If creationism is divinely inspired...

[pitabread]

Again baloney, astronomy, cosmology, physics and geology have nothing to do with it. In evolutionary biology the only difference is the point of origin.

Do you know what Young Earth Creationism is?

You might want to spend some time learning about what Young Earth creationists actually believe:

The Age of the Universe
Age of the Earth | The Institute for Creation Research
Geology
Ancient Egypt
Thinking about chronology - creation.com

 

[Speedwell]

Again baloney, astronomy, cosmology, physics and geology have nothing to do with it. In evolutionary biology the only difference is the point of origin.

Nothing to do with it? There is no astronomical, cosmological, physical or geological evidence that the universe was created well before October 23, 4004 BC at 6:00 PM.?

 

[mark kennedy]

Do you know what Young Earth Creationism is?

You might want to spend some time learning about what Young Earth creationists actually believe:

http://www.icr.org/article/age-universe/
http://www.icr.org/creation-geology/
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/
https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/
https://creation.com/thinking-about-chronology

I don't need to read them, I know what they believe. I've caught a fair amount of flack from young earth creationists, I've even been called a naturalist, whatever that means. God created life 6000 years ago and the Scriptures are uniformly in agreement on that point. Really not interested in creationist articles and I don't need you to tell me what they, or we, believe. Thanks anyway, but it's not a question of the hard sciences, it's more about Darwinism.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't need to read them, I know what they believe. I've caught a fair amount of flack from young earth creationists, I've even been called a naturalist, whatever that means. God created life 6000 years ago and the Scriptures are uniformly in agreement on that points. Really not interested in creationist artifcles and I don't need you to tell me what they, or we, believe. Thanks anyway, but it's not a question of the hard sciences, it's more about Darwinism.

So you're not, yourself a YEC.

 

[pitabread]

So you're not, yourself a YEC.

Which nicely circles back to the point in the OP about all the variations of creationism and why isn't there any agreement among them when it comes to the history of the planet.

 

[pitabread]

I don't need to read them, I know what they believe. I've caught a fair amount of flack from young earth creationists, I've even been called a naturalist, whatever that means. God created life 6000 years ago and the Scriptures are uniformly in agreement on that point. Really not interested in creationist articles and I don't need you to tell me what they, or we, believe. Thanks anyway, but it's not a question of the hard sciences, it's more about Darwinism.

If you already know what they believe, then you know how a 6000 year-old Earth and universe and a 4500 year-old Flood which not only wiped out civilization but also reshaped the geology of the planet are in contradiction to findings in modern geology, cosmology and astronomy, physics, and human anthropology and archaeology.

You don't have to look very hard to find young-Earth creationist publications arguing against those various fields (as per what I linked).

 

[mark kennedy]

If you already know what they believe, then you know how a 6000 year-old Earth and universe and a 4500 year-old Flood which not only wiped out civilization but also reshaped the geology of the planet are in contradiction to findings in modern geology, cosmology and astronomy, physics, and human anthropology and archaeology.

You don't have to look very hard to find young-Earth creationist publications arguing against those various fields (as per what I linked).

You really don't get the nature of Creationism. If anything it's an attempt to access the sciences. I don't care about astronomy, cosmology or geology although it has a superficial interest with regards to the flood. You can go to extremes all you like, I understand Creationists perfectly fine, I know where they are coming from. I just don't think most Darwinians have a clue what the religious convictions include or where they come from. Which is sad, you could come up with some actual insights otherwise.

 

[pitabread]

You really don't get the nature of Creationism. If anything it's an attempt to access the sciences. I don't care about astronomy, cosmology or geology although it has a superficial interest with regards to the flood.

Superficial? The claims by young-Earth creationists is that the Great Flood completely reshaped the geology of Earth. This runs completely contradictory to findings in modern geology as well as human archaeology and anthropology. In fact, this was arguably the lynchpin of the modern YECist movement owing to Morris and Whitcomb's authoring of The Genesis Flood.

Same with claims about the Earth and universe only being 6000 years old running contradictory with geology, astronomy, cosmology, and by extension in all those fields, physics.

Even a cursory examination of the material published by organizations like the Institute for Creation Research, Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis and you'll find plenty of arguments against findings in almost all fields of modern science.

