how can anyone believe in creationism

[Naraoia]

I think he means that evolution poses questions that can potentially be answered. Religion, by contrast and in a very real sense, posits answers that cannot be questioned.

Then what is the plural in "These faiths were created for the sole purpose of giving humans the belief that they matter or have value in this universe." ?? It looks too much like a more poetic way of saying "Evo Is Religion".

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Then what is the plural in "These faiths were created for the sole purpose of giving humans the belief that they matter or have value in this universe." ?? It looks too much like a more poetic way of saying "Evo Is Religion".

Hmm, yes. But I don't want to acknowledge the mind-shattering conclusion that an atheist is calling evolutionary theory a religion! My wee mind cannae take it.
Maybe 'these faiths' is a catchall for the plethora of Creationist beliefs? After all, evolutionary theory wasn't created to give humans the illusion of value and meaning (though, admittedly, he doesn't have to be telling the truth...)

 

[Naraoia]

Hmm, yes. But I don't want to acknowledge the mind-shattering conclusion that an atheist is calling evolutionary theory a religion! My wee mind cannae take it.
Maybe 'these faiths' is a catchall for the plethora of Creationist beliefs? After all, evolutionary theory wasn't created to give humans the illusion of value and meaning (though, admittedly, he doesn't have to be telling the truth...)

I say let's wait and see if said atheist comes back and clarifies things

 

[keith99]

You cannot disprove evolution.

Actually you can. Darwin gave a list of several things that would disprove his theory in "The Origin of Species" .

Someday I'll meet someone besides me who ahas actually read it. It has to be easier than finding a honest man.

 

[Naraoia]

Someday I'll meet someone besides me who ahas actually read it. It has to be easier than finding a honest man.

Meet you in a few... weeks

It's lying on my bed, waiting to be read. Eventually I will get down to it.

 

[RyanLeeParis]

Do you honestly think you and your family are the result of space combusting?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Do you honestly think you and your family are the result of space combusting?

Do you honestly believe humans are descended from mud-men and rib-women?

 

[romans-nine]

Do you honestly believe humans are descended from mud-men and rib-women?

GENESS 2:15-22
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

1. This is all the proof I need to believe in creationism and I'm really sorry(genuinely) for people who dont believe this. I honestly dont think God created our minds to have all the knowledge He can have, we will most likely never know exactly how the world was made, and its obviously not even that big of a deal if God didnt put it in the bible any more than Genesis.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

GENESS 2:15-22

1. This is all the proof I need to believe in creationism

It is a piece of text. I daresay the 'proof' is in the fact that you make the a priori assumption that the text of the English Bible (or, at least, Genesis 2) is literally true. Thus, it is not a proof at all: you ultimately just assume Creationism is true.

and I'm really sorry(genuinely) for people who dont believe this.

Why? We are the ones coming up with medicine and computers. Exegesis hasn't advanced technology one iota. Why, then, do you feel sorry for us?

I honestly dont think God created our minds to have all the knowledge He can have, we will most likely never know exactly how the world was made, and its obviously not even that big of a deal if God didnt put it in the bible any more than Genesis.

Nevertheless, we can deduce a plethora of facts and figures about the world by empiracle deduction (i.e., we can do science to it). Guess what we find: Biblical literalism does not depict the world we live in. Go figure.

 

[Gawron]

"We are the ones coming up with medicine and computers."

Are you really trying to say that there has not been one scientist who ever invented or researched anything who also believed in the existence of God?

 

[Gawron]

"Religion, by contrast and in a very real sense, posits answers that cannot be questioned."

Additionally I do not see this as quite correct. Theological questions are advanced continually, they simply tend to be answered in theological terms.

 

[RichardT]

"We are the ones coming up with medicine and computers."

Are you really trying to say that there has not been one scientist who ever invented or researched anything who also believed in the existence of God?

Of course not. What he is saying is that Creationism hasn't added one iota to human knowledge.

