How many creationists practise what they preach?

[KWCrazy]

I was wondering art what point this topic would degenerate into foolishness. That happened in post 5.

Part of the problem is that those who enshrine evolution as their religion cannot fathom that anyone can reject their theory of origins and not reject the clearly observable characteristics of the world around them. For them, water is wet, thus evolution is true. For many of us, the study of the physical world has or no bearing on the non-physical world. Christians are a spiritual people; thinking and believing that there are powers and entities which exist that science cannot explain or falsify. Shockingly, we can accept that gravity is real without believing that we share an ancestor with a daffodil.

Those who reject the presence of the supernatural regard believers as deluded. We who have known the presence of God and have witnessed his miracles know that the world naturalists pretend to be the sum total of all existence is really just a temporary construct. That they cannot understand reality is their failing, not ours. Satan has blinded their eyes and darkened their minds. They are so helplessly deluded that they have to construct lies about who we are and paint us as simple minded because we defer to the authority of the Creator, not the physical laws of the creation. Despite their lies we do understand gravity and electricity. We understand full well that a man cannot raise from the dead. We also understand that our Lord did.

 

[expos4ever]

I was wondering art what point this topic would degenerate into foolishness. That happened in post 5.

Part of the problem is that those who enshrine evolution as their religion....

Acceptance of evolution clearly does not entail any kind of a "religious" commitment. I suggest that science-deniers have to re-frame evolution as a "religious" belief precisely because they know, or at least should know, that the evidence strongly supports it. So they have to pull a bait and switch move.

Let me be as clear as I can: I guarantee you will not be able to actually support the argument that evolution is a religious belief in any reasonable interpretation of the term "religious".

 

[Papias]

I folowed the evidence, it didnt lead me to believe in ToE as a whole, or in Global warming either

Like this evidence?

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201511

Christians are a spiritual people; thinking and believing that there are powers and entities which exist that science cannot explain or falsify. Shockingly, we can accept that gravity is real without believing that we share an ancestor with a daffodil. ​

Is that why most of the support for evolution comes from Christians?

 

[Loudmouth]

Part of the problem is that those who enshrine evolution as their religion . . .

I still find it hilarious when creationists try to disprove evolution by making evolution look like creationism. Do you realize what you are saying about your own beliefs when you use "religion" as a term of derision?

 

[OzSpen]

I disagree.

I think a child should know Genesis 1 and how it pwns evolution; and that should be good enough.

Giving too much air time to evolution just stirs the pot too much.

What is 'pwns'?

Try telling that to a home schooled person whose faith is attacked in the university classroom or by fellow students and he/she does not have a ready defense.

 

[KWCrazy]

Acceptance of evolution clearly does not entail any kind of a "religious" commitment.

No, but elevating a theory to a religion certainly does.

I suggest that science-deniers have to re-frame evolution as a "religious" belief precisely because they know, or at least should know, that the evidence strongly supports it. So they have to pull a bait and switch move.

Labeling those who reject your pet theory as "science deniers" is a lie and you know it.

Let me be as clear as I can: I guarantee you will not be able to actually support the argument that evolution is a religious belief in any reasonable interpretation of the term "religious".

Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, ethics, and social organisation that relate humanity to an order of existence. source
Not much of a guaranty, was it? Obviously, that fits you perfectly. You see the order of existence as molecules to man.
It doesn't bother you that science precludes the auto-origination of matter/ energy, does it?
It doesn't bother you that science precludes the perpetuity of matter/ energy, does it?
It doesn't bother you that science precludes therefore precludes the natural formation of the universe does it; since to not be eternal it had to be created and there exists no mechanism for its creation other than some external force?
It doesn't bother you that science precludes the auto-origination of life from non-living elements, does it?
It doesn't bother you that science is unable to duplicate the advancement of species via benevolent mutations; the magic mechanism claimed to be so common that it created all living things from a mono cellular progenitor, does it?

Actually, evolution is the rejection of science.

 

[Loudmouth]

What is 'pwns'?

Try telling that to a home schooled person whose faith is attacked in the university classroom or by fellow students and he/she does not have a ready defense.

