Creationism

[Bex.]

Hello all! =]

Let me preface my post by saying my judgements are never personal. I have great respect for each one of you as sentient beings. My curiosity lies with the theory of Intelligent Design and how it can sincerely be believed by a large portion of the theistic community.

The sciences have done modern miracles (pardon the pun) for mankind, especially in the last couple of centuries. This cannot be denied. The scientific method has time and again proven itself and we all reap the benefits each day.

So tell me, why is it when the age of the earth is discussed, the only group who ever contest the argument and the accuracy of the findings of the scientific community are creationists?

youtube.com/watch?v=7XDn5SqE9jc

My question to you is this.

Is your rejection of the age of the earth in defence of your beliefs?

I can only assume the answer is yes. Under that assumption I'm forced to wonder about the validity of a belief system that would willingly and methodically distort the truth to maintain its' member base. It's nothing short of inscrupulous business, like one company falsifying claims about a product so the customer keeps on buying it. Tobacco companies of the 60's come to mind...

I struggle with that idea as my Church growing up, the Catholic church, taught us that the book of Genesis was merely a tale of creation written in a time when we didn't know better. It didn't affect the congregation negatively and certainly wasn't the reason I'm an atheist now. It's possible it made that transition easier for me, no doubt, but at least they weren't deliberately lying to me just to keep me in the fold.

This conundrum then leads me to the following conclusion. How can Christianity claim to be the basis of moral behaviour when it so willingly decieves and discredits to its' own end? It seems entirely immoral to me and apparently I'm the one going to hell.

I'm very much interested to hear the standpoint of supporters of Intelligent Design.

Thank you all.

 

[Bex.]

My question to you is this.
Is your rejection of the age of the earth in defence of your beliefs?

I can only assume the answer is yes. Under that assumption I'm forced to wonder about the validity of a belief system that would willingly and methodically distort the truth to maintain its' member base. It's nothing short of inscrupulous business, like one company falsifying claims about a product so the customer keeps on buying it. Tobacco companies of the 60's come to mind...

I struggle with that idea as my Church growing up, the Catholic church, taught us that the book of Genesis was merely a tale of creation written in a time when we didn't know better. It didn't affect the congregation negatively and certainly wasn't the reason I'm an atheist now. It's possible it made that transition easier for me, no doubt, but at least they weren't deliberately lying to me just to keep me in the fold.

This conundrum then leads me to the following conclusion. How can Christianity claim to be the basis of moral behaviour when it so willingly decieves and discredits to its' own end? It seems entirely immoral to me and apparently I'm the one going to hell.

I'm very much interested to hear the standpoint of supporters of Intelligent Design.

Thank you all.

 

[Greg1234]

My question to you is this.
Is your rejection of the age of the earth in defence of your beliefs?

I can only assume the answer is yes. Under that assumption I'm forced to wonder about the validity of a belief system that would willingly and methodically distort the truth to maintain its' member base. It's nothing short of inscrupulous business, like one company falsifying claims about a product so the customer keeps on buying it. Tobacco companies of the 60's come to mind...

I struggle with that idea as my Church growing up, the Catholic church, taught us that the book of Genesis was merely a tale of creation written in a time when we didn't know better. It didn't affect the congregation negatively and certainly wasn't the reason I'm an atheist now. It's possible it made that transition easier for me, no doubt, but at least they weren't deliberately lying to me just to keep me in the fold.

This conundrum then leads me to the following conclusion. How can Christianity claim to be the basis of moral behaviour when it so willingly decieves and discredits to its' own end? It seems entirely immoral to me and apparently I'm the one going to hell.

I'm very much interested to hear the standpoint of supporters of Intelligent Design.

Thank you all.

