GAP Creationism VS YEC & OEC Creationism

[Jazer]

what contributions has Creationism made?

Creationists just give a witness for the Creator. If it were not for God there would not be a creation. Science would not only have NOTHING to research there would be no scientists if God had not created them.

 

[mzungu]

Creationists just give a witness for the Creator. If it were not for God there would not be a creation. Science would not only have NOTHING to research there would be no scientists if God had not created them.

And were it not for FSM to create all the Gods then you would not have creationism!

May his pastaness forgive you and abound your plate with unlimited portions of spaghetti bolognese and generous topping of parmezan cheese!

 

[Nostromo]

Creationists just give a witness for the Creator. If it were not for God there would not be a creation. Science would not only have NOTHING to research there would be no scientists if God had not created them.

That's not what he's asking.

What has the belief in, or study of, Creationism ever achieved?

 

[TheReasoner]

Creationists just give a witness for the Creator. If it were not for God there would not be a creation. Science would not only have NOTHING to research there would be no scientists if God had not created them.

You don't have to be a creationist to give witness like that Jazer. And to the educated the witness of creationists go against what reality clearly tells us, hence in effect witnessing against a creator.

 

[Greg1234]

That's not what he's asking.

What has the belief in, or study of, Creationism ever achieved?

Health, spiritual application, historical analysis and others which need not be mentioned. Used in some way or the other on a daily basis by billions.

 

[Nostromo]

Health, spiritual application, historical analysis and others which need not be mentioned. Used in some way or the other on a daily basis by billions.

Could you give me a specific example?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Health, spiritual application,

haven't seen any of that ever come from creationism.

historical analysis and others which need not be mentioned.

I simple "I got nothin'" would be more honest.

 

[Jazer]

That's not what he's asking.

What has the belief in, or study of, Creationism ever achieved?

The science of Archeology and the science of geology just to start. LOTS of science has been discovered because people are out looking for evidence for the Bible. Even evolution came out of creationism. Many of the people here on this forum are seeking and searching for alternate explanations to creationism.

In other words because skeptics say Creationism is not true, so a lot of science was developed to prove them wrong. The only problem is they are not willing to admit they are wrong no matter how overwhelming the evidence. Even though the 1.5% do not seem to get it. The other 98+% are convinced by the evidence that shows the Bible is true and God is real. Actually in some countries 100% of the people believe in God and in the Bible. So the scientific evidence must be overwhelming for everyone to be convinced.

So in the debate between Creationism and Skepticism the Skeptics are clearly not producing any evidence to back up their wild claims. People who come here to this board are in general more convinced by Creationism.

 

[mzungu]

The science of Archeology and the science of geology just to start. LOTS of science has been discovered because people are out looking for evidence for the Bible. Even evolution came out of creationism. Many of the people here on this forum are seeking and searching for alternate explanations to creationism.

In other words because skeptics say Creationism is not true, so a lot of science was developed to prove them wrong. The only problem is they are not willing to admit they are wrong no matter how overwhelming the evidence. Even though the 1.5% do not seem to get it. The other 98+% are convinced by the evidence that shows the Bible is true and God is real. Actually in some countries 100% of the people believe in God and in the Bible. So the scientific evidence must be overwhelming for everyone to be convinced.

So in the debate between Creationism and Skepticism the Skeptics are clearly not producing any evidence to back up their wild claims. People who come here to this board are in general more convinced by Creationism.

No, Evolution was not born out of creationism but rather by the evidence that creationists and other people who believed in God were seeing. Many creationists started out to prove Noah's flood and creation when they came to the conclusion that both were not possible if the Bible were to be interpreted literally.

That is why the vast majority of Christians in Europe see the Bible as a spiritual guide and not a text book.

 

[mzungu]

Could you give me a specific example?

Read fairy tales and Bob's your uncle!

 

[Jazer]

Many creationists started out to prove Noah's flood and creation when they came to the conclusion that both were not possible if the Bible were to be interpreted literally.

The door swings both ways. A LOT of science has been discovered because of Creationism. EITHER people trying to prove Creationism is true, or people trying to prove that Creationism is NOT true. Either way even the skeptics can not belittle the vast contribution Creationism has made to science.

Also Creationism has been a wonderful tool for getting people interested in the study of science. People want to study science to see if Creationism is true or to discover if it is not true. So again the contribution has been significant. It is kind of silly & short sighted to suggest that the Bible and Creationism HAS NOT made a signification contribution.

For 3500 years the Bible continues to be at the top of the best seller and most read book in all the world. No one can ever say they know all there is to know about the Bible. You can spend your whole life to study and learn the Bible and you would still only be starting.

 

[sandwiches]

The door swings both ways. A LOT of science has been discovered because of Creationism. EITHER people trying to prove Creationism is true, or people trying to prove that Creationism is NOT true. Either way even the skeptics can not belittle the vast contribution Creationism has made to science.

Now I'm curious about this. Who are these creationists who have ended up making scientific discoveries?

