The number one bugger for creationists: C

[Follower of Christ]

Well, since they believe the Bible says that the earth is no older than 10,000 years, they must never question this, EVER!! Instead, they think inside the box--the Bible box, a very limited, small box.

This is funny......wouldnt the limited, "inside the box" view be that there is only the OBVIOUS explaination?

Outside the box would be what? looking to whats NOT obvious.

 

[homewardbound]

Well, actually we are talking about the denial of facts and evidence, when we talk about creationism.

No, we're not. Evolution is a theory. The Holocaust is a fact. You subscribe to or believe in theory. You'd have to be nuts, in my opinion, to deny a factual event such as the Holocaust. Now, your ready reply might be that I'm nuts for not subscribing to the evidence surrounding evolution, but if evolution were fact, we wouldn't be having these discussions.

I hope we're not getting of topic here.....

 

[Arikay]

Generally its not called "belief", its "accept". Partly to get away from the "evolution is religion" strawman that creationist groups have made.
Your right, evolution isn't fact, but neither is germ theory, yet I'm sure many would argue that it's true. Something doesn't need to be a fact to be true.

I wasn't refering to evolution anyway, but to the facts and evidence that must be ignored to accept creationism.

No, we're not. Evolution is a theory. The Holocaust is a fact. You subscribe to or believe in theory. You'd have to be nuts, in my opinion, to deny a factual event such as the Holocaust. Now, your ready reply might be that I'm nuts for not subscribing to the evidence surrounding evolution, but if evolution were fact, we wouldn't be having these discussions.

I hope we're not getting of topic here.....

 

[Remnant]

how much more amazing is it to put temoral anecdotes on metaphysical attributes like God with no amount of information at their disposal.

Quantum physics and string theory are metaphysical, but we put attributes on that. We have a book that tells us a little of the attributes of God, but all we have are mathematics for Pions.

Faith is not a 'scientific method' by any definition. the scientific method is a way of finding answers; faith is a justification for answers already believed to be found.

Then why do scientists use it for some analysis of evolution?

: then there is a bias... as they seek, they already assume that there will find.

Again, scientists do the same….with some things; if only to fit their agenda.

There's always the possibility of looking for a god who is not there.

All it takes is a good look at nature to see that there is I.D.

If creationists KNOW this already, where does the faith come in?

To answer the things that are not seen or known at that particular time in history.

Actually, many creationists look at evolution as a nonentity, a delusion, and/or a conspiracy.

Actually you are wrong. Most Christians see it as a natural occurrence that can be viewed everyday.

Those who replace experimentation with dogma.

This is what science does when substitution takes the place of logical thought. Ever hear of thought experiment?

 

[The Bellman]

No, we're not. Evolution is a theory. The Holocaust is a fact. You subscribe to or believe in theory. You'd have to be nuts, in my opinion, to deny a factual event such as the Holocaust. Now, your ready reply might be that I'm nuts for not subscribing to the evidence surrounding evolution, but if evolution were fact, we wouldn't be having these discussions.

That's simply false. Evolution - and everything else - is fact (or isn't fact) irrespective of who accepts it. Peopel dispute facts all the time. People dispute the holocaust...creationists dispute evolution. That doesn't do anything to prove that either of them isn't a fact.

 

[Physics_guy]

Quantum physics and string theory is metaphysical, but we put attributes on that. We have a book that tells us a little of the attributes of God, but all we have are mathematics for Pions.

Pet peeve as a particle physicist - quantum physics is not metaphysical! Quantum Field Theory is the most predictively accurate theory in all of science and is tested daily in labs throughout the world. This is not some idle speculation by mathematicians.

Now String Theory is currently (and possibly forever) untestable. It is, however, derived from accepted well tested theories and provides useful solutions to particular questions in physics. It is probably premature to label it a "theory" however - I tend to like to see at least some empirical testing before throwing that term around. Best to call it a "model" or "hypothesis" at this point. It is not, however, metaphysical.

 

[Remnant]

You see the RESULTS of this ‘Predicatively Accurate Theory’, isn’t that right? Just as you see the same in ‘Intelligent Design’. You can see some behavior of particles and the particles themselves in accelerators, just as you can see certain things in nature that can be attributed to God.

