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

[Kylie]

No problem, kid yourself, and whatever lurker may believe you all you like.

Maybe the lurkers would be more inclined to believe your side if you could, you know, actually produce some evidence to support your position.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

no. i think that there are much more non-neutral differences between human and chimp then there is between a tiger and a house cat.

Perhaps you should take time to construct your arguments in a meaningful manner. The argument you presented apparently does not reflect your thoughts.

Now you've clarified your thoughts, perhaps you can provide the supporting evidence? Show us how "there are much more non-neutral differences between human and chimp then there is between a tiger and a house cat"

 

[Shemjaza]

This is exactly why He said, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

...he read from a book written down by a human.

Not 100% reliable and totally unreliable are not the same thing.

 

[dad]

Maybe the lurkers would be more inclined to believe your side if you could, you know, actually produce some evidence to support your position.

My position, like yours, is beliefs. In my case, the time honored proven bible. Pretending God has not supported His word is delusional. Pretending you offered anything but belief based nonsense to support your science beliefs is dishonest.

 

[trophy33]

That His word is true and that Jesus fulfilled Scripture and was the living word of God is basic Christianity actually.

I guess the angel reminding folks in Revelation that He created all things and all the other holy men of God in the bible who affirm and refer to it are ignoring the heart of the bible eh? Good luck with that.

The majority of the church system does not overrule God and Scripture, sorry that is news to you.

God spoke through them so what they said was from above...not from below like so called science. I also suspect that the ancients were at least as smart as modern man.


A child: God created the world and Adam and Eve.
A Scientist: You came from pond slime and the world from a cosmic series of flukes.
A Nominal bible believer: I agree with the scientist no matter what.

No more than a river really means a train, or a tree really means the milky way. We are mortal and fragile in this sinful state, that is true, but that in no way takes away from the reality of the first man and woman.


I try not to overrule and correct God and tell Him how He reeeaaallllly done it.
Whatever message opposes Scripture, let it be thrown away, stomped on, burned to ashes, and scattered to the winds.

Bible has its human (writers) and God's (inspiration) part.

Atheists do not see the inspired part, some Christians, like you, do not see the human part.

Historical and major Christiniaty see both parts.

When the Bible says "praise God in your kidneys", its an example of a theological message presented in an ancient human worldview. We scientifically know that thinking is not in our kidneys, but the message was not to teach us about anatomy. The message is that we should be sincere in our praise and concentrate on God in our most inner part of thinking.
Every "normal" Bible translator knows this and therefore translations use our cultural expression for it and translate it as "praise God in your heart", which is, again, not a scientific description.

When ancient mesotopomian writers used topics like 7 days, trees of life/knowledge, firmanent, dust, ribs/sides etc, they were using their concepts and we must understand that, not just blindly copy their expressions like if it was science and argue with reality. As Satan did not literally destroy Jesus' heel, so also words like "you will be eating dust" are not literal, but you must understand the message, what it meant for ancient people.

Bible did not fall from heaven nor was dictated word for word by God. Inspiration is expressed by human writers, by their language, cultural themes and topics etc. Revelation was gradually developing until "the fullness of time", when God sent His Son.

The YEC creationism did not originate in some "standard" Christian branch, but in the Seventh Day Adventists movement based by a female prophetess who got a "vision" that we must keep the literal Sabbath and also "got" a various details about Genesis.

 

[Shemjaza]

My position, like yours, is beliefs. In my case, the time honored proven bible. Pretending God has not supported His word is delusional. Pretending you offered anything but belief based nonsense to support your science beliefs is dishonest.

If it's provable and supported, then present that proof and support.

That's all people have been asking from you.

 

[SelfSim]

We cannot be expected to believe that you are unaware of the various branches of science that claim to tell us where life came from and the universe and man..etc.

You still don't get it do you?
Science provides testable models for these things.
It does not 'tell us' these things.
Get it right!

You have no test, I do. Jesus is the truth as well as the creator the bible says. Anything that opposes this is a lie.

All statements of repeated assertion ..
Where's the objective test in anything you just asserted?
Sheesh!! Do even read your own responses?

Of more importance however, is that I actually make the effort to distinguish religions and delusions ... whereas you continually demonstrate your incapacity for doing that.

Not sure {h}ow anyone would think the truth in the bible is hard to distinguish from the lies of demon science. They look nothing alike.

What 'truth' do you refer to?

Can you cite the test which does not require me to believe that the 'truth' you refer to, exists in science's objective reality? If not, then I'd agree that science stands very distinct from that belief .. (and therefore science has no such case to answer for, as it goes about its business of reporting on its objective testing).