 

[TheReasoner]

The door swings both ways. A LOT of science has been discovered because of Creationism. EITHER people trying to prove Creationism is true, or people trying to prove that Creationism is NOT true. Either way even the skeptics can not belittle the vast contribution Creationism has made to science.

Also Creationism has been a wonderful tool for getting people interested in the study of science. People want to study science to see if Creationism is true or to discover if it is not true. So again the contribution has been significant. It is kind of silly & short sighted to suggest that the Bible and Creationism HAS NOT made a signification contribution.

For 3500 years the Bible continues to be at the top of the best seller and most read book in all the world. No one can ever say they know all there is to know about the Bible. You can spend your whole life to study and learn the Bible and you would still only be starting.

Erm. I think you're giving your own belief too much attention. The scientific world does not revolve around your creationism. It's a fringe debate between a few excessively self-exalting religious charismatics and those who come into contact with them. It's not something people on the inside are going to try to disprove. Some people did, ages ago. But it's falsified now. And yes, maybe some of those who found what amount to kinks in creationism went out to prove it right. But the scientific world is not driven by that. We are motivated by different things. My own motivation is to do good, to help mankind. Many of my friends see things the same way. Some have money as a motivation. Or respect and status. Or just doing what they like to do. I suspect there are as many different motivations as there are scientists and engineers.

As for the bible: Sure, the bible is a best seller. And it's a good book. But it's no science book. It's a book on other subjects. Just as valid, but in a completely different domain. How to treat people: Yes, the bible speaks of that. How to conduct a physics experiment: No. It does not speak of that. Nor does it speak of biology, chemistry, or mathematics. I mean... It even missed the value of pi and claims badgers chew cud. Not to mention the whole flat earth on pillars stuff. So it's quite clearly a rather bad science book. Makes perfect sense if you consider those tales as parables or descriptions of deeper truths or concepts such as God's love for man and the complexity of creation and the transient nature of life. For example. But the second you start bringing the bible up as an alternative to science you're completely missing the target and shooting yourself in the foot instead.

 

[lucaspa]

The door swings both ways. A LOT of science has been discovered because of Creationism. EITHER people trying to prove Creationism is true, or people trying to prove that Creationism is NOT true. Either way even the skeptics can not belittle the vast contribution Creationism has made to science.

This is a bit slippery. Granted, creationism was the accepted scientific theory from 1500 - 1831. However, it turned out creationism was false. Since it is a falsified theory, I wonder how much we can say it "contributed to science". Would you say that geocentrism "contributed" as much?

It certainly does not contribute now.

Also Creationism has been a wonderful tool for getting people interested in the study of science. People want to study science to see if Creationism is true or to discover if it is not true. So again the contribution has been significant.

Here the "contribution" happens only because some people mistakenly think creationism is still a valid theory. That's not a good recommendation.

The only "contribution" creationism should have made since 1859 is one to the history of science and a case study on how theories are shown to be false. Is this a "tool" to get people interested in science? People are interested in science, for instance, before they learn how geocentrism was falsified. Usually people get interested in science via learning the currently valid theories, not the false ones.

To get people interested in science by falsely promoting the wrong theory of creationism as correct is, at best, false advertising and, at worst, complete manipulation by dishonesty. There has to be a more ethical way to get people interested in science.

For 3500 years the Bible continues to be at the top of the best seller and most read book in all the world. No one can ever say they know all there is to know about the Bible. You can spend your whole life to study and learn the Bible and you would still only be starting.

True but dangerous. The idea is to know about God. If you spend all that time focussed on the Bible, you tend to miss God.

 

[lucaspa]

Now I'm curious about this. Who are these creationists who have ended up making scientific discoveries?

It's who were they. Past tense. Darwin, Sedgwick, Lyell, Hutton, Agassiz, Buckland, Gray. The list goes on. All originally creationists, all people who made very lasting scientific discoveries.

Now, if you mean modern contemporary creationists, then it's going to be a very short list. Even with that short list, none of those discoveries supported creationism or used creationism. A case in point is Michael Behe, who made several discoveries about the CG vs AT ratio of bases in DNA, but none of those involved creationism or ID.

 

[lucaspa]

Creationists just give a witness for the Creator.

Actually, they don't. Creationists -- particularly modern creationists -- drive people away from the Creator. Why? Because they end up denying that God actually created and end up worshipping the Bible.

If it were not for God there would not be a creation.

That's a belief. It's one that I share, but the logic actually fails. There could be a "creation" without God as creator.

Science would not only have NOTHING to research there would be no scientists if God had not created them.

I don't think you can say that God created individual scientists, anymore than you can say God creates individual ministers. If there were no creation, there would indeed be no scientists. But then, there wouldn't be anyone else, either. So who would care?

 

[lucaspa]

In other words because skeptics say Creationism is not true, so a lot of science was developed to prove them wrong. The only problem is they are not willing to admit they are wrong no matter how overwhelming the evidence. Even though the 1.5% do not seem to get it. The other 98+% are convinced by the evidence that shows the Bible is true and God is real. Actually in some countries 100% of the people believe in God and in the Bible. So the scientific evidence must be overwhelming for everyone to be convinced.