 

[Gawron]

"Of course not. What he is saying is that Creationism hasn't added one iota to human knowledge."

There are a great many theologians who would disagree with this statement, as would many others in various fields. But at the very least, it has added the knowledge of creationism.

Your hatred is showing.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

"We are the ones coming up with medicine and computers."

Are you really trying to say that there has not been one scientist who ever invented or researched anything who also believed in the existence of God?

Not at all. Most of the greatest scientists were, after all, religious. Let us not forget the Islamic Golden Age, or Newton's forays into alchemy.

"Of course not. What he is saying is that Creationism hasn't added one iota to human knowledge."

There are a great many theologians who would disagree with this statement, as would many others in various fields.

And there are great many more who would agree with it. But so what? Debate isn't a numbers game.

But at the very least, it has added the knowledge of creationism.

True. But aside from being a case study in ad hoc theology, I fail to see the contribution. Indeed, it has crippled the education of countless children.

Your hatred is showing.

Hatred? He is simply clarifying my words. What's hateful about that?

 

[Gawron]

Posted by WC:

"Indeed, it has crippled the education of countless children."

Is this a cause and effect argument? You seem to be making the claim that if a child is taught the message of God and the story of the Creation, that child will therefore be unable to either receive or comprehend a useful education. Or perhaps that the understanding of the story of literal creation precludes any understanding of science.

The two are not incompatible. If God exist and he created the world and all in it, this does not mean that he did it in literally six days as we understand the term "day." What is time to God? Or, excluding God for the moment, what would be the value of time to a being with infinate existence who, by default, would have little need to mark time in the same sense as finite beings?

I realize that there are those who do accept the literal definition of the term "day" as it applies to creationism, but I have always seen this as finite humans placing their values on an infinate being. This is one reason I do not consider myself a literal creationist, as although I do see the "hand of God" in the natural world, I do not deny the evidence which points to an "old earth" or a slowly forming Universe. Unlike others, however, I simply have not concluded that a 4.2 billion year old earth excludes the existence of God.

My belief in God also didn't prevent me from earning two undergratuate and one graduate degree. I don't see why such a belief should stop others from doing the same, or more.

"He is simply clarifying my words. What's hateful about that?"

RichardT spoke in an absolute. Creationism has added nothing, "not one iota", to any human knowledge. Well, he is wrong. I spoke to what appeared, to me at least, to be his motivation for making such a statement. And this is not meant to be an attack or slight in any way, but do you really need him to clarify your words?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

"Indeed, it has crippled the education of countless children."

Is this a cause and effect argument? You seem to be making the claim that if a child is taught the message of God and the story of the Creation, that child will therefore be unable to either receive or comprehend a useful education. Or perhaps that the understanding of the story of literal creation precludes any understanding of science.

I was making no such insinuations. By force-feeding Creationism to kids under the guise of science, their education is crippled.

The two are not incompatible. If God exist and he created the world and all in it, this does not mean that he did it in literally six days as we understand the term "day."

The Hebrew is pretty explicit. Every other instance of the word 'yod' refers to a literal sunset-to-sunset period, and Genesis 1 has none of the tell-tale signs of being poetic allegory (rather, it smacks of oral history).

But I agree: religion and science are not necessarily incompatible. But if religious presupposition contradicts established scientific knowledge, the latter should be taken any day.

What is time to God? Or, excluding God for the moment, what would be the value of time to a being with infinate existence who, by default, would have little need to mark time in the same sense as finite beings?

I realize that there are those who do accept the literal definition of the term "day" as it applies to creationism, but I have always seen this as finite humans placing their values on an infinate being. This is one reason I do not consider myself a literal creationist, as although I do see the "hand of God" in the natural world, I do not deny the evidence which points to an "old earth" or a slowly forming Universe. Unlike others, however, I simply have not concluded that a 4.2 billion year old earth excludes the existence of God.

Agreed.

My belief in God also didn't prevent me from earning two undergratuate and one graduate degree. I don't see why such a belief should stop others from doing the same, or more.

