How does Creationism destroy Christianity?

[nephilimiyr]

I've heard this said so many times here and I just don't see the logic.

From what I've found, people who leave the Christian faith do so for reasons that run alot deeper than this issue can ever address. Christianity isn't just a belief but a relationship with Jesus. If people felt it necessary to end their relationship with Jesus because of this issue I would suggest they never had a relationship to begin with.

But is this even one of the reasons why this is being said? Is it because of a belief that people wont come to Christ if they can't believe in a 6 day creation therefore the belief is stopping others who very well may except Christ? If this is the case this would only say how the belief in creationism stunts the grouth of Christianity, not destroy's it.

Or perhaps is it because the belief has created too big an arguement within the church body? If this is the case I don't see it's just a creationism thing but also theistic evolution has had it's hand in it. Therefore the correct way to make the statement is that this debate of how God created and when destroys Christianity.

Please, could someone explain this to me. Preferably from those who say this.

 

[-=Burnt Toast=-]

Perhaps it deals with a questioning of some of the most underlying and concrete allergations surrounding this world and its creationg that, like a building, if you loosen the foundations, its quite possible that the entire thing will fall down.

 

[Ark Guy]

To leave a faith in christianity because you think science has proven Genesis incorrect along with the YEC biblical view as being incorrect.... would be like leaving christianity because the resurrection of Jesus Christ has also been proven as impossible by science.

 

[notto]

Ark Guy,

You continue to confuse impossible with falsified.

The YEC view of the world has been falsified. There is direct, contradicting evidence that says that it could not have happened the way it is described in Genesis (unless God continued to use miracles to falsely present evidence in the creation to cover up the way God created). Genesis is a desription of a miracle that is contradicted by the lack of evidence the miracle would leave behind if it was true.

The resurrection has not (and probably can not) be falsified and is accepted and believed on faith alone.

 

[Ark Guy]

Notto,
The resurrection can be falsified. let me ask you this simple question.....if someone dies the death that Christ died, can they rise up and live again? What does your science say?

 

[notto]

Notto,
The resurrection can be falsified. let me ask you this simple question.....if someone dies the death that Christ died, can they rise up and live again? What does your science say?

Not without a miracle. Of course, the bible describes a miracle to do this and there is no evidence that it could not have happened.

The description of genesis is falsified because there IS evidence that shows us it did not happen the way it is described.

Again, you are confusing impossible with falsified.

There is no evidence that shows that the resurrection could not have happened as described by miracle. There is tons of evidence coming from several different lines that shows us that the miracle described in Genesis did not happen.

 

[Ark Guy]

Notto, According to your scientist...both are impossible and both have been falsified.

Both events require miracles.

There is also tons of evidence that show the earth is young...and not old...which refutes your last line.

Here..check it out.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp

 

[notto]

Scientific theories are falsified by evidence AGAINST them, not the amount of evidence FOR them. Evidence can be found to support any theory, but they must explain ALL evidence. Creationist ministries often avoid the evidence against them.

Scientists strive to falsify theories. No matter how much evidence is supportive of a theory, if there is evidence that falsifies it, the theory remains falsified.

Creationism has been falsified. Resurrection through miracle has not been falsified. You still do not understand the concept as can be seen by your replies.

There is no evidence that falsifies the resurection of Christ through a miracle. There is evidence that falsifies the creation taking place the way it is described in Genesis, even if that creation was done by a miracle (unless another series of miracles was used to change or cover up the evidence of the first miracle).

 

[wblastyn]

Notto,
The resurrection can be falsified. let me ask you this simple question.....if someone dies the death that Christ died, can they rise up and live again? What does your science say?

For some reason you can't seem to understand that the entire point of the resurrection was that it was a MIRACLE, it's supposed to defy the laws of science.

 

[Ark Guy]

Scientific theories are falsified by evidence AGAINST them, not the amount of evidence FOR them. Evidence can be found to support any theory, but they must explain ALL evidence. Creationist ministries often avoid the evidence against them.

And the evidence is against resurrection. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. Ever hear of rigamortis?

Scientists strive to falsify theories. No matter how much evidence is supportive of a theory, if there is evidence that falsifies it, the theory remains falsified.


LOL...except for when the christians falsify evolution...then it doesn't count.

Creationism has been falsified. Resurrection through miracle has not been falsified. You still do not understand the concept as can be seen by your replies.