Metaphysics[n] the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things. So I would say that string ‘model’ or ‘hypothesis’ pretty much fits the bill, heh?

 

[w81minit]

And therefore we can, at this stage, just reject the bits of it we don't like (because they conflict with our theology) by saying that they're the result of sinful man's imperfect understanding of a fallen world while keeping the bits we happen to find useful and don't conflict with our theology, even though both are based on the same principles and method, is that what you're saying?

No. I am saying that as rational people we must determine where our authority, our cornerstone, our foundation comes from. All else is built on that. I am saying that science does a great job explaining itself. Yet regardless of how well it explains itself, it is not the authority. Instead I suborninate all of man's findings with divine truth. If it does not match divine truth, then man is in error. He must go back and reexamine what his basis for impuning divine truth is.

One way and another, we've had a few raical alterations already. One thing that doesn't tend to happen, however, is that an explanation that was discarded in the past as being incapable of covering all the evidence, is resurrected in light of new evidence. The problem is that the old evidence, which it didn't explain, is still there. Young earth creationism is an explanation that was discarded 200 years ago because it failed to explain many observations of physical geology.

I can appreciate that. I don't agree, but I understand the logic. It is sad; however that those things God asks us to take on faith, when we 'discover' things on our own that conflict with divine truth, we hold our findings superior to the divine truth. This should not be the case.

That's just an excuse. It's a way to weasel out of something you don't like. Unless you're prepared to apply that reasoning to the scientific method across the board, you're being less than honest.

It might seem that way, but that is not my intention. Lets look at an example: In a 'funhouse' you go into rooms where all you see around you is in perfect harmony with itself, yet you feel off balance and can't quite figure out why things seem off. The truth is, the house is built square and true, and the evidence you observe is perfectly in line with that; however your body indicates that gravity is pulling ou sideways instead of down in relation to the room you are in. It is because the construct is not the whole truth. It is only part of the truth. The lacking portion of the argument in Evolution and much of science as it conflicts with scripture is that we are only willing to look at the angles of the house, and the door jams, and the vertical and horizontal lines in the house. The overwhelming evidence in the house would indicate that Gravity pulls you sideways - yet when you leave the confines of that 'half truth' world, you find it was wrong all along. It was only our perception of what we saw around us. We used the best methods possible to discern the environment, they were just not adequate for the task.

All scientific explanations are theories. However, theories exist because there are facts that need explaining. The theory of evolution (variation and selection) explains the fact of evolution (descent with modification). All the hand-waving in the world about why it's OK to ignore evolution only applies to the current explanation, not the fact. Evolution happens. If you don't like the current theory, it would help to have a specific scientific reason. Otherwise the suspicion of and reluctance to accept the theories that conflict with your theology, while being perfectly happy about the ones that don't, starts to look hypocritical.

I go by scripture alone to determine how the Earth came into existence. I subordinate all things to Biblical Exegesis. In that study, we compare scripture with scripture. We have faith that it was God who inspired the writers to wrinte the very words he wished them to, to convey the very truth he wished us to hear.
If indeed we can explain away the story of YEC and Adam and Eve and the subsequent confrontation between Adam and Eve and Satan, then why did Christ need to die? Where is the fall of man? It is equally mythical or allegorical.
We need as a people less reliance on man's observations and experiences and more reliance on faith and a Christ based relationship.

 

[w81minit]

Of course, and this is what science says as well. All scientific theories are held tentatively and could be falsified at any minute. However, if we waited until something was proven beyond ANY doubt then we would know nothing at all. Even you can't be sure, 100%, that your interpretation of the Bible is absolutely accurate.

It isn't that we would know nothing at all it instead that we would be required to walk by faith, in many more things. As believers that is what we are called to do anyways.

Then we would know the truth and the Bible would be put to the test as to it's accuracy as a historical text.

And this is the crux of the issue. What makes man the authority to put God's word to the 'test'? Who is following who? Does God need man to rule, or does man need God to save him? I contend that it is the latter not the former.

