Do creationists critically examine their own ideas (re: creationism)?

[HitchSlap]

And yet every creationist who ever lived believes IN THE BEGINNING GOD.

Congrats, you guys agree on four words.

 

[Jimmy D]

How do you define creationists, generally? I, for example, believe that God is the Creator of everything, but I do not read Genesis as a scientific description of how and when He did it.

If He used processes, long time and natural laws, I see no problem with it, theologically.

Generally speaking, I'd say we define "creationists" as the YEC, Answers in Genersis types. You fall into the category of "normal".

 

[trophy33]

Generally speaking, I'd say we define "creationists" as the YEC, Answers in Genersis types. You fall into the category of "normal".

Thanks

But the YEC and AiG are the same group, arent they?

Aside from the YEC, we could have:

a) a theistic evolution (practically following the mainstream science), represented by biologos.org

b) the old earth creationism represended by reasons.org (God created new organisms in "waves", more and more developed ones; they do not accept evolution, but accept the old age, fossil layers etc.).

c) various other groups from "we do not care" to "we are living in a simulation"

 

[xianghua]

A house cat is a Felis.

A tiger is a Panthera.

Yes -- different kinds.

actually some big cats can interbreed with small cats. so i think that the closest definition of "kind" should be in the familly level. although not always. for instance chimp and human belong to the same family but its clear that they are different "kinds" by creationists.

 

[xianghua]

So, a house cat and a tiger are the same kind of creature. Makes sense, since the genetic similarity between a cat and a tiger is about 95.6%.
House cats and tigers share 95.6 percent of DNA, study reveals

So when Humans and chimps share 99% genetic similarity, I guess that means that humans and chimps are the same kind of creature too, huh?
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives

actually not. there is a difference between neutral mutations and non neutral. some of the differences among chimp and human arent neutral when almost all differences between house cat and a tiger are neutral.

 

[Tone]

Can you give me some specific examples of how scientific research is subjective?

Right, it's not the science its us...it's the humans behind it...who have imagined it and thought it up and have used the construct in accordance with their (our) wills. Don't you see how it is subjective? How is that any different than the Christian religion, that you say is a personal subjective experience (though we contend that it is founded not on human imagination)? This is why the Bible speaks of the harvest and fruit...very soon, we will see which is the good tree and which is that other one.

 

[Ophiolite]

Hey hey

This is a serious topic. so I shall pretend you didn't say that.

What methods did you use in your teenage years?

Extensive Bible reading. Study of other religions. Regular church attendance. Participation in Christian youth organisations. Discussion with school friends and adults. Prayer. Reflection and contemplation. Etc.

What convinced you the God of Abraham cannot be real?

Did you read what I wrote, or did you just opt for what you thought I said? These were my words: "I very much wanted to believe his existence was real. Despite my best efforts in that direction I failed."
Unless the English language has changed dramatically in the last week the phrase "I was unable to come to belief in the reality of God", is not the same as "I became convinced that God was not real." If you are unable to distinguish between these two quite different concepts then perhaps such discussions are best avoided.

 

[Ophiolite]

Huh? There is an ongoing human caused extinction event, but it pales in comparison to previous natural extinctions.

So far, but we haven't got warmed up yet! (Pun intended.)

 

[USincognito]

So far, but we haven't got warmed up yet! (Pun intended.)

Too soon man.

 

[Ophiolite]

Congrats, you guys agree on four words.

It wasn't just any four words. THEY WERE ALL IN CAPITALS!

 

[Ophiolite]

Romans 8
"6The mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace, 7because the mind of the flesh is hostile to God: It does not submit to God’s Law, nor can it do so."

In what way is this evidence for your assertion that "all of us have actively attempted to disprove the existence of God ".

 

[AV1611VET]

actually some big cats can interbreed with small cats.

Same genus though, right?

 

[dad]

Please try to be civil.

??? You say it is in my head and you are polite, I say it is in your noggan and am uncivil??!