You just don't get it do you? Dead is dead. Ask any biological scientist or medical doctor. You don't come back to life on day 3. Science has demonstrated this to be so. That is what the evidence shows...or would you be willing to take the plunge and test the theory out for yourself?

There is no evidence that falsifies the resurection of Christ through a miracle. There is evidence that falsifies the creation taking place the way it is described in Genesis,

Creation like the resurrection was a miracle.
Just like you evos like to use radioactive decay to try and show a old earth...you can use biological decay to show the resurrection was impossible.

even if that creation was done by a miracle (unless another series of miracles was used to change or cover up the evidence of the first miracle)

Noow your catching on...both were miracles....clap clap clap

 

[notto]

If the creation was a miracle as described in Genesis, then another set of absurb miracles, most as extreme, or even more extreme then the creation itself (and not mentioned in the bible itself) followed to cover up the evidence (changing of all laws of physics in a precise way to cover up the young earth creation).

The reserection through a miracle has not been falsified. The only two ways to do this would be to:

a) find a body and clearly and absolutely identify it as that of Jesus Christ

b) Prove without a doubt that Jesus Christ never existed.

Neither of these have been done so the resurrection through miracle HAS NOT been falsified.

The creation HAS BEEN falsified as described in Genesis, unless there was a lot more to the miracle of creation that is NOT mentioned in the bible as God covered his tracks. To me, that does not fit what I believe to be the nature of God.

Evolution has not been falsified. If you believe it to be, the please present the evidence that falsifies it. It would help if you can present a peer review, scientific paper to that extent. If you can, you, or the author of the paper presenting the evidence would be the laud of science and probably due a nobel prize.

 

[Ark Guy]

You don't need the body of Christ..dead or alive to disprove that the resurrection is scientifically impossible...You need a medical doctor to say...he's dead Jim.

The Creation miracle has not been falsified...if it has please present your peer reviewed material...if you can disprove it and shut up all of the young earth creationist, then you can go collect your nobel prize.

 

[wblastyn]

You don't need the body of Christ..dead or alive to disprove that the resurrection is scientifically impossible...You need a medical doctor to say...he's dead Jim.

Er, usually a doctor needs the body to say whether it's dead or not.

 

[wblastyn]

The Creation miracle has not been falsified...if it has please present your peer reviewed material...if you can disprove it and shut up all of the young earth creationist, then you can go collect your nobel prize.

You wouldn't win a Nobel Prize for falsifying creationism, it already has been and scientists know this, thus they no longer care about creationism.

 

[lucaspa]

To leave a faith in christianity because you think science has proven Genesis incorrect along with the YEC biblical view as being incorrect.... would be like leaving christianity because the resurrection of Jesus Christ has also been proven as impossible by science.

Ark Guy, you can't keep repeating the "resurrection of Jesus Christ has also been proven as impossible by science" as true when its not. I've answered this at least twice to you; you haven't addressed the rebuttals, yet keep saying this as tho it is true.

Do you not understand the rebuttal and why this is not true?

You don't need the body of Christ..dead or alive to disprove that the resurrection is scientifically impossible...You need a medical doctor to say...he's dead Jim.

No, you do need the body of Jesus, dead, to say that he did not resurrect.

Your example of a medical doctor doesn't work.

100 years ago people were pronounced dead from drowning that are routinely saved today by lifeguards and others giving artificial respiration. 50 years ago people were routinely pronounced dead from heart attacks when their hearts stopped beating that are routinely brought back today with CPR and resusitation techniques.

So, the question is whether God intervened and resurrected Jesus. If He did then it's not scientifically impossible. Our theory that people dead 36 hours do not resurrect would have to be modified.

YOU CAN'T USE THEORY TO DISCARD DATA!!! Do you understand that?

 

[lucaspa]

The Creation miracle has not been falsified.

Of course not. It's just as much a miracle that God created the universe by the Big Bang, the galaxies, stars, and planets by gravity, life by chemistry, and the diversity of life by evolution as it is the falsified idea that God zapped them all into place in 144 hours.

..if it has please present your peer reviewed material...if you can disprove it and shut up all of the young earth creationist, then you can go collect your nobel prize.

Can't collect the Nobel Prize since creationism was falsified by 1831, long before the Prize was started in 1905. Nothing will shut up the YECs because the data has been around for over 150 years and they won't shut up anyway. They simply won't accept the data or ignore it. That says a lot about their psychology but nothing about the status of YEC.

