Creationism

[fungle]

I am still wondering about the lack of response by the creationists. Surely if they believe in it they are going to defend creationism?

 

[Jet Black]

There are some, like Kent Hovind, who base arguments on the proven fact that 'there are 1041 electrons in the known universe.' There are actually around 10^41 atoms of matter. He misread something and got excited about it, and then proceeded to base an entire speech on his mistaken understanding of there being x electrons in the universe.

where did you ge that nugget of information?

 

[Data]

"Hovind: "Maybe you work with computers in your line of work. Imagine this, take those forty Grand Canyons full of books, and condense them into software, and when you are done the software must fit into two tablespoons. Ah, God did it, and it reproduces itself! Do you know what the odds are of that happening by random chance? The odds are 1 x 10119,000. That is a big number, since there are only 1041 electrons in the known universe."

 

[Talcos Stormweaver]

"Hovind: "Maybe you work with computers in your line of work. Imagine this, take those forty Grand Canyons full of books, and condense them into software, and when you are done the software must fit into two tablespoons. Ah, God did it, and it reproduces itself! Do you know what the odds are of that happening by random chance? The odds are 1 x 10119,000. That is a big number, since there are only 1041 electrons in the known universe."

For some reason, it seems that Hovind is not applying common sense to support his argument. 1041 electrons? Well, given the variety of elements in the known universe, I would have to say the universe could only hold around 10 Nobelium atoms in size (maximum, we can get some hydrogen in the model as well).

And, given the amount of matter in this universe, based on Hovind's logic, we can safely say that the universe is the size of the head of a pin. Unless of course, it was made to look older than it really is, and only seems its the size of the head of a pin rolleyes: ).

 

[JGMEERT]

. Unless of course, it was made to look older than it really is, and only seems its the size of the head of a pin rolleyes: ).

JM: Are you describing Hovind's brain or the Universe?

Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[ashibaka]

He meant 10^119,000 and 10^41, but of course he didn't write that because he doesn't know math.

 

[Jet Black]

JM: Are you describing Hovind's brain or the Universe?

Cheers

Joe Meert

it can't be either, since it is too big for one and too small for the other.

 

[alehm]

Great to know you think of your brothers in Christ who are Creationists as stupid, ignorant, inbred, who don't think, believe in creation because of American television and advertising.

I can't wait to hear what you think of you enemies.

I bet all Creationists would rather see you guys keep patting yourselves on the back instead of something here so they can be called even more names by you guys.

Go go love of Christ.

 

[Michali]

Great to know you think of your brothers in Christ who are Creationists as stupid, ignorant, inbred, who don't think, believe in creation because of American television and advertising.

I can't wait to hear what you think of you enemies.

I bet all Creationists would rather see you guys keep patting yourselves on the back instead of something here so they can be called even more names by you guys.

Go go love of Christ.

I agree here.

Creationists are not enemies. Some are, infact, willing to be reasonable. Perhaps even most are.

I strongly disagree with creationists that tie in their opinions with salvation. IMO, they should be stopped.

 

[pureone]

*off thead- michali, I dig the spirit-blown look of your avatar*

 

[alehm]

I strongly disagree with creationists that tie in their opinions with salvation. IMO, they should be stopped.

I agree as well. I am a Creationsit myself and believe that believing in evolution isn't going to jepordize ones salvation. And I don't think Theistic Evolutionists should be going around haughty and insulting YEC creationsits intelligence like I am seeing on this forum.

There is plenty of evidence supporting evolution and plenty of dating techniques. But these evidences are not without there questioning and issues as well. There are plenty of assumptions and varieties of of results from these dating techniques.

The common complaint against YEC is their interpretation of the Creation account is incorrect or too literal but theistic evolution doesn't just call for different interpretation of the Creation account but ignoring or cutting out entire scriptures. This is totally different from having a different interpretation. When it comes to this point I think the real danger is to the unsaved who can plainly see Christians rejecting sections of the bible because it just can't be true on some physical aspects of it, then we come to them and tell them they need to believe the spiritual aspects of it.

The bible says homosexuality is a sin and you soul wil lbe seperated from God if you don't repent.. Really? Are you an inbred Christian from the deep South watching too much television? Do you know that scientific evidence shows that homosexuality is genetic? I think your interpretation of the bible is is wrong.

The bible says God judged the entire earth by flooding it with water and only Noah and his family was spared... oh, another Christian who doesn't think! Scientific evidence shows that it is impossible to flood the entire earth. There isn't enough water. Your interpretation has to be wrong, perhaps it was just local flood and the only people that died was in Noahs country. It just seemed to Noah that the entire earth was under water.


