Creationism - Lazy Man's science?

[JohnR7]

.It would truly appear that Creationism is Lazy Man's science if creationists can't even describe things that can be directly observed in nature correctly.

There are different schools of creation science. There is YEC, OEC, GAP, & TE to name a few. You are going to have a long, long, long way to go to falsify all of that. A lot of it science is not even able to verify or fasify because of the limitations that science has.

I use science to verify that the Bible is true. But that is just the work and the observations of others. Why should I not take advantage of the work that they have done to gather all that they have gathered? It saves us the time and the trouble of having to go out and do it ourselves. We have all of science at our disposal to gather and to collect for us. Do you think that makes us lazy because we allow them to do the work? We have plenty of work to do to sort it all out.

Eccles. 2:26
For God gives wisdom and knowledge and joy to a man who is good in His sight; but to the sinner He gives the work of gathering and collecting, that he may give to him who is good before God. This also is vanity and grasping for the wind.

 

[JohnR7]

It is up to you if you want to be a christian or not.

Actually.....it is up to God.
Unless you seriously want God to be waiting around to see if people will want to become Christians or not.
But that is well off topic.

Is "waiting around" the same thing as "long suffering"?

God is not willing that anyone should perish, it is His desire for everyone to come to repentance. Everyone is equal in the eyes of God.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

 

[random_guy]

What he said what? You call yourself a Christian but you do not call yourself a Creationist? A Creationist is someone that believes that God Created the Natural world that Science loves to study so much. The only way you could NOT be a Creationist would be to not believe God Created the Natural World.

Nope, Creationist (Capital C) is the people that believe God poofed the Earth/life into existence. They think they can prove this using science, which is not scientific. They tend refuse to accept science and hurt our education system by trying to force in ID and Creationism.

It seems like a shame that in a attempt to NOT be associated with Creation Science there are people who want to reject calling themselves a Creationist.

John, Creation Science is an oxymoron because Creationism and Science are opposites. There's just science and religious pseudoscience and Creation Science would fall under the second category.

 

[steen]

If man evolved from animals, and had an evolutionary history having indiscriminate sex, and getting over the weak in order to survive, doesn't man's current social structure contradict millions of years of evolution?

So does any form of medical care of any type, then. Now we merely evolve in the new environment we have created for ourselves.

 

[JohnR7]

Nope, Creationist (Capital C) is the people that believe God poofed the Earth/life into existence.

The word "poofed" is not in the Bible anywhere. It's use is pure derision on your part. The sad thing is that God is the one you ridicule. The one that holds your whole life in the palm of His hand. It is a good thing that He is so very patient with you.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us,
not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

They think they can prove this using science, which is not scientific.

This is not a difficult concept for people to grasp a hold of. We do not try to use science to prove the existance of God. We use science to show that the Bible is a very accurate book when it comes to history and the beginning of civilization. There is no book anywhere in the world that could be considered more accurate then the Bible. Even written as it was over a 1500 year period of time by different people from different backgrounds. Moses and Abraham were very well educated. But people like David was just a shephard with no formal education.

 

[OdwinOddball]

The word "poofed" is not in the Bible anywhere. It's use is pure derision on your part. The sad thing is that God is the one you ridicule. The one that holds your whole life in the palm of His hand. It is a good thing that He is so very patient with you.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us,
not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.



This is not a difficult concept for people to grasp a hold of. We do not try to use science to prove the existance of God. We use science to show that the Bible is a very accurate book when it comes to history and the beginning of civilization. There is no book anywhere in the world that could be considered more accurate then the Bible. Even written as it was over a 1500 year period of time by different people from different backgrounds. Moses and Abraham were very well educated. But people like David was just a shephard with no formal education.

And as usual, I will ask that you back up this claim, which of course you won't do, because the Bible as a whole is not considered accurate at all. it gets some things right, but then gets a whole lot wrong, unless you stick in extra infromation, like Gap Theory, which then provides a structure to make it all work. Unfortunately, since there is no evidence Biblical or otherwise for this theory, it doesn't make for the best argument, and certainly does nothing to substantiate the Bible as an accurate source for anything beyond early Jewish history.

