentage points) are just about the same from 20+ years ago. it wobbles a few points either way over the years

Looks like I should have have read about it more closely. Doesn't look like you are doing so well with young people though. So the question may be are people getting dumber or will the enhanced access to information these days reveal the falsity especially of Creationism. All my accusations still stand.

 

[MikeEnders]

"As many of us here know, Barna research* has shown that the denial of scientific data about reality is one of main reasons ex-Christians give for why they left Christianity."

proves the point - bogus thread. the article says straight up

"No single reason dominated the break-up between church and young adults. Instead, a variety of reasons emerged. "

and the thread begs the opposite by claiming there was any main reason.

trying to guess what percentage left because they thought Christianity is anti science (a point that could easily be media driven not reality) is just guess work. there is no specific question I saw about YECs. You read that in for your own purposes. In fact if you read the whole thing and the answers what emerges is that people left (and many of them not for good - sorry) for reasons to do within the churches they were at - not YECs

 

[MikeEnders]

Looks like I should have have read about it more closely. Doesn't look like you are doing so well with young people though. So the question may be are people getting dumber or will the enhanced access to information these days reveal the falsity especially of Creationism. All my accusations still stand.

YEC is not mentioned in the entire piece and countless teenagers and young adults pull away from their parents and their parents group only to return later. Standard teen and young adult stage Your points just as all others flops and this one particularly badly. We have had enhanced access to information for like two decades and the numbers of people adhering to creationism by all recent polls show no substantial variation that would show up if you were right. Sorry.

 

[MikeEnders]

I actually think this article has pretty legitimate points. Most churches I've been to do seem like oppressive social clubs that are anti-science rather than groups that rightly divide God's Word.

Thing is though thats not entirely even a problem made up by those churches. Some churches are just reacting to attacks similar to givemeareason's attacks stating you cannot take Genesis as literal if you believe in science. Its a total lie but these churches respond to it sometimes by saying - don't listen to the scientists.

People like givemeareason (atheists and agnostics) also hype up these bogus severely biased polls that say that not even ten percent of scientists believe in God (when more even and widely sampled polls show 30+ to as high as half). Wrongly yes but inspired by the distortion some churches just go anti and say don't listen to scientists. Then of course they end up coming across as anti science.