• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Creationism... Why bother with it?

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Zadok, Apr 18, 2002.

  1. Zadok

    Zadok The Fossil Hound

    199
    +2
    Creationists teach that science itself is wrong-- it's phony-- it doesn't work-- it's not the way to find out anything. The basic tenet of Creationism is that if anything doesn't agree with their literalist interpretation of the Bible-- no matter what the evidence-- then it has to be wrong (check the oath signed by ICR members if you doubt this). That means any time you find anything out, through science or any other method, you have to check the Bible to see if it's OK to believe what you just discovered. If your discovery (no matter what the evidence) appears to contradict biblical literalism, then it's just not true, or you didn't look at it 'right', or you're deluded by Satan, or something-- anything-- but admitting that some parts of the Bible might not be literally accurate about the physical world.

    Why bother?

    If the fossil record does not, in any way, shape or form conform to the "genesis account" of creation, why bother with the creationist explanations that state that the earth, and everything in it, is between six and ten thousand years old?

    Also, the biblical creation is one out of millions of other creation stories. Did/does the fossil record conform to their religious views?

    In fact, I would like to have people write down about, how they feel the fossil record fits in with your religious views, then compare them with others...

    Call it, a little experiment...
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. brt28006

    brt28006 Member

    236
    +0
    I'm glad someone besides me posted that.
    I've been a pinpoint away from being banned for quite some time now.

    p.s. I totally agree with you, Zadok.
     
  3. jon1101

    jon1101 Well-Known Member

    +5
    Christian
    where can I find a copy of this oath? I asked an ICR rep point-blank if this much alleged oath existed and, after a month or so of waiting for a reply to my e-mail, it was flattly denied. Would you happen to have a link or something where I could read the exact oath?

    -jon
     
  4. seebs

    seebs God Made Me A Skeptic

    +1,463
    Seeker
    Married
    US-Republican
    http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/icr-oath.htm

    That's the first result on Google if you search on "ICR oath".

    This is, of course, totally incompatible with any science. It's rather similar to the perodic claims that one should give a clear accounting of God's intent and plan without reference to holy books, unless they support a given belief.
     
  5. Archaggelos

    Archaggelos New Member

    23
    +1
    The ICR oath that you quoted is on a the Holy Smoke web site, a site dedicated to the critique of creationism. For the true ICR "Tenets of Creationism", go here: http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm


    Zadok, you set up the proverbial straw man and tried to knock it down. Regardless of how ICR or anyone else says it was done, God created the heavens and the earth. That is the point of the creation account in Genesis. Honest and thoughtful creationists try to think God's thoughts after Him. When a scientific 'fact' is uncovered, a true creationist knows that it represents the way God did it. Even if it seems to contradict what was thought to be known of God and His ways.

    For instance, I am sure you have heard all the stories of how the Church thought that the Sun revolved around the earth because the Bible mentions of the sun rising and falling. When it was discovered that the sun is the center of the solar system, after some adjustment and a few councils, the Church came to see the truth. No one thinks that the Bible is in error because is uses language limited by human understanding and knowledge of the time. God did not inspire men to write those things to teach a science lesson. Scientific accuracy was not the point.

    By the way, there is very interesting evidence of creation in the fossil record and geological formations. Check it out. I am sure ICR, CRI or Hugh Ross could show you a few things.

    Regards,
    a
     
  6. edgeo

    edgeo Member

    244
    +1
    I have this prediction that someday, creationists will say that they discovered evolution and that it is the divine explanation for life on earth. They've been sliding that way all along. Just a matter of time.

    A point of agreement.

    Here, we do not agree. ICR, CRI and, especially Hugh Ross, are not the least geologically enlightened.
     
  7. seebs

    seebs God Made Me A Skeptic

    +1,463
    Seeker
    Married
    US-Republican
    The problem is, these people have started out being intellectually dishonest, and I don't particularly believe them. One of the reasons there's so many sites full of critiques of creationism is that a lot of the most visible representatives are not very good people.

    I think the heliocentrism comparison is a very good one. We are gradually learning how God does things.
     
  8. Starscream

    Starscream Well-Known Member

    +43

    You make it sound so trivial but in reality the scientist who brought this discovery to the church was branded an infidel and lived out the rest of his life under house arrest.
     
  9. Tristan

    Tristan Chilling out

    68
    +0
    Hi,

    Not all creationists disown science. I have never heard of, nor ever signed this ICR thing you're chatting about. I love science and think that it's great.

    Since you want me to write it down, I shall - I do not intend to debate it as I believe it is a *possibility* - by no means do I think it is fact. Something I believe strongly is that the evidence that is there can be explained in several ways - evolution being the most popular. Please bear in mind that this is a v.simple version of this theory - I know that there are scientists out there who would be far better equipped to explain this better.

    When God flooded the earth (Noah's flood - Genesis 6), animals & plants died, and layers of silt were deposited due to the flood itself. The reason you get smaller (less 'evolved') animals at the bottom of the layers is partly because that's how things settle (sand at the bottom, rocks at the top type thing), and partly because the bigger smarter (more 'evolved') would probably have gone to seek higher ground because they saw a flood happening. This also explains the lack of larger fossils as compared to smaller fossils.

