Biblical Creationism and Self Deceit

[Tellastory]

Each time the creationist discussions take place here it always devolves into an argument over scientific details. I have never seen the crux of the matter being discussed. It seems to be just a matter if arguing things rather than trying to resolve anything. Science is self correcting in matters of self deception because it is looking for evidence rather than forgone conclusions. The bulk of the evidence will point to whatever conclusion.

Not if they are working towards the idea that the evolution theory is true in how they are looking at the evidence and glossing over evidence that doesn't fit that conclusion.

Creationism trys to prove the biblical account of creation. In so doing it comes in conflict with all the major sciences and not just biological evolution. Creationism just takes potshots at science and just tries to disprove things while offering nothing in return. The bible is the creationist theory so it doesn't apply to science.

More like potshots at how this "false science" are presenting the evidence which is easy to do while you guys keep harping that those are "scientific facts" when it is still in the realm of the theoritical and not practical science.

So here's an example of a reasonable potshot borne out of common sense.

Science in their self correcting pursuit to prove the evolution theory, has "disproved" gradual macroevolution in favour of rapid macroevolution due to the fossil evidence of the Cambrian fossil explosion... which they had explained that a global flood had to occur to tap that capacity, but of course, they are not citing how high that global flood was, leaving evolutionists to insist that its flood level was not up to the mountains in spite of water marks found up there and mass graves of fossilized whale bones & other fossilized marine life WITH fossilized land animal bones on mountaintops at various locations all over the world.

One such location is mentioned here:

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/12/u...n-andes-show-how-mountains-rose-from-sea.html

This is how evolutionary science try to explian away the evidence by saying that the mountains had risen up suddenly from the sea, trapping marine life, and yet overlooking the fossilized land animals found with them in this mass grave. That's a big "duh".

Not to mention other mass graves at various locations all over the world. And no, I am not going to do your homework for you, but yes, strangely and concidentally, they too present the evidence still to favour the evolution theory. Overall, that's a big "duh".

Then we need to recognize biblical creation is not supported by science.

We need to recognize that evolutionary science is still shooting in the dark in favour of the evolution theory while they keep ignoring the obvious evidence of the Biblical world wide flood.

Oh... and get this. Jesus validated the scripture; verified the creation of marriage was by the first man & woman created; and warned believers the necessity to be found abiding in Him & His words before He comes as the Bridegroom at the pre trib rapture event or else, ***be left behind to face the coming fiery judgment that will burn up 1/3 of the world which will serve as the catalyst for the coming new world order & its mark of the beast's system to buy & sell with that mark.*** This warning is derived from His help in understanding all His words in the N.T.

He gave that warning on top of what had happened in the past when God had judged the world with a world wide flood in giving references to Noah & his family as the only survivors. You do not warn believers of a coming judgment if the Biblical reference was just a "nice story" not to be taken literally.

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.....34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. 35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

Yeah. Discern that with His help.

So believe the Bible when they say that there is a science so falsely called because it is not observable nor can it be proven as evolution theory has always has been and always will be in the realm of the theoritical.

And micro evolution will always be micro evolution; as a cow will always be a cow and a rose by any other name is still a rose. You cannot use the pitiful excuse of a series of micro evolution for macro evolution to happen over long periods of time when science dispoved gradual macro evolution in favour of rapid macroevolution.

So get your head out of the realm of the theoritical because those are not facts you are spouting, but a series of theoritical presentation on the evidence to favour the evolution theory. They may sound like they know what they are talking about, but it is more of a fairy tale than the Bible is or are you calling Jesus a liar?

John 10:35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Mark 10:5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

Think the Pharisees jumped all over Him by saying that it was just a story and therefore His rebuttal was invalid? Nope. It did not happen, and so neither did the evolution theory.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

It is a war of principality, brother, as I still call you a brother, per 2 Timothy 2:18-21 and you need to go before that throne of grace for help in seeing the truth in His words to see the lies in this science so falsely called.

2 Timothy 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

In your case, it is the evolution theory....

19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. 20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. 21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

John 7:7 The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.