 

[dad]

Bible has its human (writers) and God's (inspiration) part.

Every word is from God. Which books of the bible do you think Jesus excluded when He said this?

"28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it."

Atheists do not see the inspired part, some Christians, like you, do not see the human part.

Ah, so not there is an inspired part. I guess the rest is junk?

2 Tim 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Historical and major Christiniaty see both parts.

When the Bible says "praise God in your kidneys", its an example of a theological message presented in an ancient human worldview.

No. It is an example that we really need to give over the reins of our soul and heart to God.

Psalm 16:7 - I will bless the LORD, who hath given me counsel: my reins also instruct me in the night seasons.

We scientifically know that thinking is not in our kidneys, but the message was not to teach us about anatomy. The message is that we should be sincere in our praise and concentrate on God in our most inner part of thinking.

So when looking at the possible meanings of a word in Hebrew, we should pick one that fits the spirit of what God meant. Example in Ps 16:7 the second meaning for the word is this..

"of seat of emotion and affection" Or the other meaning of 'reins'. So rather than try to insult God and make fun of Him and Scripture by pretending it could mean internal organs, we should get the actual spirit of the meaning.

Every "normal" Bible translator knows this and therefore translations use our cultural expression for it and translate it as "praise God in your heart", which is, again, not a scientific description.

Science is not a spiritual interpretation tool, rather it is a tool of demons to cast doubt on God, creation and His word!

When ancient mesotopomian writers used topics like 7 days, trees of life/knowledge, firmanent, dust, ribs/sides etc, they were using their concepts and we must understand that, not just blindly copy their expressions like if it was science and argue with reality. As Satan did not literally destroy Jesus' heel, so also words like "you will be eating dust" are not literal, but you must understand the message, what it meant for ancient people.

No, God was speaking through them. Not only for them but also for us today right now.

Bible did not fall from heaven nor was dictated word for word by God. Inspiration is expressed by human writers, by their language, cultural themes and topics etc. Revelation was gradually developing until "the fullness of time", when God sent His Son.

Some was written by God's hand directly, some spoken directly, some given in dreams or visions...etc etc. The usual situation was bypassing normal thinking. John was lifted to heaven to see things, Jesus spoke words from the Father, Ezekiel saw visions, God spoke to Moses directly...etc etc. To minimize the overwhelming presence of God in the people He used to get Scripture to man, is blasphemy and unbelief.

The YEC creationism did not originate in some "standard" Christian branch, but in the Seventh Day Adventists movement based by a female prophetess who got a "vision" that we must keep the literal Sabbath and also "got" a various details about Genesis.

Name anyone in the bible that said the world was millions of years old or not actually, really, actually created by God as Genesis said! You can't. Your belief system is not that of the bible at all.

 

[dad]

If it's provable and supported, then present that proof and support.

That's all people have been asking from you.

I proved it in my life. I also see that most prophesy is now a done deal and history. That is proof. I do not doubt the hundreds of people who saw the risen Jesus, that is proof. God says He will make Himself known to us if we call out to Him sincerely. Those who do get proof. Those who refuse can have no proof. They just get poof!

 

[dad]

You still don't get it do you?
Science provides testable models for these things.
It does not 'tell us' these things.
Get it right!

There is no test for creation. There is no test for God in science. There is no test for what nature was like or what time in the far universe is like. There is only religious application of beliefs. THAT IS the scientific method!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All statements of repeated assertion ..
Where's the objective test in anything you just asserted?
Sheesh!! Do even read your own responses?

The test is to try Him. He will be observed by all who do..and eventually by all...period.

What 'truth' do you refer to?

Jesus-creator-God-Savior.

Can you cite the test which does not require me to believe that the 'truth' you refer to, exists in science's objective reality?

Sure, just die then you find out! If folks refuse to believe, they will still find out, though it takes a bit longer. No one on earth fails that test!

If not, then I'd agree that science stands very distinct from that belief

Science can't help you NOT take the test. Science itself is designed by demons to get people to avoid taking it till they die, by getting them to doubt creation and God.

 

[trophy33]

Every word is from God.

Obvioiusly not. Like Paul's greetings, personal notes, Luke's hard work to search for genealogies and what happened with Jesus (he did not receive it just dictated by God) etc.

Which books of the bible do you think Jesus excluded when He said this?

"28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it."

They did not have any Bible. They had only Scriptures. There was not any "one-book with all certified writings in it" canon, various groups used different text of the same writings or even different writings with various levels of authority/inspiration. For example, Isaiah was always more authoritative, central or deemed more inspired than the Song of songs or Rut. They also used writings we do not use at all.