 

[JohnR7]

John, Creation Science is an oxymoron because Creationism and Science are opposites.

Not really and I will show you why. First of all I am not here to talk about what other Creationists believe. I am only talking about what I believe and how that may relate to creation science.

The thing that interests me the most is when civilization began. As far as Science is concerned this took place over a 6 or 7,000 year period of time from 14,000 to 7,000 BC. Interesting enough, the Bible talks about a day being 1,000 years and so the Bible also talks about a 7,000 year period of time.

As a GAP we are mostly concerned with what God has done in the last 14,000 years. We do not really care what takes place before that. That is the area that the OEC covers. For the last 6,000 years the YEC covers that. So our main point of interest is to fill in the 7,000 year gap between the OEC and the YEC. To try and show the transition from the old world to the new world we now live in.

OEC believes a day could be billions of years. Some of the Hebrews Creationists believe each creation day is half the length of the day before it. The YEC believes a day is 24 hours. The GAP and most dispensation people believe that a day is 1000 years.

 

[And-U-Say]

That is a contradiction.
You can not know Christ and become an atheist.
The only way you can be an atheist is to have never known Christ.
In fact he even admits that he never knew Jesus as the Christ.

I would utterly disagree with this. At one time I was a christian. That time lasted about 40 years. In every way shape and form I believed every tenet of christianity, every canon, every creed. I believed absolutely. Now I am an atheist.

It can and does happen. It happens when people open their eyes.

 

[Beastt]

So you admit then that you have never knew God.

Take a long, hard look at my icon, John. Do you really grasp what it means? I don't believe there is a God, John. No God, never was, ever, never, ever. I don't think most Christians can grasp that. In fact, I've seen a number of posts where it's claimed that we all really "know" God exists, but some of us just "choose" to deny it.

That's not the case, John. I really, really don't believe that any god or gods exist. Really. So look again to your comment. Not only do I "admit" that I've never known God. I'll "admit" that you and all other Christians, (and non-Christian theists), have never known God or gods. Does that answer your question?

That said, there was a time when I had no doubt that there was a god. I beleived he understood me, cared about me, granted me some of my prayers, disapproved of some of what I did and ultimately knew that I was a good person and worthy of the chance to be a better person. I would take long walks alone, convinced that I was having conversations with him. But his words weren't spoken, they simply arrived in my thoughts. I now realize that those words were mine and those of others who had helped convince me that God existed.

You have never been saved and born again. If all you know is what others tell you about God, that is not having a personal relationship with God.

Again, John. I'm an atheist. I think there's something about that term you simply have difficulty trying to grasp. You've never been saved or born again either. We're each born once, we live our lives, then we die and we cease to exist. There is no credible evidence of anything else.

Look at marriage. If the only think I knew about her was what other people told me, that would not be a marriage. I am married because of a relationship that I have with my wife.

And you have a relationship with your wife because you can talk to her, exchange thoughts and ideas with her, disagree with her and perhaps find areas of disagreement than you somehow still find endearing. And she can respond back to you, often in ways you don't care for. She's real. You can touch her, see her, show her picture to other people and introduce them to her. They can see her, they can touch her, communicate with her and easily confirm that she's real. You can put her on a bathroom scale and measure the gravitational attraction between her and the Earth.

God is way different. You can't see him, touch him, weigh him or show him to anyone. You can claim to communicate with him, just as Moses claimed to communicate with him. But you can't offer anything conclusive to demonstrate that these conversations are anything but you talking to yourself and fabricating your own conclusions about where your thoughts and ideas originate. You can no more demonstrate your God to be real than a child can demonstrate the reality of their imaginary friend.