    Carbon dating? Well, carbon dating relies heavily on knowing how much proportion of the differnt carbon molecules was in the atmosphere at the time of death of the dead thing. Most dating agents assume that it was the same as now. Since so much carbon was locked up during the flood via the death of the animals plants (and locked into oil & coal - possibly), there would have been a completely different proportion of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, and so the dating methods are flawed (this is just one example of how carbon dating can be flawed - I've read others..but this is the one that springs to mind).

    For the record, I believe that animals adapt (or if you like 'evolve'), and change over time - but that *no fresh new genetic information is created* - I believe that the changes are simply degredations of existing DNA. Therefore I do not believe the part of evolutionary theory that says that life came from nothing. I believe that God created things perfect, and we have been degrading ever since.

    Hope that helps give you another POV and how I believe the evidence can fit the biblical account (as opposed to ignoring the evidence) - There are plenty of other theories, but I don't know them <grin>

    God bless,

    Tris
     
  10. elephanticity

    elephanticity This appears beneath your name.

    449
    +3
    Its so efficient! Much easier than real science. With conventional science, you have to muddle around with facts until they form a pattern, then make guesses, then see if the guess can encompass ALL the facts, then look for more facts to see if the guess still holds, then state with a bit more confidence that you have a hypothesis, then other scientists check your work (especially if it argues against the work THEY did or are doing) then if it withstands all the criticism you call it a theory and you get to be on the cover of Time.

    Creation Scientists have all the answers already, and work backwards from doctrine to theory to fact, and any fact that can't be rationalized WITHIN known fact has to be rationalized OUTSIDE of known science. Much simpler.

    [/sarcasm]

    Not everyone that believes in creationism has signed the ICR's statement of faith, no. But a lot of the arguments against evolution, or against the technology of evolution start there, or in facilities like it. They string together some easy sound bites and publish. Soon, EVERYONE is talking about the dust on the moon, or man/dinosaur footprint sites, or layers of volcanic ash at Mt. St. Helens being just like 20,000,000 layers of river sediment in Wyoming, or whatever.

    The problems with C14 dating lose a lot of weight when you compare C14 results with other, independent methods of dating, that all show similar results. A lot of arguments against evolution sound good until you really figure out what they're saying.
     
  11. Shane Roach

    Shane Roach Well-Known Member

    +1,229
    Christian
    You are not a creationist. You don't speak for creationsits. I don't know anyone who holds a creationist view that shares this opinion. This is a character attack against a broad spectrum of people with no evidence.

    I have given you every oportunity to answer the questions I have and all you can do is avoid them and spout continual personal accusations against people who disagree with you. I'd bs shocked if you could even repat the arguments back coherently that appear in these forums.
     
  12. redguard333

    redguard333 New Member

    17
    +0
    Everyone should go to this site and view all the site has to offer, especially the Incan burial stones, the limestone cowboy, and all the other artifacts. Look at the top 10 reasons as well. www.creationevidence.org
     
  13. Oliver

    Oliver Senior Member

    639
    +19
    Agnostic
    Married
    I'd just like to give you a little food for thought concerning this paragraph of yours.

    Let's suppose that the flood occured and that at the time of the flood, the proportion of the various isotopes of carbon was very different from today's.

    If all those fossils are fossils of animals (and humans) who died during the flood, then since they died at about the same time, carbon dating should give about the same results for all of them, which is far from being the case. Or do we also have to assume that there was a HUGE variation of these proportion during the flood?
     
  14. Tristan

    Tristan Chilling out

    68
    +0
    Oliver,

    Good point! Hadn't thought of that! But as I said before though, I am not going to debtate anything.

    God bless,

    Tris
     
  15. elephanticity

    elephanticity This appears beneath your name.

    449
    +3
    I got as far as
    Flat out revisionist history. The column was established theory before Darwin published. Geologists do not get memos from paleobiologists to date strata.
    Very entertaining site for anyone that already believes Creationism, but not terribly good science...
     
  16. brt28006

    brt28006 Member

    236
    +0
    They cite the Voice of God as scientific evidence of something... is anyone bothered by that?
    How can we really consider creation science to be science when they rely on things no human being could ever possibly research, directly or indirectly?

    Doesn't matter if they're wrong or right, if they use evidence like this, they just are not science.
     
  17. A Christian

    A Christian Member

    272
    +0
    Carbon dating works only when carbon is present.
    Once matter has become petrefied it is essentially
    mineral. Why this happens possibly has more
    to do with what happened to the once living
    matter once it died rather than when it died...
     
  18. A Christian

    A Christian Member

    272
    +0
    Creationists don't believe science is wrong.
    Creationists believe many scientists have
    blundered. There is nothing wrong with
    science---it is the interpretation of data
    that is in error.
     
  19. Archaggelos

    Archaggelos New Member

    23
    +1
    Starscream:

    What happened with Copernicus was tragic and a low point for the Church. I don't dispute that. However, it is irrelevant to the discussion. One cannot discredit an idea by saying that some of its adherents are jerks or once had been wrong.

    a
     
  20. seebs

    seebs God Made Me A Skeptic

    +1,463
    Seeker
    Married
    US-Republican
    And yet, at least within the terms of science, the only evidence that will count will be scientific evidence.

    Believe me, if anyone can come up with real evidence that there's problems with evolutionary theory, there are lots of people ready to shred it and replace it... But so far, the evidence just keeps confirming the basic tenets.

    Admittedly, today's evolutionary theory is very different from the evolutionary theory of fifty years ago... But that's just an argument for the basic design of the scientific method; errors are gradually being reduced or corrected.
     
Loading...