"The word of God" here means God's instructions for our life, as the context is quite clear about it.

Ah, so not there is an inspired part. I guess the rest is junk?

Its junk if we use it your way - scientifically. You are making it to be a junk when you read it and apply it without any understanding. Nobody would say that Homer, Plato, Aristoteles writings are "junk" just because it cannot be used as a school book in biology or astronomy class. These writings are all precious, even though human, if used properly.

2 Tim 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Yes.
a) every Scripture, not every word in it
b) profitable, not a perfect idol to be worshipped
c) for reproof, righteousness... not for scientific class and understanding human body

If you would just stop adding into the Biblical texts and only read what it says, you would be automatically much less an YEC hard core proponent.

No, God was speaking through them. Not only for them but also for us today right now.

Bible is written for every generation, but not to and in every generation. We must work with texts written in very ancient generations. As they had no idea about social networks or quantum mechanics, we have no idea (if we do not study) about what they meant by Eden, trees, cyclic days, dust, 40 (40 days, 40 generations...), 7, 12 etc.

Some was written by God's hand directly, some spoken directly, some given in dreams or visions...etc etc.

Yes, some. And the rest (99%) was written by guys like you and me, who tried their best to express what God inspired them to say or to do, but were mere humans.

Name anyone in the bible that said the world was millions of years old or not actually, really, actually created by God as Genesis said! You can't. Your belief system is not that of the bible at all.

Bible does not care about the age of the Universe, it never states it explicitly and never proposes the method of Usher to get the age. The Bible has a bigger fish to fry - our salvation.

 

[Kylie]

My position, like yours, is beliefs. In my case, the time honored proven bible. Pretending God has not supported His word is delusional. Pretending you offered anything but belief based nonsense to support your science beliefs is dishonest.

The problem is that the source you use to prove the Bible is the Bible, so all you have is circular logic.

Why don't you try giving us some evidence from the real world to support the Bible's claims?

 

[Tone]

The problem is that the source you use to prove the Bible is the Bible, so all you have is circular logic.

Why don't you try giving us some evidence from the real world to support the Bible's claims?

Are you not reading what he is saying...he said the bible in conjunction with what he sees in the world around him and within himself...objective...subjective...intellectual...emotional...imaginative...existential...experiential...in other words, the whole person (not just intellect), because it's not what you encounter when you encounter truth...it is Who...person to person...a realm that science cannot enter...

 

[tas8831]

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.

LOL!

What OBJECTIVE criteria do creationists employ to justify such an exception?

I know geniuses like von Sternberg have used criteria like whether or not they live in houses or form monogamous pair bonds to try to justify it - they apparently just ignore the high divorce rates (especially among the religious) and the fact that some humans do not live in houses...

 

[dad]

Obvioiusly not. Like Paul's greetings, personal notes, Luke's hard work to search for genealogies and what happened with Jesus (he did not receive it just dictated by God) etc.

Being inspired does not mean every word is from a know it all goody two shoes. It means that God spoke through sinners. When Paul expressed his own opinion he mentioned it was his opinion, not necessarily from God directly, as as an example. Most of the time though he was teaching others what he was taught himself from God! The genealogies were important, so God inspired them to be included, it connects Adam, the first man to the modern age. Not sure how evos would deal with these records!? 'Gee, Adam was just the first human like ape on the evo tree...blah blah'

They did not have any Bible. They had only Scriptures. There was not any "one-book with all certified writings in it" canon, various groups used different text of the same writings or even different writings with various levels of authority/inspiration. For example, Isaiah was always more authoritative, central or deemed more inspired than the Song of songs or Rut. They also used writings we do not use at all.

Jesus made it clear that when He ascended to heaven He would send His Spirit to some people to help them get His words recorded right! His words are as much Scripture as anything He inspired before at least! The apostles and folks He inspired to teach people are also based on His words and inspiration.

"The word of God" here means God's instructions for our life, as the context is quite clear about it.

It means words from God. Of course they instruct.

Its junk if we use it your way - scientifically. You are making it to be a junk when you read it and apply it without any understanding. Nobody would say that Homer, Plato, Aristoteles writings are "junk" just because it cannot be used as a school book in biology or astronomy class. These writings are all precious, even though human, if used properly.

Using the word (sword) of God properly does not mean using it as a book marker in a Darwin book!