The bible says God is returning to judge the entire earth again this time with fire.. You don't give up do you? Science has already proved He couldn't judge the entire earth the first time with a global flood perhaps your interpretation is wrong on Christs return as well? Perhaps I can just look busy and when God returns he won't notice me. Besides the earth is 3/4's water. Science can easily show the earth can't burn up. You can keep your bible and your Jesus.

 

[Mike Flynn]

And I don't think Theistic Evolutionists should be going around haughty and insulting YEC creationsits intelligence like I am seeing on this forum.

Not all of us do that. Some of us simply state our own opinions and do what we can to avoid insults. People are not perfect alehm, including Christians. Just look at Paul's letters to the early Chruch...some things never change.

There is plenty of evidence supporting evolution and plenty of dating techniques. But these evidences are not without there questioning and issues as well. There are plenty of assumptions and varieties of of results from these dating techniques.

Science simply accepts the theory that is not falsified by the data. YEC science theories have been falsified. The age of the universe, for example, is clearly contradictory to YEC claims.

theistic evolution doesn't just call for different interpretation of the Creation account but ignoring or cutting out entire scriptures. This is totally different from having a different interpretation.

This is not true. I have not ignored any of the scriptures...In fact, I have found profound and deep theology in them where I have found very little theology through a literal interpretation.

Can you please point out a few scriptures that I am ignoring or cutting out? Please don't make such presumptuous claims if you cannot support them.

When it comes to this point I think the real danger is to the unsaved who can plainly see Christians rejecting sections of the bible because it just can't be true on some physical aspects of it, then we come to them and tell them they need to believe the spiritual aspects of it.

The real danger is when people reject Christianity outright because the literal interpretation of Genesis bears little or no resemblance to actual history. Accepting a metaphorical interpretation has brought many people to Christ alehm...I'm not sure what good fruit the advocates of the literal translation are producing today.

Science has already proved He couldn't judge the entire earth the first time with a global flood perhaps your interpretation is wrong on Christs return as well? Perhaps I can just look busy and when God returns he won't notice me. Besides the earth is 3/4's water. Science can easily show the earth can't burn up. You can keep your bible and your Jesus.

And you can keep your judgements.

You seem to think that anyone who doesn't accept the literal interepretation is therefore rejecting the clear theology expressed in the Bible.

This is the area where the YEC consistently brings his own judgements about other Christians to the fore. The theology that you value so much stands firmly against such things, or do you claim otherwise?

Yes, I will keep my bible and my Jesus...and I will pray that others will learn to accept Christ and be redeemed by God himself, how ever many days old the earth happens to be.

 

[roadie432002]

alehm,how has science shown the flood was impossible?do you really think the miles wide grand canyon was carved by the tiny colorado river?how about sea fossils found on the tops of mountians?

 

[Vance]

I also do not reject a single line of the Bible.

And the slippery slope argument is not a good one. If you are standing on a ledge and the truth is somewhere halfway down the slope, it behooves you to head toward that truth, and not stay at the top in "untruth" just to avoid slipping past the truth into error. No, you head toward the truth. Just wear shoes with good traction.

 

[Gabrial]

I fail to see how you can believe in Evolution and Creationism, other than that God started everything. But it states that in, creationism, God created the world in 7 days. Seeing that 7 days could most likely be interpreted as a long time, because of the bibles frequent use of the number 7, i still dont think that the two can be combined. In my opinion its either one or the other.

 

[lucaspa]

There is plenty of evidence supporting evolution and plenty of dating techniques. But these evidences are not without there questioning and issues as well. There are plenty of assumptions and varieties of of results from these dating techniques.

Alehm, the criticisms of the dating techniques also have to undergo criticism to see if the criticism is valid. It's not: come up with a dating technique, criticize it, and stop. You criticize the criticism. Understand? The criticisms of the dating techniques have been falsified.

The common complaint against YEC is their interpretation of the Creation account is incorrect or too literal but theistic evolution doesn't just call for different interpretation of the Creation account but ignoring or cutting out entire scriptures.

Which Scriptures have we said must be ignored or cut out entirely?

The bible says homosexuality is a sin and you soul wil lbe seperated from God if you don't repent.. Really? Are you an inbred Christian from the deep South watching too much television? Do you know that scientific evidence shows that homosexuality is genetic? I think your interpretation of the bible is is wrong.

And it is. Also, understanding God does not stand still. I think this is part of the danger of Biblical literalism. By worshipping the Bible instead of God, it stops Christians from learning more about God and what He wants. It would be like stopping the development of a child at 10 years old. Never letting him get to know you as a parent as the child grows older and more knowledgable. There are aspects to me as a parent that my children at 10 years old could not know. Biblical literalism freezes our knowledge of God.

