Thinking of becoming a creationist...

[Pete Harcoff]

I was thinking... Hovind's got his dino adventure land, AiG's got their museum, ICR has... something, I'm sure... Plus, the hordes of books, videos, speaking engagements, etc, these guys do. Basically, creationism looks like a pretty lucrative racket.

So how does one get started with creationism? Write a book or two, set up a web site, that sort of thing? Or should I try to preach locally and build up a following here before I start getting bigger?

I really figure it can't be *that* hard (heck, look at Hovind). And with an est. audience of around 100+ million in North America alone, creationism is clearly a market that has not been fully tapped.

 

[Arikay]

ICR has a creationism graduate program that no doubt costs some money.

I would say write a book and setup a website and build up popularity from there.

 

[True_Blue]

Your post really doesn't do much to contribute to the debate. But I thought your quote at the bottom was very, very interesting. In a nutshell, Creationism's goal is to get people closer to God and provide hope, not to win a scientific debate (though I really like the debate).

If you are an atheist debating a Christian, there are two possibilities being considered--that you will die and nothing will hapen to you, or you will die and go to Hell for eternity. Let's assume you are almost certainly right, and the probability that hell being real is 1/1,000,000. The probability of an empty void is 999,999/1,000,000. The outcome (cost or benefit) of Hell and Heaven is infinite pain as you are burned alive for the rest of eternity, or experiencing the infinite pleasure of living in Heaven. Now 0.000001 times infinity = infinity (either infinitely bad in the case of Hell, or infinitely good in the case of Heaven). That's the economic payoff a Christian can expect from the first possibility, and the corresponding economic loss to the atheist. The second possibility is that when you die, nothing results. The probability of nothing happening when you die is assumed to be 0.999999. Now 0.999999 times nothing = 0. So the economic result an athiest can expect from his/her beliefs of the second outcome = zero.

(In previous posts, people have said this argument is flawed because there are other possibilities. True, but if there are other possibilities, then feel free to do the math and stack Christianity against those other possibilities. The fact that other situations might exist does not change the argument vis a vis Christianity and atheism.)

 

[USincognito]

What happens when a Creationist is debating a TE then?

 

[True_Blue]

I'm in the military, but despite that, I hate acronyms. Please enlighten me. What's a TE?

 

[Arikay]

so we should pick christianity because it offers us the best deal. Its like religion is a giant casino.
Oh and GA is two doors down on your left.

Creationism is a very profitable bussiness, and it's possible that some creationists are in it for the money. There are some that publish old earth papers in peer review journals and then write books about how an old earth is false and that anyone who believes its true isn't a real christian.

 

[True_Blue]

You make a good point, Arikay. No one becomes a Christian because Christianity makes good economic sense. I became a Christian when I was six by the grace of God and because I had faith. I'm demonstrating that economically, atheism is probably not a good idea... What I haven't done in that particular argument is make a positive case for why Christianity and Creationism are correct. That I've left for other posts.

 

[HRE]

True_Blue, thanks for shining the light into my life! You are absolutely right; atheism does not hedge good bets. So, I guess I'll start going to church right away! And a mosque, while I'm at it. I might as well have all my bases covered and start attending synogogue and visiting some of those Pagan temples. Can't go wrong with Zeus, right?

 

[USincognito]

I'm in the military, but despite that, I hate acronyms. Please enlighten me. What's a TE?

Sorry 'bout that... Theistic Evolutionist. The crux of your message was that Creationism is effective in evangelism, but what if you're debating evolution with a fellow Christian. Wouldn't that eviscerate a large part of your arsenal?

 

[jwu]

If you are an atheist debating a Christian, there are two possibilities being considered--that you will die and nothing will hapen to you, or you will die and go to Hell for eternity. Let's assume you are almost certainly right, and the probability that hell being real is 1/1,000,000. The probability of an empty void is 999,999/1,000,000. The outcome (cost or benefit) of Hell and Heaven is infinite pain as you are burned alive for the rest of eternity, or experiencing the infinite pleasure of living in Heaven. Now 0.000001 times infinity = infinity (either infinitely bad in the case of Hell, or infinitely good in the case of Heaven). That's the economic payoff a Christian can expect from the first possibility, and the corresponding economic loss to the atheist. The second possibility is that when you die, nothing results. The probability of nothing happening when you die is assumed to be 0.999999. Now 0.999999 times nothing = 0. So the economic result an athiest can expect from his/her beliefs of the second outcome = zero.