Yes.
a) every Scripture, not every word in it

Every jot and tittle.

b) profitable, not a perfect idol to be worshipped

Worshiping God includes placing His word above demon science.

c) for reproof, righteousness... not for scientific class and understanding human body

The bible tells us how babies are formed by God in the womb, science does not cover that, as science only deals with the physical formation. The bible tells us what eternal bodies will be like, science stops at the grave! The bible shows how spiritual bodies can remain unscathed by smoke and fire and death. Science has no clue. The bible tells us this body is a temporary dwelling, like a tent, science sees no more than this body and mind. Etc. Science is like an infant that has never been out of the house yet compared to the wisdom of God.

If you would just stop adding into the Biblical texts and only read what it says, you would be automatically much less an YEC hard core proponent.

The bible says how God created the first couple and listed the genealogies from them to the modern time. Believing this is not adding, while not believing this to accommodate demon science is taking away from what is said, as well as adding lies to it!

Bible is written for every generation, but not to and in every generation. We must work with texts written in very ancient generations. As they had no idea about social networks or quantum mechanics, we have no idea (if we do not study) about what they meant by Eden, trees, cyclic days, dust, 40 (40 days, 40 generations...), 7, 12 etc.

Stop getting bogged down thinking God's word is limited to your conception of what the men who wrote it were probably like! God wrote it, and piped it through the men. God knows all about the quantum mechanics. Science is just learning about them and how to tweak them and use them. God knew all about this and everything else science will never know long before creation week!

Yes, some. And the rest (99%) was written by guys like you and me, who tried their best to express what God inspired them to say or to do, but were mere humans.

God uses mere humans. He is that big!

Bible does not care about the age of the Universe, it never states it explicitly and never proposes the method of Usher to get the age. The Bible has a bigger fish to fry - our salvation.

He that comes to God must believe that He is! And that He is true. Coming to Him is coming to the One who made it all, just as He said.

 

[dad]

The problem is that the source you use to prove the Bible is the Bible, so all you have is circular logic.

Why don't you try giving us some evidence from the real world to support the Bible's claims?

Same reason you do not give evidence in this thread to support your religion.

 

[Shemjaza]

Same reason you do not give evidence in this thread to support your religion.

That's an evasion.

Patterns of DNA similarity, types of transitional fossils hypothesised in advance, patterns of fossil morphology are all objective pieces of evidence. They can be studied independently of personal intuitions and beliefs.

"Why is the Bible true? Because the Bible says it is." Is not a logical argument.

 

[dad]

That's an evasion.

Patterns of DNA similarity, types of transitional fossils hypothesised in advance, patterns of fossil morphology are all objective pieces of evidence. They can be studied independently of personal intuitions and beliefs.

Ah, something to sink the teeth into finally.

Prove there was modern DNA for early man? Show us any 'transitional fossil' that could not have been descended from a created kind!? Show us how the fossil record represents life on earth, rather than a minority of creatures who were able to fossilize in a different natured past? Otherwise you are pulpit pounding.

"Why is the your evo fable true? Because the fable says it is." Is not a logical argument, nor a logical, nor a godly one.

 

[Shemjaza]

Are you not reading what he is saying...he said the bible in conjunction with what he sees in the world around him and within himself...objective...subjective...intellectual...emotional...imaginative...existential...experiential...in other words, the whole person (not just intellect), because it's not what you encounter when you encounter truth...it is Who...person to person...a realm that science cannot enter...

The problems come when you vaguely hand wave together observations with emotional reactions to them.

If something can't be critically analysed or isolated then it might still be true, but there isn't a rational reason for believing it.

 

[Shemjaza]

Ah, something to sink the teeth into finally.

Prove there was modern DNA for early man? Show us any 'transitional fossil' that could not have been descended from a created kind!? Show us how the fossil record represents life on earth, rather than a minority of creatures who were able to fossilize in a different natured past? Otherwise you are pulpit pounding.

"Why is the your evo fable true? Because the fable says it is." Is not a logical argument, nor a logical, nor a godly one.

DNA from ancient humans, Neanderthals and Denisova are consistent with the relatedness via evolution. They are completely in opposition to humans being descended from Noah and four women.

When you include miracles it is completely possible for an omnipotent God to construct created kinds who just happen to be constructed exactly as if they are from a branching tree structure of relatedness. But without the evidence for the existence such a deceptive deity in the world there isn't any reason to include it as a possibility.

A manipulative cosmic liar who wants the world to look evolved isn't in evidence, so I see no reason to assume it's real.
The ability for the entire universe to "change states" while leaving false evidence for the modern state developing in a consistent manner from the start of the universe isn't in evidence, so I see no reason to assume it's real.

If you can actually present evidence for these extraordinary claims, please feel free to do so. Then we can discuss possibilities and reality.

But if we just get back to: "Because Dad's understanding of the Bible says so..." then you need to get a better grip on what evidence and objectivity are.