2 Cor. 5:17
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

Words of men you happen to like. Mine are human words you happen not to like. The difference is that mine can be demonstrated to hold truth. Until you can weigh God, show me his photograph, introduce me to him and allow me to have a conversation with him, I can demonstrate that my statements are true. The statements you keep posting from the Bible are completely lacking in this demonstrability. You believe them because you find comfort in them, but they hold no credible level of demonstrable truth.

Can you ever say that there was a time in your life when you became a new creation? When everything in your life became new? That is what it means to be a Christian, to be a new creation in Christ.

And no matter how many Christians believe they have undergone such a time, there are a certain percentage that eventually realize that they have deceived themselves -- that no such experience really occured. They begin to realize that they have fallen for the comfort which goes along with believing in God. Do you really think that the people who join cults and end up committing suicide in order to join their gods are any less convinced of the existence of those gods than you are of your God? I think it's fair to say that many of them hold their proclaimed god to be a greater reality than do many Christians of the Christian God. Think about the mental conviction it takes to abandon your family, abandon all worldly possessions, and eventually take your own life because you believe it will join you with your god. How many Christians hold such a level of conviction?

Probably quite a few. But all that tells us is that they stand just as much chance of being wrong as do those who join cults, give up their lives, families and possessions, and eventually take their own lives in loyalty to their beliefs. Strong conviction doesn't demonstrate truth. Evidence demonstrates truth and the only "evidence" Christians can provide is of exactly the same type provided by every other believer of every other god. So why should I take your word for the existence of your God and not take the word of another for the existence of their chosen god?

 

[JohnR7]

That's not the case, John. I really, really don't believe that any god or gods exist. Really.

Ok, so now that you have deconverted, what have you gained? How is your life better now, then what it was as a christian? Do you still follow the moral laws? Do you feel that you can do whatever you want to do and not be held accountable for it?

 

[Beastt]

Ok, so now that you have deconverted, what have you gained?

A world that makes sense.

How is your life better now, then what it was as a christian?

I'm not constantly searching for what I did wrong or should do differently, that I not be punished or denied even the most common of human comforts. I realize things are the way they are because the world is logical, not spiritual. God didn't cause harm, people did.

Do you still follow the moral laws?

There is no, "the moral laws", John. There are acts which portray morality and those which do not.

Do you feel that you can do whatever you want to do and not be held accountable for it?

I don't nor do I know a single atheist that feels they can avoid accountability. I hold myself accountable and should I fail, society will hold me accountable. But morality has to do with not harming others. It has nothing to do with disappointing any god. As long as I bring no harm to others, then my morality is in tact. That's a little advantage I have over Christians who can do harm and bring harm to others, yet convince themselves that in so doing, they're actually doing them "a favor".

 

[shinbits]

Not all animals have indiscriminate sex. Not all animals get over the weak to survive. Protecting the weak, life-long partnerships etc etc. All the 'moral' characteristics you discern in man, are also present in different animals, sometimes even more strictly then in man (for example in monogamy). As Beastt already explained, if it's going to be good for the group, it has a chance to survive in social animals.

But primates, which humans are said to be descended from, do have indiscrimanate sex.

So again, wouldn't marital institutions in a species which is supposed to have as an evolutionary heritage indiscriminate sex contradict this evolutionary history?

 

[Tomk80]

But primates, which humans are said to be descended from, do have indiscrimanate sex.

Not exactly. There is a very strict hierarchy in many primate species regarding sexual relationships. It's often all but indiscriminate, but very political. And in humans, there isn't a strict yes or no on indiscriminate sex either. I know that many christians like to think there is, but I would urge you to look outside of your own culture for a bit, even within the USA. You'll see that not everyone is fierce against indiscriminate sex as some of the more fundamentalist christians try to be.

So again, wouldn't marital institutions in a species which is supposed to have as an evolutionary heritage indiscriminate sex contradict this evolutionary history?

Why? IIRC, certain species of parrots are monogamous, others are not. What makes you think that these things cannot shift in evolution? It's one of the things that is important for evolution, variation.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

But primates, which humans are said to be descended from, do have indiscrimanate sex.