This idea of changing interpretations in the light of scinece is not a new attitude among Christians. Long before evolution came along to trouble Biblical literalists, evangelical Christians wrote:
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

The bible says God judged the entire earth by flooding it with water and only Noah and his family was spared... oh, another Christian who doesn't think! Scientific evidence shows that it is impossible to flood the entire earth. There isn't enough water. Your interpretation has to be wrong, perhaps it was just local flood and the only people that died was in Noahs country. It just seemed to Noah that the entire earth was under water.

And that is one legitimate new interpretation.

The bible says God is returning to judge the entire earth again this time with fire.. You don't give up do you? Science has already proved He couldn't judge the entire earth the first time with a global flood perhaps your interpretation is wrong on Christs return as well?

And what reason would I use? What scientific evidence would falsify Christ's return? You see, your aren't being consistent. If I say I can use extrabiblical evidence to say an interpretation is wrong, then I have to have the extrabiblical evidence. Making the "what ifs" isn't valid.

 

[lucaspa]

alehm,how has science shown the flood was impossible?do you really think the miles wide grand canyon was carved by the tiny colorado river?how about sea fossils found on the tops of mountians?

There is lots of evidence falsifying a global flood. You just posted one of them yourself: sea fossils on tops of mountains. How would clams and other bottom dwelling creatures get to the tops of mountains in a flood? They would settle to the bottom. Also, wouldn't horses, people, rabbits, deer, and other mobile animals run to the tops of mountains to get away from the flood waters? After all, it took over 40 days for the whole world to be flooded. Lots of time (for the clams to settle, too). Why aren't their fossils found on the tops of mountains? Where are they?

There are several threads here that show the evidence that caused creationists to discard a global flood. You can read more in Genesis and Geology by CC Gillespie.

 

[lucaspa]

Great to know you think of your brothers in Christ who are Creationists as stupid, ignorant, inbred, who don't think, believe in creation because of American television and advertising.

Alehm, there are two categories of creationists:
1. The lay creationists, let's call them. These are non-science people who are devout Christians. They believe creationism because the professional creationists tell them it is correct. They are used to trusting their fellow Christians (like ministers) and therefore simply trust the professional creationists. I feel sympathy and sorrow for the lay creationists. The feelings are much the same as I feel for people conned into buying a lemon of a car from an unscrupulous used car salesman.

2. The professional creationists. These are the used car salesmen. They make their living promoting creationism. I have dissected their claims and arguments and found that they are deceitful in a number of ways. Many Christians, from Jesus, Paul, and Augustine on down, have told Christians to police their own ranks against false prophets, false teachers, and others who would drag Christianity into disrepute while claiming to be Christians. While you may hold Hovind and Morris in high repute, I don't. Just as, and for the same reasons, I don't hold the unscrupulous used car salesman in high repute and would rebuke him. You deserve better. You deserve the truth. Not lies.

 

[alehm]

This thread has been 3 pages of insults to YEC's with terms of inbreeding, not thinking, ignorant, ect with no defense against these generalizations. As soon as I state what I believe all the sudden the "wrongs" need to be corrected.

And you can keep your judgements.

That entrie passage you quoted wasn't my judgements. I was merely playing a role of someone who only comes to God on evidence not faith. Which obviously means they don't come to God without faith.

You seem to think that anyone who doesn't accept the literal interepretation is therefore rejecting the clear theology expressed in the Bible

Not what I said or what I believe. I said " believing in evolution isn't going to jepordize ones salvation"

Accepting a metaphorical interpretation has brought many people to Christ

It has caused many to leave God as well. Ever heard of the book Farewell to God? The author worked with Billy Graham in his early crusades with the youth did many wonderful things. Then began to reject a God because his metaphorical interpretation meant before sin entered the world by a mytholigical Adam that animals were already killing each other, that animals were being killed off by cancer and other ghastly diseases bringing millions of years of suffering and torment in a world God called "Very good".

Science simply accepts the theory that is not falsified by the data.

As I said, there are many different dating techniques with differeing results and assumptions. There are many problems with evolution, and there are many strong evidences as well. I don't think an evolutionist is inbred or other colorful names that don't get corrected around here unless it is coming from an YEC. Science is merely sticking to what hasn't been disproven, that doesn't make it make it true or actual history.

Mike Flynn][/b]
Can you please point out a few scriptures that I am ignoring or cutting out?

2. Do you believe that in creation/evolution there were meat eaters and plant eaters? Mike :Why wouldn't I?

Genesis 1:30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

I don't know. Perhaps there is a total differenent interpretation that I can't fathom you could educate me on. Maybe God wanted them to be vegetarian but the animals disobeyed God and started eating each other? Maybe God didn't say that at all and it was inserted by man and therefore we should ignore it?

 

[Vance]

They were given all the plants to eat, but it does not say that this was to be their only diet. The statement is one of addition, not exclusion.

And death is not evil, sin is evil. If there was not yet sin (disobedience to a command of God) then it WAS good.