I was not saying that God is all in your head, I was saying you don't have any ability to convince someone who doesn't already agree with you entirely.

Here is what you said

"As I stated, you just don't have any system for differentiating your particular beliefs for any other sincere interpretations or intuitions for anyone outside your own head."

I have a system, I compare what you make up to what God said He did! Your system is to ignore what He said or did and cook up fables, by grasping at anything else that might pass off as possibly fitting!

You have your reading of the Bible and your internal intuition that you have miraculous discernment from the holy spirit... but you can't give me an external reason to accept that.

You made that up. I have the very Scripture Jesus confirmed was true. You have miraculous unknown big bangs and Granny Bacteria that spawned all life on earth, supported by slipshod patchwork religiously vicious mind bending godless mutilation of evidences that have no basis in fact or reality or Scripture.

... I have no interest in discussing them with someone who doesn't agree with me on how the concept of evidence works.

In other words if we do not blindly accept your religion by pure faith, you will feign indignant righteousness and scurry off in a huff.

Why don't we just leave of discussing how the past works on this thread?

Soon as you can divorce creation (ism) from the past, and renounce all demon science claims about the past, we can talk.

 

[dad]

Except we're talking about the proof YOU have to offer, which is precisely NONE.

We are talking of how believers in the bible (creation (ists) ) examine ideas. When I examine demon science origin claims, I look for proof, support, basis, logic. When I examine God's word I look for a track record of how the prophesies did, and how it works in people's lives that try it, and the miracles and etc etc.

 

[dad]

I, for example, believe that God is the Creator of everything, but I do not read Genesis as a scientific description of how and when He did it..

Abraham lived at the same time as Shem and Noah, and Jewish tradition says they lived together for years. Should we believe that Noah really was not a descendant of Adam, and did not live when the records show? Should we dispel what Jesus said about the first people He created? When you start taking a chainsaw to the bible and hacking out bits you find inconvenient why would anyone take some broken fragment on the ground that you deem is alright as true? We do not need you to correct the Almighty!

 

[trophy33]

Abraham lived at the same time as Shem and Noah, and Jewish tradition says they lived together for years. Should we believe that Noah really was not a descendant of Adam, and did not live when the records show? Should we dispel what Jesus said about the first people He created? When you start taking a chainsaw to the bible and hacking out bits you find inconvenient why would anyone take some broken fragment on the ground that you deem is alright as true? We do not need you to correct the Almighty!

Bible is not God. Its a collection of religious texts, not a scientific journal.

The goal of the Bible is to give the spiritual life, not to teach us details about the Universe. The inspired theological message is expressed in the language and knowledge of ancient human writers. They believed in a flat earth and similar. If you will equal this human part to the word of God, you will mistake yourself and others.

Its not "God said: Noah had three sons and if you believe this, you will have the eternal life", its just a narrative of the human writer, his knowledge and his history. Such details were generational memories, possibly mixed with very ancient Mesopotamian myths. The point of these stories is what is theologically significant.

If we would be inspired today, we could express the ideas God gave us with our cultural language, we could talk about superman and how he defeated somebody etc. We would talk about the big bang or make a polemic with the simulation hypothesis. Because this is our cultural background. But people reading such text 2000 years later would, if not educated about us, make the same mistakes you are making and take it literally, forgetting the point we wanted to make.

 

[dad]

Bible is not God.

The word was made flesh. Jesus is God.

Its a collection of religious texts, not a scientific journal.

Science is a collection of fables not a representation of reality.

The goal of the Bible is to give life, not to teach us details about the Universe.

God created all things, and no one understands or gets to Him any other way but Jesus. He gave us lots of details about the future universe, and past.

The inspired theological message is expressed in the language and knowledge of ancient human writers.

When you gut the bible and rip out it's heart, the message that is left is pusillanimous pulpit puke.

They believed in a flat earth and similar.

No. The creator knew exactly what He created. Your projections onto the people of old turn them into half witted imbeciles that invented God.