So again, wouldn't marital institutions in a species which is supposed to have as an evolutionary heritage indiscriminate sex contradict this evolutionary history?

Primates do not just have indiscriminate sex, in fact all human sexual behaviors are seen in non human primates including monogamy, polygamy, polygany, homosexual behaviour etc. Use your brain.
for a little more on typical humans start here.

 

[shinbits]

Not exactly. There is a very strict hierarchy in many primate species regarding sexual relationships. It's often all but indiscriminate, but very political.

This "hierarchy" is really just the bigger males beating out the weak ones, then proceeding to have sex with any willing female.

And in humans, there isn't a strict yes or no on indiscriminate sex either. I know that many christians like to think there is, but I would urge you to look outside of your own culture for a bit, even within the USA. You'll see that not everyone is fierce against indiscriminate sex as some of the more fundamentalist christians try to be.

If we look at culture the way it is now, yes; you are completely correct. There isn't really any strict aversion to indiscriminate sex. However, just a few generations ago, there was, and it was very strict.

The only reason that there is so much unrestricted sexual activity in humans within the past forty years or so, is because of the world-wide move toward secularism, which was prophesied in the Bible thousands of years ago.

 

[shinbits]

Primates do not just have indiscriminate sex, in fact all human sexual behaviors are seen in non human primates including monogamy, polygamy, polygany, homosexual behaviour etc. Use your brain.
for a little more on typical humans start here.

Okay. I guess If you could just show a link showing which primates are monogamous, you've proved your point.

 

[Tomk80]

This "hierarchy" is really just the bigger males beating out the weak ones, then proceeding to have sex with any willing female.

That is quite a bit too simplistic, Shinbits. In primate societies, both the higher females and males get a say. A female of high position will not mate with a male of low position, that's not only the male's choice but also the choice of the female. Sex, together with other forms of powerplay, hold the balance in the group. For the same reason, a high placed male won't quickly mate with a low-placed female. I would really advice you to read up on this, because the idea you have on it is quite skewed. Read on some of of the research on baboons, for example. The intricacies of the hierarchical struggles are very interesting, and much more complicated then you want to make them out to be.

If we look at culture the way it is now, yes; you are completely correct. There isn't really any strict aversion to indiscriminate sex. However, just a few generations ago, there was, and it was very strict.

Nope.

The only reason that there is so much unrestricted sexual activity in humans within the past forty years or so, is because of the world-wide move toward secularism, which was prophesied in the Bible thousands of years ago.

Wrong on both counts. If you look at the history of sexual relationships, you'll quickly notice that the only way in which current society differs, is the matter of openness about the above. It has always happened, it's not something purely of the last forty years or so. The church has tried to discourage it and place a taboo on it, sure. But even in highly christian societies, these things happened, with varying levels of openness about it. Ever heard of Casanova? I really would urge you to read up on this as well.

 

[Tomk80]

Okay. I guess If you could just show a link showing which primates are monogamous, you've proved your point.

See Primate mating systems:

"Monogamy:
Prosimian- at least one species of tarsier.
New world monkey- titi monkey, night monkey, callitrichids.
Old world monkey- langur/mentawi island leaf monkey.
Ape- Gibbon."

Also interesting:
"Monogamy
Ok, so if polygyny is so great then why do some end up being monogamous? It's certainly not very common:
Birds- 90% monogamous.
Mammals- under 5% monogamous
Primates- 37/200=~18% monogamous.
(Traditional human societies are about 20% monogamous.)[/quote]

 

[shinbits]

"Monogamy:
Prosimian- at least one species of tarsier.
New world monkey- titi monkey, night monkey, callitrichids.
Old world monkey- langur/mentawi island leaf monkey.
Ape- Gibbon."

Prosimian and the others you've named are monogomous primates?

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

Okay. I guess If you could just show a link showing which primates are monogamous, you've proved your point.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~phyl/anthro/polyandry.html
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~phyl/anthro/polyandry.html
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~phyl/anthro/mating.html
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~phyl/anthro/polyandry.html
for more go here