Just so you know, the creation of man is not dependent on the age of the earth. Alternative positions like global warming can be linked, a position taken by creationists based on the data, and Darwinism disproven through global warming disparity. Understandably, you haven't actually dared to address creationism (see below) in your post , you then jump to equating intelligent design with creationism with the age of the earth in a feeble attempt to kill multiple birds with one equivocating fallacy.

cre·a·tion·ism   
[kree-ey-shuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

 

[hasone]

Careful. You may be soon learning, or trying to learn, the difference between embedded age and embedded history. There's also old earth creationism, which doesn't reject the age of the earth, but other scientific conclusions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hello all! =]

Hello, Bex; and welcome to CF!

Let me preface my post by saying my judgements are never personal. I have great respect for each one of you as sentient beings.

May I quote you on this later, if the need arises?

My curiosity lies with the theory of Intelligent Design and how it can sincerely be believed by a large portion of the theistic community.

It's simple -- they think they are on to something; and think they have found a way to incorporate God into today's universal blueprints.

The sciences have done modern miracles (pardon the pun) for mankind, especially in the last couple of centuries.

Indeed they have, but they have no right to overstep their authority into the realm of the Scriptures.

This cannot be denied.

Before you start singing, For He's a Jolly Good Fellow, see my next point, please.

The scientific method has time and again proven itself and we all reap the benefits each day.

The Scientific Method has flaws in them: 74

So tell me, why is it when the age of the earth is discussed, the only group who ever contest the argument and the accuracy of the findings of the scientific community are creationists?

Scientists don't do it, either? The age of the earth stands at 100% agreement among them?

My question to you is this.

Is your rejection of the age of the earth in defence of your beliefs?

No -- I believe the earth is 4.57 billion years old.

I can only assume the answer is yes.

I'll say this: you've come to the right place; and although I have a feeling in my bones you're not going to be here long, I also feel you'll leave more educated than when you arrived.

Under that assumption I'm forced to wonder about the validity of a belief system that would willingly and methodically distort the truth to maintain its' member base.

You may not realize this, but the solution to your wonderment is found in your sentence.

"Truth", sans a capital tee, runs on roller skates around here.

One minute something is ... the next discovery ... it isn't.

It's nothing short of inscrupulous business, like one company falsifying claims about a product so the customer keeps on buying it. Tobacco companies of the 60's come to mind...

Does Thalidomide of the '60s come to mind as well?

I struggle with that idea as my Church growing up, the Catholic church, taught us that the book of Genesis was merely a tale of creation written in a time when we didn't know better. It didn't affect the congregation negatively and certainly wasn't the reason I'm an atheist now. It's possible it made that transition easier for me, no doubt, but at least they weren't deliberately lying to me just to keep me in the fold.

Are you here to talk about yourself, or ask honest questions?

You seem to be skating around the rink, starting out with ID, then the age of the earth, now you're an atheist, but not because of the Catholic's stance on Genesis 1 ...

What's up with this?

This conundrum then leads me to the following conclusion.

What conundrum? ID, or the age of the earth, or your atheism, or what?

How can Christianity claim to be the basis of moral behaviour when it so willingly decieves and discredits to its' own end?

Nooow we're getting to the real meat of the problem, aren't we?

You're just here to vent against God and His people, aren't you?

It seems entirely immoral to me and apparently I'm the one going to hell.

Why don't you ask the church you left?

Maybe you're just going to Purgatory?

Although, I suspect your issues are emotional, not [theo] logical.

I could be wrong though.

I'm very much interested to hear the standpoint of supporters of Intelligent Design.

I'm sure you are. [rolls eyes]

And after you've heard and vented each and every point, what will you do then? move on?

Thank you all.

You're welcome.

Let's hope I'm wrong about you, and you're really sincerely here to learn.

The mold isn't that hard to break.

 

[Bex.]

Thank you all for your responses.

Just to clarify, I'm interested in hearing from those who stridently believe in the biblical timeline and YEC. My apologies if I was unclear.

In regards to the age of the earth, mankind, evolution etc... well, they're intertwined I believe. Science draws its' conclusions from all aspects of science, the more corroborating evidence there is, the stronger the theory is.