Those who have been taught the standard creationist defenses for their entire lives still can't stand up to the real world evidence they are faced with when they get to university, as Libby Anne's story illustrates.

I was raised on the line between fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity. I was homeschooled, and nearly every subject was related to God and the Bible. History was His story and our science textbooks were all creationists. My parents were great fans of Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis and I was taught to use “creation apologetics.” In other words, when you evangelize someone you start by showing them the truth of young earth creationism, and after that they will have to concede the truth of the Bible and convert to Christianity. I read everything Ken Ham wrote, attended conferences put on by Answers in Genesis, and even visited the Creation Museum. I was taught that we know the Bible is true because young earth creationism is true. As Answers in Genesis so often trumpets, I learned that the foundation of the Bible was a literal Genesis.


And then I went to college, where my young earth creationist views were challenged. I responded by fighting back. I argued with both students and professors, sure that I had some sort of truth they were missing. I brought out every argument I had, and went back to my creationist resources for more. As time went by, though, I found my arguments effectively refuted by arguments and information I had never been exposed to before. To my utter shock, it seemed that the evidence actually fell on the side of evolution and against young earth creationism. After nearly a year of fighting, I conceded defeat.
Read more: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/04/29/why-i-am-an-atheist-libby-anne/#ixzz41gqTgtFQ

​

 

[Loudmouth]

No, but elevating a theory to a religion certainly does.

Labeling those who reject your pet theory as "science deniers" is a lie and you know it.

Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, ethics, and social organisation that relate humanity to an order of existence. source
Not much of a guaranty, was it? Obviously, that fits you perfectly. You see the order of existence as molecules to man.
It doesn't bother you that science precludes the auto-origination of matter/ energy, does it?
It doesn't bother you that science precludes the perpetuity of matter/ energy, does it?
It doesn't bother you that science precludes therefore precludes the natural formation of the universe does it; since to not be eternal it had to be created and there exists no mechanism for its creation other than some external force?
It doesn't bother you that science precludes the auto-origination of life from non-living elements, does it?
It doesn't bother you that science is unable to duplicate the advancement of species via benevolent mutations; the magic mechanism claimed to be so common that it created all living things from a mono cellular progenitor, does it?

Actually, evolution is the rejection of science.

Yet another example of intellectual suicide bombing. You don't care how bad you make religion look, just as long as you take evolution down with you.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Part of the problem is that those who enshrine evolution as their religion cannot fathom that anyone can reject their theory of origins and not reject the clearly observable characteristics of the world around them.

Evolution is not a religion. It's the foundation of biology and the majority of Christians accept it as the best explanation for living systems. It's where the evidence leads.

For them, water is wet, thus evolution is true.

Strawman. The evidence from several independent lines of study all reach the same conclusion. That evidence is overwhelming. Evolution is supported by an abundance of facts and contradicted by none.

Christians are a spiritual people; thinking and believing that there are powers and entities which exist that science cannot explain or falsify.

Unfalsifiable claims have no explanatory power. They are not testable nor observable.
Do you believe there is a teacup orbiting around the moon so small it can't be observed by the most powerful telescopes just because it cannot be falsified?

Shockingly, we can accept that gravity is real without believing that we share an ancestor with a daffodil.

The theory of general relativity has nothing to do with biology. What you're essentially saying here is that you have no problem accepting Einstein's theory but you have to reject evolution because it contradicts your unfalsifiable claims.

That they cannot understand reality is their failing, not ours. Satan has blinded their eyes and darkened their minds.

Evolution is a reality. It's been repeatedly tested for 150 years. It's a fact. There are MANY Christians who accept evolution on this board. I can't speak for them but i'd be insulted if I was a Christian and you told me I was blinded by Satan for accepting evolution.

Despite their lies we do understand gravity and electricity.

We also understand evolution. It is one of the most accurate, robust and well understood theories in all of science.

 

[OzSpen]

Those who have been taught the standard creationist defenses for their entire lives still can't stand up to the real world evidence they are faced with when they get to university, as Libby Anne's story illustrates.