Because I was not lambasting theism as detrimental to a child's education. Force-feeding Creationism under the guise of scientific knowledge? Undermining actual scientific inquiry because of Bronze-age mythology? Forgive me, but that's hardly conducive to a decent education.

"He is simply clarifying my words. What's hateful about that?"

RichardT spoke in an absolute. Creationism has added nothing, "not one iota", to any human knowledge.

Well, it hasn't. I've yet to see any contribution Creationism has made to the sphere of human knowledge. If and when such an example is given, I, and probably RichardT as well, will revise our eralier statements.

Well, he is wrong. I spoke to what appeared, to me at least, to be his motivation for making such a statement. And this is not meant to be an attack or slight in any way, but do you really need him to clarify your words?

Apparently so: you said "Are you really trying to say that there has not been one scientist who ever invented or researched anything who also believed in the existence of God?", which is not what I was saying, as RichardT clarified.
You are right in that I can speak for myself, but I do not mind people speaking on my behalf. So long as they accurately represent my views, of course .

 

[Gawron]

Posted by WC:

"I was making no such insinuations. By force-feeding Creationism to kids under the guise of science, their education is crippled."

OK. On creationism, there are hard core (I refuse to use the term fanatics) creationist who I am sure "force-feed" the issue to all who will listen. But in a general sense, I would like to see some actual evidence, statistical or otherwise, that public and/or private school systems "force-feed" creationist theory under the guise of science. I entertain the notion that this claim is often made by atheist on the same level as the "evolution is dogma" claim is made by creationist.

"The Hebrew is pretty explicit."

I am not a biblical scholar, so I take your word for it. However it seems logical that the Hebrews who crafted the language used would chose a word which referred to a literal day when they were attempting to describe what they apparently thought to be a literal day.

"I've yet to see any contribution Creationism has made to the sphere of human knowledge."

Well, I suppose the question of "contribution" is open to debate. But I was addressing the absolute nature and the tone of the original statement.

"Because I was not lambasting theism as detrimental to a child's education."

I stand corrected.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Posted by WC:

"I was making no such insinuations. By force-feeding Creationism to kids under the guise of science, their education is crippled."

OK. On creationism, there are hard core (I refuse to use the term fanatics) creationist who I am sure "force-feed" the issue to all who will listen. But in a general sense, I would like to see some actual evidence, statistical or otherwise, that public and/or private school systems "force-feed" creationist theory under the guise of science. I entertain the notion that this claim is often made by atheist on the same level as the "evolution is dogma" claim is made by creationist.

The Dover Area School District (operating schools in Dover, Pennsylvania, USA) voted to include Intelligent Design into the science curriculum as an alternative to Darwin's Theory of Evolution (i.e., common descent). Though it was overturned about a year later, students were nonetheless taught Creationism under the guise of science.

"The Hebrew is pretty explicit."

I am not a biblical scholar, so I take your word for it. However it seems logical that the Hebrews who crafted the language used would chose a word which referred to a literal day when they were attempting to describe what they apparently thought to be a literal day.

Perhaps. But if the text was divinely inspired (how else would the Hebrews know about the Creation of the universe, after all), would God not be aware of the limitations of Hebrew and have it recorded poetically?
The Hebrews evidently believed that it was six literal days, but why?

"I've yet to see any contribution Creationism has made to the sphere of human knowledge."

Well, I suppose the question of "contribution" is open to debate.

I don't see how. I suppose I could clarify that positive contributions are required, but that would seem redundant.

For example, inquiry into the nature of atoms has yeilded us valuable information about the non-classical nature of reality. While being a monumental breakthrough in physics, it also has countless commercial applications. Evolution, the theory of evolution, and the theory of common descent (all of which underpin biology), are all fascinating pieces of knowledge in their own right, and, again, have countless commercial applications.
Even forays into the most abstract of mathematics has added to human knowledge. Solutions to previously mind-breaking problems, the discovery of 'The Monster' in symmetry, etc.