In regards to the scientific method being flawed; I'm not disputing the fact it is imperfect. However, it has served us incredibly well in recent centuries in all areas of scientific endeavour. Peer reviews ensure that errors and hoaxs are quickly identified. Anecdotal instances of it being shown to be incorrect are of little consequence when the overwhelming majority of instances have rung true.

Now, I am trying to keep my personal views personal, and perhaps I'm failing to express that adequately, but one thing I see repeatedly is that the only group that contests the age of the earth, the evolutionary process or the methods by which these assessments are made come from Creationist corners. Is it because the science in this field threatens the Bible or your beliefs directly or is it because you genuinely believe the science is flawed? If it's the latter, please show me who else (ie: non-creationist) holds this view.

Thank you all! =]

 

[Jazer]

So tell me, why is it when the age of the earth is discussed, the only group who ever contest the argument and the accuracy of the findings of the scientific community are creationists?

There are three
Creation theorys: YEC, OEC & GAP. Both OEC and GAP accept that the earth is whatever age Science says it is. YEC are correct in that Adam and Eve were historical people that lived 6,000 years ago, just as the Bible says. They just do not seem to understand that the world has been around a long time before Adam and Eve came along. It could be because the Bible does not say a lot about it and they have not studied to see what Science has to say about the world before Adam and Eve.

I am talking about the Hebrew (Jewish) Adam and Eve in the Bible. In the garden of Eden, in the Euphrates valley in the furtile cresent north of Iraq. NOT the scientifice Adam and Eve that came "Out of Africa". Science Adam and Eve are not the same people as the Bible Genesis Adam and Eve. The Bible is recorded history dealing with the neolithic revolution which is the beginning of food producers. Also the Bible is a part of recorded history that deals with the beginning of civilization and the beginning of people living in cities. A lot of the cities we read about in the Bible have been excavated by archeology to verify what we read in the Bible is true. For example Jericho has been execavated. The walls we sing about in sunday school that came tumbling down and still there on the ground. Most likely the result of an earthquake. As the city is on a fault line and would have been prone to earthquakes.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just to clarify, I'm interested in hearing from those who stridently believe in the biblical timeline and YEC.

I'm not YEC, but the earth has only been around for some 6015 years.

Yes, it is 4.57 billion years old, but that's because God embedded age into it when He created it.

In other words, the earth is 4.57 billion years old physically, but 6015 years old existentially.

 

[Bex.]

Jazer, thank you for your insight. Can I ask then, as a Christian who accepts the scientific conclusion regarding the age of the earth, do you feel that science threatens your beliefs?

I'm not YEC, but the earth has only been around for some 6015 years.

Yes, it is 4.57 billion years old, but that's because God embedded age into it when He created it.

In other words, the earth is 4.57 billion years old physically, but 6015 years old existentially.

I'm curious to know how you come to that conclusion?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm curious to know how you come to that conclusion?

Scientists say the earth is 4.57 billion years old; using the Bible, we calculate the earth's existence at some 6015 years.

I don't see a problem with it.

Take Adam for example. He came on the scene as a fully-grown adult, and was even given a job and got married the day he was created.

Thus Adam was around 20 or 30 years old physically, but 1 day old by time in existence (i.e. existentially).

The tress are another good example. They bore edible fruit, despite just having come into existence.

I define embedded age as "maturity without history".

 

[Bex.]

OK, so Old Testament, yes?

This is another topic really, but to make that calculation based on the Old Testament, it's fair to say you accept all of the writings of that book? I only ask as there are many Christians who accept it as fundamental truth, and others who disregard some of the less... shall we say, politically correct areas?

 

[AV1611VET]

OK, so Old Testament, yes?

This is another topic really, but to make that calculation based on the Old Testament, it's fair to say you accept all of the writings of that book? I only ask as there are many Christians who accept it as fundamental truth, and others who disregard some of the less... shall we say, politically correct areas?

Yes, I accept all the writings of the Old Testament -- and New.

 

[TheReasoner]

My question to you is this.
Is your rejection of the age of the earth in defence of your beliefs?