John 8:30 As he spake these words, many believed on him. 31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.....36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

Science doesn't have a position on whether there is a God or not.

Scientists themselves do and that has nothing to do with how they do science. Of course, I am quite sure you realize, there are many scientists who are Christians, who accept well evidenced science, just as atheists scientists do.

 

[Holoman]

I don't have the patience to wade through 20 pages, but I wonder if anyone has read The Genesis Enigma? It is written by a biologist who details how the creation story in Genesis matches the stages of evolution as we understand them, a very interesting read.

 

[Givemeareason]

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

I would like to examine that. Where would I find evidence of your three points especially the 500 witnesses you referred to. That is a lengthy link and I didn't see it there.

 

[Givemeareason]

I don't have the patience to wade through 20 pages, but I wonder if anyone has read The Genesis Enigma? It is written by a biologist who details how the creation story in Genesis matches the stages of evolution as we understand them, a very interesting read.

The creation story in Genesis has far more science to contend with than just evolution.

 

[Cearbhall]

DNA cannot add to itself. I wish I could say the same for you.

I'm not quite sure what this is supposed to mean. Care to explain?

 

[redleghunter]

And "Creation" isn't magical hooey? I would never call it that, but it doesn't make sense for you to claim that it isn't if you're going to say that macroevolution is. What makes Creation more plausible than macroevolution? I realize that it's easy to give up and say "Well someone must have stepped in and poofed this into existence," and that's exactly what our ancestors said before they had the tools to investigate it, but why should I assume that?

Creation is not 'magic' nor is Origins a natural process. Creation is a miracle. It is an act of an Intelligent Creator outside of the the thing(s) created. The uncreated Creator, the unmoved Mover.

 

[redleghunter]

Source?

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.

ID belongs more in a philosophy class. Origins belong in philosophy courses. Such issues will touch on the scientific process. We observe design objectively each day. We are creative creatures and there's plenty to examine with regards to design. Education used to not only be the pursuit of knowledge, but also wisdom. There is no wisdom in state mandated courses and limits to the market place of ideas. No one can call the theory of an Uncreated creator of all things a myth, fairy tale etc. To do so would make that person their own god.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

I disagree. The modern secular view of Big Bang has no Sovereign Creator as the 'unmoved Mover.' The 'priest' was St. Thomas Aquinas a Catholic theologian and I am very familiar with his work. Based on your comments you may want to examine his works:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thefont/2014/10/aquinas-and-the-unmoved-mover/

A list of his works here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm

At the forefront of his arguments is that God does exist and He is the unmoved Mover. For the secular humanist Big Bang was by chance. There is even a group of atheists out there now claiming there was never a beginning but the universe was always 'there.' Sounds like religion to me. Some 'everlasting' universe sounds a bit more like pantheism to me.

 

[redleghunter]

The creation story in Genesis has far more science to contend with than just evolution.

Does the clay say to the potter "no way!"

Is an uncreated sovereign God subject to His own creation? Put more bare bones...the creator of the laws of our earth and universe is master of them...not subject to them, unless He wills it so.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Is our universe ordered? Is our world ordered? Scientists like Newton thought so. The difference between design and non design is the difference between order and chaos. Physics has laws. Those laws were not enacted by scientists but after study, discovered and tested. Buildings don't make themselves, they have builders. Babies are made by a man and a woman procreating. People and things regenerate. It's all observable and ordered.

 

[Belk]

Is our universe ordered? Is our world ordered? Scientists like Newton thought so. The difference between design and non design is the difference between order and chaos. Physics has laws. Those laws were not enacted by scientists but after study, discovered and tested. Buildings don't make themselves, they have builders. Babies are made by a man and a woman procreating. People and things regenerate. It's all observable and ordered.

Does not change the fact that there is no definitive way to show if something is designed or not.

 

[Givemeareason]

ID belongs more in a philosophy class. Origins belong in philosophy courses. Such issues will touch on the scientific process. We observe design objectively each day. We are creative creatures and there's plenty to examine with regards to design. Education used to not only be the pursuit of knowledge, but also wisdom. There is no wisdom in state mandated courses and limits to the market place of ideas. No one can call the theory of an Uncreated creator of all things a myth, fairy tale etc. To do so would make that person their own god.