So a contribution is just that: an addition or supplimentation to the sphere of human knowledge. If it has increased our scientific knowledge about the world, even if by unscientific means, then it has contributed.

What, then, has Creationism contributed?

 

[deana1003]

i just dont get it, i have seen alot of documentaries over the past days both about creationism and evolution and i cant see how anyone would believe in creationism.

according to creationism the earth is 6000 years old, god created everything and god is perfect. well if the earth is only 6000 years old, then how do you explain that we find fossils that are millions of years old?
also if god created the earth and put Adam and Eve on it, they got a son eventually and he went out to find himself a wife. from where??? him and Adam and Eve are the only 3 humans on the earth, where would he find a wife? then Adam and eve would have to make him one, and we would all today walk around and be one giant group of inbred hillbillies.
furthermore, if the earth and the humans are only 6000 years old, how can we be 6 billion humans today? if we started with two humans, those two became 4 and those 4 became 8, and so on and so on. including fatal accidents, children born dead, sterility and just dieing from old age. it doesn't take a genius to quickly figure out that it would take alot more than just 6000 years to get to 6 billion humans. i mean if you take a family of two today, and count 5 generations ahead (100 years or so) they could maybe have gotten to be 100 people, at the most, where most of them would be old and soon to die, leaving maybe 16 couples to breed. and considering people didnt live nearly as long back then as we do now, and we dont count the fact that they would all be brothers and sisters, making probably some handicapped, and some incapable of carrying on making babies. so in 100 years 2 would become 32. it doesnt take a genius to figure out that it would take alot more than 6000 years for them to become 6 billions.

alot of creationists argument is that scientists cant prove 100% how the earth was created and the origin of life, and that scientists have been wrong so many times, but thats what science is, science is comming up with a theory of how it could have happen, and then see if you can disprove it. science is guessing and then putting it to the test, so ofc there will be alot of theories that are not correct.
and how come evolutionists have to come up with ways to prove how life originated, when creationists dont? can creationists prove that it was god who created the universe, earth and life, and it wasnt because of the big bang and evolution? all i have ever heard is creationists saying evolution cant be right because of this and because of that. but because this old book, that we cant even prove is really written by god, and could just as easily have been written by well anybody, says that it was made by some giant dude just snapping his fingers and everything came into being, then that is the right way.
speaking of which, how do creationists even know the bible is the book of god? have they any proof of that? if i wrote a book and called it the book of god, and said that god came to me one night and told me to write this book for him, would you believe that? you cant prove that god didnt come to me, because everytime you would come with a really good proof, i could just say that, thats how god is making it look so you wont figure out he is real.
dont get me wrong, i understand that religion can be good. it can bring hope and joy to people. but it can also bring the opposite. here im talking about holy war, but thats a total different matter.

Here are some links that I posted in another fourm that may anwser a lot of your questions.
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7234940

 

[Tomm]

i just dont get it, i have seen alot of documentaries over the past days both about creationism and evolution and i cant see how anyone would believe in creationism.

Creationism / Evolution / Creationism / Evolution / Creationism / Evolutio...

It might be difficult to decide. Sometimes the world looks like it was created, but at other times evolved. In fact, I believe God left us some clues, but didn't do it too obviously. Because He wanted to test us, to test our faith. God left us clues, like the beauty and order of the world,
which strongly point to a Creator.

He even worries that is not enough, in difficult times, He appeared or sent some heavenly creatures to appear on Earth.
For example, Mother of Jesus appeared in Fatima in 1917. Also Jesus Himself appeared in Poland in 1940s to Sr. Faustina (these are something which even atheistic or leftist mass media personnel cannot refute ; because they couldn't , the only strategy left for them is to keep quiet and not to let people know about it). God loves us and wanted us to know He exists and loves us.

Ever since I heard of these, I have strong faith in creationism. But anyway, creation or evolution doesn't matter anymore.