I can only assume the answer is yes. Under that assumption I'm forced to wonder about the validity of a belief system that would willingly and methodically distort the truth to maintain its' member base. It's nothing short of inscrupulous business, like one company falsifying claims about a product so the customer keeps on buying it. Tobacco companies of the 60's come to mind...

I struggle with that idea as my Church growing up, the Catholic church, taught us that the book of Genesis was merely a tale of creation written in a time when we didn't know better. It didn't affect the congregation negatively and certainly wasn't the reason I'm an atheist now. It's possible it made that transition easier for me, no doubt, but at least they weren't deliberately lying to me just to keep me in the fold.

This conundrum then leads me to the following conclusion. How can Christianity claim to be the basis of moral behaviour when it so willingly decieves and discredits to its' own end? It seems entirely immoral to me and apparently I'm the one going to hell.

I'm very much interested to hear the standpoint of supporters of Intelligent Design.

Thank you all.

Creationism is a largely American construct. Like your own church, we do not in the church of Norway, or a large number of other churches, spread creationism. So... Christianity does not deceive and discredit - at least not in this regard. American (chiefly) creationists do.

 

[Bex.]

OK, so somewhat predictably, the fundamentalist Christian view is that YEC (or some version of it) is fact. Thank you AV1611VET for your feedback to this point.

Now I'm interested to know if there are those of more liberal Christian views that agree with the principles of YEC?

 

[Bex.]

Creationism is a largely American construct. Like your own church, we do not in the church of Norway, or a large number of other churches, spread creationism. So... Christianity does not deceive and discredit - at least not in this regard. American (chiefly) creationists do.

So it stands to reason that science does not threaten religion unless we're talking about fundamental belief systems. Is that a fair assessment?

 

[TheReasoner]

So it stands to reason that science does not threaten religion unless we're talking about fundamental belief systems. Is that a fair assessment?

I'd say it's a fair assessment, yes.

 

[Jazer]

Jazer, thank you for your insight. Can I ask then, as a Christian who accepts the scientific conclusion regarding the age of the earth, do you feel that science threatens your beliefs?

Not at all, Science helps me to better understand the Bible. Science helps us to know what interpertations of the Bible are not valid.

I'm curious to know how you come to that conclusion?

The conclusion that Adam and Eve were Historical people that lived 6,000 years ago? Simple that is what the geneologys in the Bible tells us. Also science confirms this is true. Esp in regards to Abraham being the Father of the Hebrews and the Arabs. Their Y Chromosome DNA is identical. Of course the Arabs have Hagar the Egyptian for a mother. The Hebrews have Sarah for a mother. That is traced through the MtDNA and is tranfered from mother to daughter. The Bible is a very accurate History Book. Confirmed again and again by Science to be true. Of course written history goes back 1000 years before the Bible to 4500 BC. There is a book written my a man who claims to have actually talked to Noah. Then we know that Noah's father could have known Adam, because there was a short period of time when they would have both been alive. The flood took place just after Noah's father died. Just like Abraham was called to seperate himself right after his father died.

 

[Non sequitur]

The conclusion that Adam and Eve were Historical people that lived 6,000 years ago? Simple that is what the geneologys in the Bible tells us. Also science confirms this is true. Esp in regards to Abraham being the Father of the Hebrews and the Arabs. Their Y Chromosome DNA is identical. Of course the Arabs have Hagar the Egyptian for a mother. The Hebrews have Sarah for a mother. That is traced through the MtDNA and is tranfered from mother to daughter. The Bible is a very accurate History Book. Confirmed again and again by Science to be true. Of course written history goes back 1000 years before the Bible to 4500 BC. There is a book written my a man who claims to have actually talked to Noah. Then we know that Noah's father could have known Adam, because there was a short period of time when they would have both been alive. The flood took place just after Noah's father died. Just like Abraham was called to seperate himself right after his father died.

Where does science confirm Adam and Eve lived 6,000 years ago?