I was raised on the line between fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity. I was homeschooled, and nearly every subject was related to God and the Bible. History was His story and our science textbooks were all creationists. My parents were great fans of Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis and I was taught to use “creation apologetics.” In other words, when you evangelize someone you start by showing them the truth of young earth creationism, and after that they will have to concede the truth of the Bible and convert to Christianity. I read everything Ken Ham wrote, attended conferences put on by Answers in Genesis, and even visited the Creation Museum. I was taught that we know the Bible is true because young earth creationism is true. As Answers in Genesis so often trumpets, I learned that the foundation of the Bible was a literal Genesis.


And then I went to college, where my young earth creationist views were challenged. I responded by fighting back. I argued with both students and professors, sure that I had some sort of truth they were missing. I brought out every argument I had, and went back to my creationist resources for more. As time went by, though, I found my arguments effectively refuted by arguments and information I had never been exposed to before. To my utter shock, it seemed that the evidence actually fell on the side of evolution and against young earth creationism. After nearly a year of fighting, I conceded defeat.
Read more: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/04/29/why-i-am-an-atheist-libby-anne/#ixzz41gqTgtFQ

​

That's a sad story, but it is dealing with the issue I'm raising. To promote a view of the Bible and young-earth creationism, without examining the opposition, is faulty reasoning in my view.

Now, I'm writing this as an evangelical Christian who accepts Scripture as authoritative, not because my parents told me or presented it as the only view. I've reasoned through the issues myself.

I know what I'm talking about from personal experience. I was a university doctoral student whose creationist views were exposed and my background had provided me with no answers. I'm not a dilbo on this issue. I'm talking from personal experience of what one-eyed creationism (without examining the opposition) can lead to.

About a month ago here in Brisbane I attended a creationist presentation (I drove 40 mins each way to attend it) and at Q&A time I stood to ask a question about the days of Genesis 1, citing from Augustine's City of God (he said we can't know the length of these days) and mentioning Norm Geisler's failure to support 24-hour days. I was talked over by the presenter and told it was his seminar (inferring I had no right to ask a controversial question) and to not question any further. I was in an audience of hard-nosed, young earth creationists.

That's my last visit to anything to deal with that organisation.

What I'm writing here is to help Christian parents realise that they can't protect their kids from the onslaught of hostile forces, particularly as they relate to evolution, in the university and workplace setting. They had better prepare their kids with a ready defense long before launching them out of the protective orbit of Christian schooling.

Oz

 

[expos4ever]

Evolution is not a religion. It's the foundation of biology and the majority of Christians accept it as the best explanation for living systems. It's where the evidence leads.

Evolution is a reality. It's been repeatedly tested for 150 years. It's a fact. There are MANY Christians who accept evolution on this board. I can't speak for them but i'd be insulted if I was a Christian and you told me I was blinded by Satan for accepting evolution.

I think a little sober reflection is called for.

I share your view, but I suggest it is a waste of time to debate this matter with committed creationists, so I am promising myself I will really stop wasting my time on this.

You talk about evidence, and I am with you on that 100%.

Well, what does the evidence - of this thread, and dozens of others, and probably hundreds of thousands, if not millions of exchanges between creationist and people like you and me - actually lead?

It leads to the conclusion that these exchanges are completely fruitless.

I challenge you or anyone to provide evidence that any creationist ever changes their mind. I suggest it simply never happens, and no matter how powerful the evidence and arguments, the entrenched creationist will never accept the evidence.

So I suggest it is best to give up on these people and, if you feel motivated to advocate for the merits of the scientific method and rational argumentation, expend your energy on children and adolescents who have yet to be drawn into the intellectual black hole that is mainstream creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is 'pwns'?

"Pwn" is leet speak for "own."

"Own" is a synonym for "defeat."

Try telling that to a home schooled person whose faith is attacked in the university classroom or by fellow students and he/she does not have a ready defense.

I would tell my child to tell them we walk by faith and not by sight; and we're not obligated to defend our faith in the face of Egyptian (worldly) science.

I would explain to him that our faith is a shield, not an offensive weapon -- (Ephesians 6).

The Bible is our offensive weapon.

 

[KWCrazy]

Evolution is not a religion. It's the foundation of biology and the majority of Christians accept it as the best explanation for living systems.