Theories of the uncreated Creator are not science. Science does not address such ideas. Nor does it claim there is no creator. People just like to use and misrepresent science to justify their unscientific positions. Just because someone is an astrophysicist he has no more authority to deny God than your daily run of the mill athiest. Both athiests and Christians need to hang their beliefs at the door before conducting science. Don't confuse scientists with either of them.

 

[Givemeareason]

I disagree. The modern secular view of Big Bang has no Sovereign Creator as the 'unmoved Mover.' The 'priest' was St. Thomas Aquinas a Catholic theologian and I am very familiar with his work. Based on your comments you may want to examine his works:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thefont/2014/10/aquinas-and-the-unmoved-mover/

A list of his works here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm

At the forefront of his arguments is that God does exist and He is the unmoved Mover. For the secular humanist Big Bang was by chance. There is even a group of atheists out there now claiming there was never a beginning but the universe was always 'there.' Sounds like religion to me. Some 'everlasting' universe sounds a bit more like pantheism to me.

You are wrong about the big bang and St Thomas. The idea of the big bang was first proposed in 1931 by another Catholic priest. And all you are referring to after that is in fact a religion of sorts. They are bending science to support their view just as you are yours. You're both wrong. Science does not address God. Both of you are misreprenting science just to make it seem like it does.

 

[Cearbhall]

Your comments are bit misleading. You use 'science' in general seeking to claim Christians reject science in education.

Erm, no. Such a generalized claim as the words you've put in my mouth would be erroneous, and so I would never say that. I have never attended a non-Christian school in my life, yet I was taught by my teachers at every level that evolution is fact. We even studied abiogenesis. There are many well-educated Christians who are aware that science does not conflict with their faith and who do not attempt to reject reality. Being a Creationist is not synonymous with being a Christian. I know that, and I don't think I've said anything to suggest that I think all Christians are against me on this or are anti-intellectual.

 

[Givemeareason]

Does the clay say to the potter "no way!"

Is an uncreated sovereign God subject to His own creation? Put more bare bones...the creator of the laws of our earth and universe is master of them...not subject to them, unless He wills it so.

Why are you even saying this? You are again accusing me of an argument I never even made. The issue is about whether Genesis should be promoted as a science text.

 

[Cearbhall]

What is absent from this discussion is the lack of historical knowledge in the forum.

Because it's irrelevant, assuming that you're referring to history in the sense of recorded history. The fact that we know it's irrelevant and thus have not brought it up does not indicate ignorance. The topic at hand stretches over billions of years.

If it was not for the Reformation, there would never have been a Western scientific revolution.

I agree. Society learned to question everything.

 

[Givemeareason]

Creationists really need to give up their oppositional position. This has been going on for way too long. Evolution does not deny the Creator as so many other Christians have already found.

 

[Cearbhall]

People were taught to read by using the Bible. The Bible printed in multiple languages had the effect of nomalizing diction and language.

Yes, it was the most popular text for many centuries, and this helped a great deal.

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.

Ok.

Many of which approached scientific discovery with a pre-supposition of a God of Creation, and 'umoved Mover', an uncreated Creator. A Master Designer.

Yes, obviously. Products of their society.

 

[bhsmte]

ID belongs more in a philosophy class. Origins belong in philosophy courses. Such issues will touch on the scientific process. We observe design objectively each day. We are creative creatures and there's plenty to examine with regards to design. Education used to not only be the pursuit of knowledge, but also wisdom. There is no wisdom in state mandated courses and limits to the market place of ideas. No one can call the theory of an Uncreated creator of all things a myth, fairy tale etc. To do so would make that person their own god.

If someone "objectively" observed design in regards to what the ID proponents want, they would have been able to come up with the following;

A definition of what ID is.

A test to determine if ID is present, that is falsifiable.

Since their handful of scientists have been working on this for decades and have failed at the above, indicates observing design is more a subjective phenomenon.

In regards to a philosophy of religion class, they can teach whatever they want. In science class, they should teach science.