How many of you creationists...

[AirPo]

It's a quadruple necro. You need to post that three more times.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've read:

• Instant Physics, by Tony Rothman
• What Einstein Told His Barber, by Robert L. Wolke
• Five Equations That Changed The World, by Michael Guillen
• The Atlas of Past Times, by John Haywood
• United States History in Christian Perspective
• Essential Philosophy, by James Mannion
• The Puzzle of Ancient Man (Advanced Technology in Past Civilizations), by Donald E. Chittick
• Ancient Empires of the New Age, by Paul DeParrie and Mary Pride
• and just tonight I bought A Brief History of Science, by John Gribben

Bumped to rekindle an interesting thread.

 

[pgp_protector]

It's a quadruple necro. You need to post that three more times.

Now a quintuple necro.

 

[J_B_]

...have ever read a science textbook? I'm curious.

Quite a few. I have an M.S. in Mechanical Engineering. I've read scientific journals my entire career. Though biology isn't my field, I've read several biology texts and papers to gain background for discussions.

I've asked similar questions from the other side. How many have actually read the source material for the creationist positions they're criticizing?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Quite a few. I have an M.S. in Mechanical Engineering. I've read scientific journals my entire career. Though biology isn't my field, I've read several biology texts and papers to gain background for discussions.

I've asked similar questions from the other side. How many have actually read the source material for the creationist positions they're criticizing?

I'm pretty sure most of us have read Genesis 1 & 2. That's all they have.

 

[J_B_]

I'm pretty sure most of us have read Genesis 1 & 2. That's all they have.

How valid would you say it is to criticize On the Origin of Species if a person hasn't read it?

 

[Hans Blaster]

How valid would you say it is to criticize On the Origin of Species if a person hasn't read it?

I haven't read it, but I have read the first 3 pages of the bible.

 

[J_B_]

I haven't read it, but I have read the first 3 pages of the bible.

That wasn't my question. If you prefer not to answer me, OK. I guess there's nothing further to discuss.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That wasn't my question. If you prefer not to answer me, OK. I guess there's nothing further to discuss.

They may this thread go back into eternal sleep. (Until revived by the invisible poster in 5 years.)

 

[AV1611VET]

That wasn't my question. If you prefer not to answer me, OK. I guess there's nothing further to discuss.

J.B., Hans has a point.

The only documentation we have on creationism is in the Bible, and specifically in Genesis 1 and 2.

Anything else written by mankind is ... well ... subject to error.

If Genesis 1 and 2 can't stand on their own merit, then anything written by mankind certainly can't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then may this thread go back into eternal sleep. (Until revived by the invisible poster in 5 years.)

I miss MrGoodBytes.

I wish he'd come back.

 

[J_B_]

J.B., Hans has a point.

The only documentation we have on creationism is in the Bible, and specifically in Genesis 1 and 2.

Anything else written by mankind is ... well ... subject to error.

If Genesis 1 and 2 can't stand on their own merit, then anything written by mankind certainly can't.

This is all completely beside the point - a red herring. Whether the argument is valid or not can't be addressed if no one has read it.

If you would like to know my thoughts on the veracity of Genesis 1,2 and your comments above, I can answer. But it has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[chilehed]

I certainly have. I'm a Creationist because I believe that God created the universe ex nihilo, and I also believe that he created us by means of physical processes such as evolution because all of the evidence indicates that he did and (nonsensical yammering to the contrary notwithstanding) Sacred Scripture certainly doesn't teach otherwise.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is all completely beside the point - a red herring. Whether the argument is valid or not can't be addressed if no one has read it.

Okay.

But I contend that God created the universe as detailed in Genesis 1, without using a lick of science to do it.

To combat Genesis 1 with science is like trying to find a snowman in the desert.

If you would like to know my thoughts on the veracity of Genesis 1,2 and your comments above, I can answer. But it has nothing to do with what I said.

Sure. I'd love to.

 

[Goonie]

It’s dead Jim, just as…

 

[AV1611VET]

I certainly have. I'm a Creationist because I believe that God created the universe ex nihilo, and I also believe that he created us by means of physical processes such as evolution because all of the evidence indicates that he did ...

Are you a theistic evolutionist then?

 

[J_B_]

Sure. I'd love to.

I believe Genesis is the inspired Word of God and it reveals to us that God created all that exists. The only way we know God's role in creation is by what he has revealed to us; science will never be able to tell us God's role in creation.

For those of us who are curious to know more, science is a great tool for applying rigor and standards to the discussion. Biology has added to our knowledge, and we are better for it, but that doesn't mean I think biology gets it all right. Further, we have to keep in mind that science can help us better understand things, but it never does anything to help us understand God. Still, there is some interesting work in biology that seems to fit my creationist views very well.

It's just ... it seems few (if any) here have ever read any of them.

 

[chilehed]

Are you a theistic evolutionist then?

If by that you mean someone who doesn't believe that God created the universe ex nihilo, then no.

I believe that God created the universe ex nihilo, therefore I am a creationist.

 

[AV1611VET]

I believe Genesis is the inspired Word of God and it reveals to us that God created all that exists. The only way we know God's role in creation is by what he has revealed to us; science will never be able to tell us God's role in creation.

For those of us who are curious to know more, science is a great tool for applying rigor and standards to the discussion. Biology has added to our knowledge, and we are better for it, but that doesn't mean I think biology gets it all right. Further, we have to keep in mind that science can help us better understand things, but it never does anything to help us understand God. Still, there is some interesting work in biology that seems to fit my creationist views very well.

It's just ... it seems few (if any) here have ever read any of them.

Thanks for the reply.

Here are my standards:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own
Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

Do you agree with them?

 

[AV1611VET]

If by that you mean someone who doesn't believe that God created the universe ex nihilo, then no.

I believe that God created the universe ex nihilo, therefore I am a creationist.

I think I know where this is going.

Let's try this:

Roughly, what YEAR did God create the universe ex nihilo?

1. 4004 BC
2. 13,700,000,000 BC
3. Other