Biology is a natural science concerned with the study of life and living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, evolution, distribution, and taxonomy.
Nothing there about origins. In fact, I bet if two biologists were studying a cell, one who believed in molecules-to-man and one who accepted the diversity of species post flood, they wouldn't see anything whatever differently. Of course, you are free to make up your own definition.

The evidence from several independent lines of study all reach the same conclusion.

Only if they begin with the same premise; that life originated somehow on its own. Creation scientists begin with a different premise, examine the same evidence and come up with entirely different conclusions.

Unfalsifiable claims have no explanatory power. They are not testable nor observable.

Wow, no kidding? Did you come to that conclusion on your own?
Next you'll be telling me that eyewitness testimony must be stricken from all courthouses since they rely on the personal interpretation of different senses from different angles of view, and personal testimony is not testable.
I think the courts would disagree.

Do you believe there is a teacup orbiting around the moon so small it can't be observed by the most powerful telescopes just because it cannot be falsified?

Is foolishness your goal or just an ancillary effect?

The theory of general relativity has nothing to do with biology.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with biology, either. As pointed out, biology is the study of living things. Evolution is a theory or origins that cannot be replicated or observed; it can only be believed or not believed. Since evolution is disproved by a higher authority, Christians who adhere to the teaching of Scripture reject evolution.

Evolution is a reality.

God is reality. Evolution is man's theory of origins.

It's been repeatedly tested for 150 years.

Nothing has been shown to evolve. Fruit flies remain fruit flies. Fossils are arranged according to perceived development and then proclaimed to be proof of evolution. The fossil record shows us animals that lived and died without ancestor or predecessor. All else is speculation.

There are MANY Christians who accept evolution on this board.

Jesus was killed by the religious leaders, not the heathens.
What did Jesus believe? Did the son of man lift up a fish and say, "Behold, your ancestor?" Did he willfully deceive His disciples when He proclaimed that the Scriptures were true and suitable for teaching? People can convince themselves of anything. Evolution proclaims the Scriptures to be false. The Scriptures demonstrate evolution to be false. the only way to accept both is to understand neither. They are mutually exclusive. Certainly, there are Christians who reject much of the teaching of of Christ. How they decide what to accept and what do reject is beyond me.

 

[Tree of Life]

There is nothing religious about them. They don't involve a deity.

Hmmm. You have a bit of a stunted view of religion.

I guess you never heard of this guy named Galileo?

Good call. Galileo was a devout Catholic.

 

[AV1611VET]

Anne's story illustrates.

ASSUMING this story is true, Anne got what she deserved: humiliated.

Evolution is a well thought out paradigm that is supported by evidence that has been interpreted and reinterpreted for centuries.

It is a rock solid theory that is going to take Jesus, Himself to pwn when He comes back.

Solomon & Paul both warn about being caught up in the philosophy of [prescience] evolution, and to ignore those warnings can lead to humiliation and, ultimately, atheism.

 

[bhsmte]

Well...

1. The practice of good science carries its own religious assumptions into the discipline. Assumptions such as we can know things about the phenomenal and noumenal world, that empiricism is a viable epistemology, etc... These are, at heart, philosophical and religious assumptions although they may not be theistic.
2. From my perspective good science grows out of Christianity. Christian theology produced values and ideas such as free thought and inquiry, the value of scientifically analyzing natural revelation, and the authority of science as a whole. Most scientific fathers were protestant and certainly the Christian faith gave rise to the scientific revolution.

What????????

 

[bhsmte]

You could try using evidence . . . or following evidence . . . .

For some folks, that is far too dangerous.

 

[CarlaB]

Those who reject the presence of the supernatural

Forgive me but what does that even mean? how can the supernatural have a presence in the natural world? it's called the supernatural because it's not part of the natural world, you are talking in riddles.

 

[AV1611VET]

Forgive me but what does that even mean? how can the supernatural have a presence in the natural world? it's called the supernatural because it's not part of the natural world, you are talking in riddles.

The supernatural world can interface with the natural world and even remove people out of it.

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
1 Corinthians 15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
1 Corinthians 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

 

[Extraneous]

Please give us the specifics: where specifically are either (1) ToE; and (2) Human-caused Global Warming not supported by the evidence?

Why? Whats the point?