(In previous posts, people have said this argument is flawed because there are other possibilities. True, but if there are other possibilities, then feel free to do the math and stack Christianity against those other possibilities. The fact that other situations might exist does not change the argument vis a vis Christianity and atheism.)

What about evolutionists that also believe in Jesus as their saviour? Would taking part in a debate on the evolution side negate their salvation? There are way worse things one could do, yet they are all forgiven...
I don't quite think salvation depends on if you think that Genesis should be read literally or metaphorically (and that you stand up for your opinion).

Someone can't just choose to believe things. Either they are convinced by arguments or teachings, or they are not. You can't choose to believe in Hinduism for a minute, can you?
You can certainly pretend to do so, but you wouldn't really believe it.
So do you think that someone could get oneself a free ticket to heaven by merely pretending to believe?

jwu

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

As to the OP...creating a website is the way to go. You'll reach more ignorant people that way as opposed to writing books, plus you're automatically global.

Your post really doesn't do much to contribute to the debate.

Well, it does point out in a satirical way how creationist organizations are out to make money, even if it requires deliberate deception. It points out the distinction between the motivations behind creationism as opposed to science.

In a nutshell, Creationism's goal is to get people closer to God and provide hope,

It doesn't do that, however. The quickest way to turn off a non-believer is to tie the veracity of creationism to the veracity of Christianity or the existence of god. It might "get people closer to God" in a preaching-to-the-choir way. If you gather a bunch of people who have emotional objections to ideas like an old earth, no flood, or the evolution of species because of an unsubstantiated interpretation of a religious text and try to tell the ignorant that they actually are better than the educated, it gives them a sense of pride and comfort.

not to win a scientific debate (though I really like the debate).

There is no debate in the scientific community. Creationism has already been disproved and discarded. That's exactly why creationism's "goal" is "not to win a scientific debate"...because it cannot and its purposes are purely emotional.

If you are an atheist debating a Christian...

The debate between ideas like evolution and an old earth vs. creationism is NOT atheism vs. Christianity. So what you just wrote is not only irrelevant here, it is also a variation of Pascal's Wager, which you seem to already admit is flawed and is meaningless, so there's no point in mentioning it.

 

[Arikay]

MB: But books are a must (beyond making money) as they lend a sort of credibility to your arguments, because for some reason people think that you need to be right for them to allow you to write a book, making for a nice appeal to authority.

 

[USincognito]

You don't even have to write your own books. You just stock up on tapes of Kent's seminar, ICR books, Johnathan Well's "Icons of Evolution," Behe's "Darwin's Black Box," and other Discovery Institute books and sell 'em. You get a cut from the publishers of the books and don't even have to do any work other than some coding on your website and set up a PayPal account or cash some checks.

 

[notto]

This should help you navigate the landscape.

http://fp.bio.utk.edu/evo-eco/resources-this_semester/creationism 101.jpg

 

[Arnold_Philips]

So how many creationist luminaries do you think actually believe the tripe they spew?

 

[nalibok]

While its obviously possible for a Christian to believe in evolution, it is contradictory, and the person definitely does not know how to interpret the bible.
Genesis 1-11 is clearly written as a historical narrative and there's no way to get around that. Jesus quoted from Genesis numerous times and believed in a literal Adam and Eve:
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
- Matthew 19:4-6

Genesis 1 is clearly talking about 6 literal 24 hour days. The meaning of any word is determined by its context.

The ‘Days’ of Genesis 1

What does the Bible tell us about the meaning of ‘day’ in Genesis 1? A word can have more than one meaning, depending on the context.

For instance, the English word ‘day’ can have perhaps 14 different meanings. For example, consider the following sentence: ‘Back in my

father’s day, it took ten days to drive across the Australian Outback during the day.’ Here the first occurrence of ‘day’ means ‘time’ in a general

sense. The second ‘day,’ where a number is used, refers to an ordinary day, and the third refers to the daylight portion of the 24-hour period.

The point is that words can have more than one meaning, depending on the context.

To understand the meaning of ‘day’ in Genesis 1, we need to determine how the Hebrew word for ‘day,’ yom, is used in the context of Scripture.