 

[trophy33]

The word was made flesh. Jesus is God.

You have a really huge problem understanding contexts. You simply see similar words in various places in the Bible and just put them together, thinking you proved something. Bible is words, Jesus is "the Word", therefore Bible is Jesus, therefore Bible is God. Oh mine.

When you gut the bible and rip out it's heart, the message that is left is pusillanimous pulpit puke.

This is what you do. You ignore the heart of the Bible and concentrate on its human part, just for your own good feeling of a "conflict with the evil science". Do you really thing that the goal of Christianity is to push forward the existence of the firmanent or precise Jewish genealogies? No.

The creator knew exactly what He created.

Yes. And again, Bible is neither God nor dictated by God. Its written by humans, from their viewpoint and in their own words (except of some parts like prophecies). Your view of inspiration is not orthodox and has been rejected by the majority of the church for millenia. Even Augustin said we should not bend reality to accomodate it to Scriptures, but we should try to understand Scriptures according to reality.

Your projections onto the people of old turn them into half witted imbeciles that invented God.

A child is not an imbecile. Ancient people were not imbeciles just because they were not scientifically as developed as we are. You are just trying to use as many wrong things from their books as possible and ignore as many good things as possible.

A child: God made me.
A scientist: Your parents made you.

Both are right, in different meanings. If you will try to make them fight each other, you will create useless misunderstanding, conflict and stupidity.

For example the narrative that we are from dust means we are mortal, fragile. But you ignore this message and take it all wrong, trying to prove that we are scientifically made of a literal dust. You think you are doing something useful, but you are actually throwing away the message.

 

[Shemjaza]

??? You say it is in my head and you are polite, I say it is in your noggan and am uncivil??!

It's a matter of what we are talking about.

You were insulting people about what they believe, I was pointing out that regardless of what is true or believed, you aren't presenting anything that I can independently verify.

Here is what you said

"As I stated, you just don't have any system for differentiating your particular beliefs for any other sincere interpretations or intuitions for anyone outside your own head."

I have a system, I compare what you make up to what God said He did! Your system is to ignore what He said or did and cook up fables, by grasping at anything else that might pass off as possibly fitting!
.

I stand by the statement.

I can read the scripture too, but I can't see any reason to accept it.

Given that I don't have any internal feeling that the scripture in general and your interpretation in particular is true what reason do I have aside from "Because Dad said so on an internet forum."?

You made that up. I have the very Scripture Jesus confirmed was true. You have miraculous unknown big bangs and Granny Bacteria that spawned all life on earth, supported by slipshod patchwork religiously vicious mind bending godless mutilation of evidences that have no basis in fact or reality or Scripture.

I have conjecture that is consistent with the evidence collected in the physical world.

You don't have to take it on faith, or accept that I'm an authority. You just have to accept that physical events leave evidence that can be examined and understood.

In other words if we do not blindly accept your religion by pure faith, you will feign indignant righteousness and scurry off in a huff.

.

No, I'm happy to discuss this with someone who disagrees with me about interpretation of evidence, because that can be discussed.

You have repeatedly claimed that evidence is irrelevant because a completely untraceable supernatural event occurred and just happened to resemble evidence against your beliefs.

The reason I might leave in a righteous Huff is that you are acting aggressive and unpleasant.

Soon as you can divorce creation (ism) from the past, and renounce all demon science claims about the past, we can talk.

That's the problem, isn't it?

Different state pasts fish bowl star systems don't have any thing to analyse or discuss aside from, "This is how Dad feels his reading of one book makes the most sense."

People might feel the presence of God, and that might give them the conviction to accept anything that might seem weird of illogical. I don't share that feeling, so it's going to need more then your faith to convince me.

 

[pitabread]

And yet every creationist who ever lived believes IN THE BEGINNING GOD.

Plenty of non-creationists believe that too, so that's not exactly a winning point here.

The real point is that if you ask different creationists when that beginning was, you'll get very different answers.