When has anyone said that evolution is anything other than a theory, a theory held tentatively and open to modification or outright falsification? However, until that falsifying evidence comes to light we have to go with what the data tells us now. Man's intepretations of the evidence can be wrong, and that is why it is objectively tested through the scientific method. One person's observations could be wrong which is why science relies on repeatability of a test. We could ultimately be a program run on a galactic computer, but that shouldn't stop us from investigating our reality to the best of our ability and making theories from that investigation.

Nearly all of your peers claim it as fact.

 

[w81minit]

w81minit in post #412:
<< I am closed minded, stubborn, and completely immoveable, unless you can prove me wrong.
. . .
What matters is the blind scientist is just as much a creation as the Elephant, and in no position to refute the laws the creator established.>>
*
So where in the Bible does God command us to be closed minded, stubborn and immovable? Where did God ever say that he likes such people?
"unless you can prove me wrong"--the problem is that there is no evidence that creationists will accept.
You refer to scientists as "blind." The "blind" are the ones who refuse to use the senses that God gave them to look at the evidence.

The blind are those who put their full faith and confidence in only the senses that God gave them. They do not recognize the scripture says 'apart from faith shall no flesh be justified'. Faith has nothing to do with proving factually anything.

 

[Arikay]

W81: Although theistic evolutionists can explain it better, one view is that Adam and Eve represent every person ever born, they represent your very first sin. Thus First sin still exists, but it isn't blamed on people 6000 years ago, but it is our fault.

 

[w81minit]

Who's jumping to conclusions? Many creationists believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. Yet written history alone goes back 6100 years. So where did the 6,000 year figure come from? It isn't in Genesis, or anything else in the Bible. It was added later by unimaginative theologians who had no use for a long past.

Most YEC's believe somewhere between 10K - 13K years old. Not sure where the 6K came from. The reason for this is looking at the geneologies and histories of those in scripture. If you follow 2K years form AD and the Geneologies of Christ, there are clear ways to determine a rough historical accounting of the number of years since Adam.
*
<< I am not saying there isn't evidence to support evolution, I am saying it doesn't necessarily have to point to what E's believe it points to. Hence it is a Theory. >>
*

The word Theory is often misunderstood. In common usage, a theory is any idea, any notion. In scientific usage, a theory is a response to the evidence. In that sense, it is not clear that Creationism deserves to be called a theory. What physical evidence is Creationism a response to? While cosmologist's views about the universe are a theory, Creationism is only a fixed idea.

The bible is a text that claims it. I would call that evidence. There are other evidences, but I am not one to argue them at this point. The truth is the law of conservation of matter (if true) would require that all matter is eternal. That is an idea that goes completely contrary to scripture. This is one reason why science and Theology do not mix.
*

Are religious doctrines better than theories? The reason that there are dogmas, creeds, doctrines and theologies is that the Bible is not self-explanatory. A religious doctrine, for Bible believing Christians, is a theory about what the Bible says, an understanding about what God is trying to tell us through the Bible. I don't see how a doctrine can claim to be better than a theory.

Well, I see your point. If one does not accept that God has chosen to reveal himself through Jesus Christ and the Holy Bible, and that his word is accurate and faithfully recorded truth, then what you are left with is believing that there is nothing to believe in, because they are all men's ideas - all of them. There is no absolute authority - no cornerstone on which to build your life and the guiding principles of generations and kingdoms and countries.

What a cold and desolate place of reason that is.

 

[Amalthea]

...the law of conservation of matter...

Creationists are often shocked and are almost always insulted when they are accused of being scientifically inept. Why is this? The reason I ask this and post the above quote is because just what is the law of conservation of matter? I have never heard of it and I don't think anyone else has. Why do Creationists repeatedly dig holes for themselves and reinforce the widely held belief that they never took a science class or at least didn't pass one. It's all too predictable and funny at the same time.

 

[w81minit]

How did he prove your point?


Creationist groups are definatly biased, most have a statement of faith that all members must sign. this statement basically says that they must ignore any evidence that contradicts creationism.