OK, there are several different thoughts here.

First, science was not developed to show creationism to be wrong. All but a handful of the scientists from 1500 to 1870 believed in God. Galileo was a faithful believer in God. Instead, one of the reasons science was developed was to study how God created and how God works.

You see, Jazer, we don't have "creationism = God created" and "science = God did not create". Science is not atheism.

Creationism is a proposed method for how God created. As such a method, it was/is a scientific theory. Evolution is also a method for how God created. It is also a scientific theory.

As it turns out, the evidence God left us in His Creation shows that He created by evolution, not creationism. We Christians need to interpret the Bible in the light of that. See the first quote in my signature.

When you say "the Bible is true", you need to clarify that. Do you mean that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is true? Do you mean that creationism is true? If so, then you are screwed.

If, instead, you mean that the Bible is theologically true or that the Bible is true when it says that God exists, then you are on firmer ground.

So in the debate between Creationism and Skepticism the Skeptics are clearly not producing any evidence to back up their wild claims. People who come here to this board are in general more convinced by Creationism.

What people are convinced by has nothing to do with whether something is true. Hitler convinced the German people they were a master race, but was it true? Southerners before the Civil War were convinced slavery was good, but is it true? Jews are convinced that Jesus is not the Messiah. We can guess how you feel about that in relation to "truth", can't we?

What you need to do is separate creationism, evolution, and atheism. BTW, "Skeptics" are not all atheists. Many theists qualify as "skeptics". Jesus did, for instance. So did Thomas. So do I.

Evolution is not atheism. Evolution is not a "wild claim". It is a strongly supported scientific theory. It is also accepted as how God created by the vast majority of Christians. Creationists are a minority within Christianity, however vocal they may be.

Creationism, OTOH, is a falsified scientific theory. It is as false as flat earth and geocentrism. What we have are a vocal minority of people who refuse to accept that it is falsified.

Atheism is a rival belief. I accept that atheists have reasons for their belief, even tho I don't agree with the reasons. I also believe in tolerance and respect for other beliefs, including atheism.

If you are here, Jazer, to argue theism vs atheism, then the worst thing you can do for theism is to make this a creationism vs evolution fight. That fight has already been lost.

 

[dad]

We still accept YEC and OEC as true on their own level they explain what they explain. I think OEC is the day age theory. The fruit-bearing plants were not here when the earth was covered with ice.

For the GAP Gen 1:2 begins 12,982 years ago at the end of the ice age when the earth was in a state of ruin. Everything needed restored. God is in the restoration business and He rebuilds with a remnant from the past age. We will see this again soon in your life time. The earth will be destroyed with fire. Yet a remnant will remain to rebuild the earth and to go on for another 1000 years.

The GAP takes place between Gen 1:1 & Gen 1:2. Starting in Vs 2 we see that the earth is in a state of ruin: "the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."

Now for a explaination of "without form and void" lets look at Jeremiah 4, where we see that the earth is "formless and empty". In the Hebrew the words are the same: tohuw & bohuw.

23I looked at the earth,
and it was formless and empty;
and at the heavens,
and their light was gone.
24I looked at the mountains,
and they were quaking;
all the hills were swaying.
25I looked, and there were no people;
every bird in the sky had flown away.
26I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert;
all its towns lay in ruins
before the Lord, before his fierce anger.
27This is what the Lord says:
“The whole land will be ruined,
though I will not destroy it completely.
28Therefore the earth will mourn
and the heavens above grow dark,
because I have spoken and will not relent,
I have decided and will not turn back.”

Looks like this refers to the time of wrath of God.

"26I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert;
all its towns lay in ruins
before the Lord, before his fierce anger. "

Also, there had been birds and hills and mountains..how void is that? --Oh, and TOWNS no less!!!

It is obvious that this scene is quite different from the time before mountains were made, or land and water even separated, or man or beast made.

 

[SkyWriting]

they are pretty mythical, thats true

I understood that its a general name for a given set of layers. And that these layers change from site to site.
I see it has lots of colors.
And Textures.
And Mystery. "The geologic column only gives us the relative ages of rocks. Rocks simply do not tell us how old they are."
Being that I had to go 3 pages, it seems to be of little significance to geologists.

 

[Jazer]

Now I'm curious about this. Who are these creationists who have ended up making scientific discoveries?

That was a quote from a Talk Origins article: "by 1815 the broad outlines of the geologic column from Paleozoic times onward had been worked out by people who were mostly creationist geologists. The relative order of the strata was first determined by the principles of stratification. (The principle of superposition was recognized as early as 1669 by Steno.) Reverend Benjamin Richardson and Reverend Joseph Townsend were a couple of early geologists involved in this work. By 1830 Lyell's famous textbook, Principles of Geology, came out. The captain of the H.M.S. Beagle, a very strong Bible believer, made it a point to have a copy of Lyell's book for the ship's library. Obviously, even Lyell was not pushing evolution at the time. Such was the age of the great creationist geologists!" How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Geologic Column