Consider the following:

• A typical concordance will illustrate that yom can have a range of meanings: a period of light as contrasted to night; a 24-hour period; time; a

specific point of time; or a year.

• A classical, well-respected Hebrew-English lexicon8 (a one-way dictionary) has seven headings and many subheadings for the meaning of

yom—but it defines the Creation Days of Genesis 1 as ordinary days under the heading ‘day as defined by evening and morning.’

• A number and the phrase ‘evening and morning’ are used for each of the six Days of Creation (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31).

• Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 410 times, and each time it means an ordinary day.9 Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?

10

• Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word ‘evening’ or ‘morning’11 23 times. ‘Evening’ and ‘morning’ appear in association, but without

yom, 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?12

• In Genesis 1:5, yom occurs in context with the word ‘night.’ Outside of Genesis 1, ‘night’ is used with yom 53 times—and each time it

means an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception? Even the usage of the word ‘light’ with yom in this passage determines

the meaning as ordinary day.13

• The plural of yom, which does not appear in Genesis 1, can be used to communicate a longer time period, e.g. ‘in those days.’14 Adding

a number here would be nonsensical. Clearly, in Exodus 20:11, where a number is used with ‘days,’ it unambiguously refers to six Earthrotation

days.

• There are words in Biblical Hebrew (such as olam or qedem) that are very suitable for communicating long periods of time, or indefinite

time, but none of these words are used in Genesis 1.15 Alternatively, the days or years could have been compared with grains of sand if long

periods were meant.

Dr James Barr (Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University), who himself does not believe Genesis is true history, nonetheless admitted as

far as the language of Genesis 1 is concerned that:

So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1–11

intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now

experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later

stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s Flood was understood to be worldwide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.16

In like manner, 19th-century liberal Professor Marcus Dods, New College, Edinburgh, said:

4 If, for example, the word ‘day’ in these chapters does not mean a period of twenty-four hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless.17
****
Besides all this, there's not one shred of evidence for evolution. All the evolutionists arguments have been soundly refuted by Answers in Genesis and other good creation scientists. If you're not too afraid it will change your life, you can find all you need to know at AnswersinGenesis.org. You don't even need to buy their helpful books or videos.

 

[Amalthea]

While its obviously possible for a Christian to believe in evolution, it is contradictory, and the person definitely does not know how to interpret the bible.

According to you. Exactly what theological qualification allows you to unequivocally state this?

Besides all this, there's not one shred of evidence for evolution.

Is this your throwaway line. A succint statement from authority. As above, what is your qualification for this sweeping announcement?

All the evolutionists arguments have been soundly refuted by Answers in Genesis and other good creation scientists. If you're not too afraid it will change your life, you can find all you need to know at AnswersinGenesis.org.

AIG have never refuted anything except their own integrity and scholarship. Isn't a good creation scientist an oxymoron, are they not a bunch of ex-scientists or never-have-been-scientists messing around in areas they usually don't understand and never have researched in?

 

[Ondoher]

Besides all this, there's not one shred of evidence for evolution. All the evolutionists arguments have been soundly refuted by Answers in Genesis and other good creation scientists. If you're not too afraid it will change your life, you can find all you need to know at AnswersinGenesis.org. You don't even need to buy their helpful books or videos.

Evidence for evolution unrefuted by any creationist site:

• Taxonomy: nested hierarchy of species
• Genetic: endogenous retroviruses shared by humans and chimpanzees.
• Fossil: Archaeopteryx lithographica, Ambulocetus natans, Homo ergaster and Pederpes finneyae.
• Inefficient anatomical homoligies: recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes.
• Geology: biostratification.
• Atavisms: the occasional human tail.
• Statistical: highly convergent phylogenies drawn from independant cladistic analysis of molecular and morphological data.

 

[Arikay]

Hey look, a basically off topic post by someone who obviously hasn't taken even a second to search the board or do any research of their own, who didn't even bother to take the time to write most their own post but stole it from AiG* and most likely wont be back to read any of the replies.





*http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/answersbook/sixdays2.asp

 

[USincognito]

Hey look, a basically off topic post by someone who obviously hasn't taken even a second to search the board or do any research of their own, who didn't even bother to take the time to write most their own post but stole it from AiG* and most likely wont be back to read any of the replies.

i.e. Your run of the mill first post by a Creationist newbie...