 

[mark kennedy]

Superficial? The claims by young-Earth creationists is that the Great Flood completely reshaped the geology of Earth. This runs completely contradictory to findings in modern geology as well as human archaeology and anthropology. In fact, this was arguably the lynchpin of the modern YECist movement owing to Morris and Whitcomb's authoring of The Genesis Flood.

Same with claims about the Earth and universe only being 6000 years old running contradictory with geology, astronomy, cosmology, and by extension in all those fields, physics.

Even a cursory examination of the material published by organizations like the Institute for Creation Research, Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis and you'll find plenty of arguments against findings in almost all fields of modern science.

I think you are talking to the wrong guy, the age of the earth and the cosmos are not issues for me. I'm into genetics and paleontology myself and consider the age of the universe and the earth to be irrelevant to the doctrine of creation.

 

[pitabread]

I think you are talking to the wrong guy, the age of the earth and the cosmos are not issues for me. I'm into genetics and paleontology myself and consider the age of the universe and the earth to be irrelevant to the doctrine of creation.

Like speedwell said, you don't sound like a Young Earth Creationist.

Because for a lot of Young Earth Creationists, the age of the Earth is quite relevant with respect to doctrine. Anything besides accepting a ~6000 year old Earth is viewed as compromising scripture.

 

[mark kennedy]

Like speedwell said, you don't sound like a Young Earth Creationist.

Because for a lot of Young Earth Creationists, the age of the Earth is quite relevant with respect to doctrine. Anything besides accepting a ~6000 year old Earth is viewed as compromising scripture.

First of all I don't care what speedwell says, [staff edit]. Secondly, I don't care what creationists might say about the age of the earth and the cosmos because I know the Scriptures. Youre batting a thousand here.

 

[lesliedellow]

Nothing to do with it? There is no astronomical, cosmological, physical or geological evidence that the universe was created well before October 23, 4004 BC at 6:00 PM?

Would that be 6:00PM GMT?

 

[AV1611VET]

Nothing to do with it? There is no astronomical, cosmological, physical or geological evidence that the universe was created well before October 23, 4004 BC at 6:00 PM?

Only on paper.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The one who persecuted the Anabaptists?

Nice deflection. Do you accept Martin Luther's literal interpretation of the Bible with regard to the rotation of the earth, or do you not?

- You can choose to disagree with Martin Luther. In that case you have to explain why you disagree with the literal interpretation of the Bible.

- Or you can choose to agree with Martin Luther and follow his direction of literal interpretation and assert before us all that it is not the rotation of the earth that is the cause of day or night.

In either case, the illogical nature of your position will be demonstrated. Please, let us know which illogical way of these two you are going these days.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Nothing to do with it? There is no astronomical, cosmological, physical or geological evidence that the universe was created well before October 23, 4004 BC at 6:00 PM?

I've viewed the geat galaxy in andromeda with my own eyes, the image having been brought to be as the speed of light over a distance of over 2 million light years, assuring me that over 2 million years ago there were stars. Creationists ask us to not trust our own eyes.

 

[pat34lee]

... then why are there so many different forms of creationism?

So why, if divine inspiration is meant to be the source of creationist beliefs, are there so many different creationist beliefs? Everyone can't be correct when views fundamentally don't agree with each other. That means at least some of the purported divine inspiration clearly isn't. But how would one tell who is right and who isn't?

Why are there hundreds of denominations if there is only one bible?
Because not everyone believes what they read, so they make stuff up.
They either add to the bible or they drop what they don't like.

There is only one history of creation. Genesis.
It was told to Moses by the only witness to creation: God himself.
The details not given there are up for interpretation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you accept Martin Luther's literal interpretation of the Bible with regard to the rotation of the earth, or do you not?

I do not.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I do not.

Well, there you are. I am in the same boat as you, I accept the bible, but not the literal interpretation of contradictions of scientifically established facts. Of course, we disagree about what the scientifically established facts are, but that is the only difference between us.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, there you are. I am in the same boat as you, I accept the bible, but not the literal interpretation of contradictions of scientifically established facts. Of course, we disagree about what the scientifically established facts are, but that is the only difference between us.

It's Martin Luther I disagree with, not the Bible.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It's Martin Luther I disagree with, not the Bible.

And its Young Earth Creationists I disagree with, not the Bible.

See how easy it is? You already do it yourself.