Untrue. Creationists are all those who uphold the scripture as the source of absolute truth. They are those who by faith read its words and by faith pray to God for enlightenment and understanding. Who pour over the book page by page, line by line, to discover what it means and how to apply it to their lives.
There is no verse requiring you to sign a document. While there are organizations that ask members to do such a thing, it is not a requirement to be a Creationist.
I never signed anything.

 

[Arikay]

W81: the 6000 comes from Ussher, a priest who used the geneologies to calculate the age of the earth. The accuracy of these calculations is questionable, which is why some creationist groups are willing to extend the date out a bit but other creationist groups hold fast to the 6000 and include it in their statement of faith.

By conservation of matter, I assume you mean the first law of thermodyanmics, which is really the conservation of energy. This law (as with many newtonian laws) only applies to certain circumstances. Quantum mechanics has shown that in the quantum realm the law can be broken, as we see both energy and matter randomly pop in and out of existance.

 

[w81minit]

Generally its not called "belief", its "accept". Partly to get away from the "evolution is religion" strawman that creationist groups have made.
Your right, evolution isn't fact, but neither is germ theory, yet I'm sure many would argue that it's true. Something doesn't need to be a fact to be true.

I wasn't refering to evolution anyway, but to the facts and evidence that must be ignored to accept creationism.

Regardless of what you 'dub' the word (accept, believe) it is an acknowledgement of a personal reality. Just like in the Christian Faith, we acknowledge, accept, believe that Jesus is Lord. It may frustrate you that we (as Creationists) interpret you acceptance of the personal reality as faith, but it makes it no less true. Call it a Strawman if you must, but that you vehemently defend your personal reality is evidence of your 'beleive, faith, acceptance' of this personal reality.
You indicate that evidence and facts must be ignored to believe in Creationism - you have left out the possibility that the facts and evidence might be incomplete, misinterpreted, or loosely constructed with many assumptions.

 

[Amalthea]

...it is not a requirement to be a Creationist.

Just what is the requirement? Is it the making up of fake scientific laws as you did in a post above?

 

[w81minit]

That's simply false. Evolution - and everything else - is fact (or isn't fact) irrespective of who accepts it. Peopel dispute facts all the time. People dispute the holocaust...creationists dispute evolution. That doesn't do anything to prove that either of them isn't a fact.

Not to get off topic, but more to look at consistency. This isn't the same logic used when discussing absolute truth. You indicated in a previous post that certain things are not absolute, because not everyone accepts them. You are correctly pointing out in this post that your personal feelings/beliefs have nothing to do with facts. As they have nothing to do with truth. As far above Earth is the Heavens is tuth above fact.

 

[Arikay]

I think you missread my post. I said creationist groups, such as AiG, ICR, CEM, CRS, etc. All of these groups require their members, the people that write articles under the umbrella of that group, the same articles that are found on their sites, to agree with their statement of faith. Although in different words every statement of faith says that creationism is true and that the writter must ignore any evidence that disproves Young Earth creationism or any claim made in the statement of faith.
thus they are biased because they don't allow all evidence to be shown, only evidence that supports creationism.

I have links to each one of these groups statements.

Untrue. Creationists are all those who uphold the scripture as the source of absolute truth. They are those who by faith read its words and by faith pray to God for enlightenment and understanding. Who pour over the book page by page, line by line, to discover what it means and how to apply it to their lives.
There is no verse requiring you to sign a document. While there are organizations that ask members to do such a thing, it is not a requirement to be a Creationist.
I never signed anything.

 

[w81minit]

W81: Although theistic evolutionists can explain it better, one view is that Adam and Eve represent every person ever born, they represent your very first sin. Thus First sin still exists, but it isn't blamed on people 6000 years ago, but it is our fault.

If so, who does Satan and God represent?
If this account is a mere representation (allegorical) then why the names? Why the account of multiplying pain in child birth? Why the explanation of Cain and Able, Noah etc. At what point is it determined that we have moved beyond the realm of fantasy to fact? God (in Genesis chapter 5) clearly lists a geneology from Adam to Noah. What is the purpose of that?