Read Origin of the Species for a lot of data showing special creation as false. See the thread "Macroevolution" for more data showing special creation as false.

Strahler's Earth Science is a partial summary of the peer-reviewed material showing YEC is false. Below is more:

A 130,000-year coral record that shows, with unprecedented
resolution, that the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) has been
at its most intense during the warm 20th century and at its weakest
during glacial periods (25 Jan. 2001,
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1057969; in print
23 Feb. 2001).

http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/greenriver.htm
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2002AM/finalprogram/session_3276.htm

"In Yellowstone Park there is a stratigraphic section of 2000 feet exposed which shows 18 successive petrified forests. Each forest grew to maturity before it was wiped out with a lava flow. The lava had to be weathered into soil before the next forest could even start. Further this is only a small section of stratigraphic column in this area. It would be most difficult for flood geology to account for these facts."
JL Kulp, Flood geology, J. American Scientific Affiliation, 2: 1-15, 1950.

"Complexity of Holocene Climate as Reconstructed from a Greenland Ice
Core" S. R. O'Brien, P. A. Mayewski, L. D. Meeker, D. A. Meese, M. S.
Twickler & S. I. Witlow (1995) Science 270, 1962-1964.
ABSTRACT: "Glaciochemical time series developed from Summit, Greenland,
indicate that the chemical composition of the atmosphere was dynamic during
the Holocene epoch. Concentrations of sea salt and terrestrial dusts
increased in Summit snow during the periods 0 to 600, 2400 to 3100, 5000 to
6100, 7800 to 8800, and more than 11,300 years ago. The most recent
increase, and also the most abrupt, coincides with the Little Ice Age. These
changes imply that either the north polar vortex expanded or the meridional
air flow intensified during these periods, and that temperatures in the mid
to high northern latitudes were potentially coldest since the Younger Dryas
event."

"The Accumulation Record from the GISP2 Core as an Indicator of Climate
Change Throughout the Holocene" D. A. Meese, A. J. Gow, P. Grootes, P. A.
Mayewski, M. Ram, M. Stuiver, K. C. Taylor, E. D. Waddington & G. A.
Zielinski (1994) Science 266, 1680-1682.
"Greenland Ice Evidence of Hemispheric Lead Pollution Two Millennia Ago
by Greek and Roman civilizations" S. Hong, J.-P. Candelone, C. C. Patterson &
C. F. Boutron (1994) Science 265, 1841-1844.

 

[Plan 9]

100 years ago people were pronounced dead from drowning that are routinely saved today by lifeguards and others giving artificial respiration. 50 years ago people were routinely pronounced dead from heart attacks when their hearts stopped beating that are routinely brought back today with CPR and resusitation techniques.

A 150 years ago, people occasionally had the misfortune to be buried alive after being pronounced dead by competent doctors.

 

[Vance]

Well, of course, Creation was a miracle, no one is disputing that point.

The question is *how* God performed the miracle. You seem to think that there is only one way He could have done it, based solely on your reading of the text.

I think God can perform miracles however He likes. And when His written word to us does not make it crystal clear which way He did it (and it doesn't) and His physical creation itself very clearly indicates how He did it, I will start with that until something comes along to make it more likely that He did it a different way.

 

[lucaspa]

A 150 years ago, people occasionally had the misfortune to be buried alive after being pronounced dead by competent doctors.

Right. So the theory of what it means to be "dead" changes over time and new data. The theory is modified to say "people who suffer a heart attack are dead unless they receive resusitation within 10 minutes."

Same modification of the theory: "people who are dead 36 hours do not resurrect unless God intervenes and resurrects them."

Ark Guy wants to misrepresent science so that it would deny something that all Christians hold dear. Then Ark Guy has a reason to have us discard science. Having discarded science in this area, Ark Guy would then have us discard science in terms of creationism.

The irony here is that Ark Guy is accepting as true one of the major arguments of militant atheism. It never ceases to amuse me to see people who want to "prove" God and thus trounce atheism using the arguments of atheism as tho they were true. Ark Guy hasn't apparently considered that another way to respond to his argument is to say: "Hey, you're right. Science says the resurrection is impossible. OK, it's impossible and therefore Christianity is wrong. Now I'm an atheist! Thank you for showing me the truth that Christianity is false!"

I bet that is just what happens when Ark Guy tries this argument in atheist forums.