What else do you believe? (Creationists only please)

[MercyGrace]

I am a young earth creationist.

I find it insulting that someone would set up a poll linking belief in creationism with believing our government leaders are aliens.

I've been around creationists all my life, and NONE of them believed the earth was flat, the Holocaust never happened, or aliens walk among us. Some DO believe (as I do) that "global warming" is just a cyclical and normal pattern and some are reluctant to give their babies all the innoculations that hospitals now insist are necessary, but no one denies that innoculations have been absolutely instrumental in stopping certain horrible diseases.

The assumption that creationists must be knuckle-dragging, uneducated, conspiracy-driven nincompoops is a sad caricature and an unfair stereotype.

 

[theFijian]

Eve did sin. If she did not she would not have received the penalty for sins and the extra pains of childbirth and a more oppressive relationship with her husband that were given her.

I'm not saying Eve didn't sin. My question is: Are we sinners because of Adam's sin, Eve's sin, or the sin of both of them. In short: Who is our Federal Head? When I read the passage in Romans 5 pertaining to Original Sin which mark helpfully quoted I see only references to Adam.

Because she defied her husband and was easily led astray and deceived he will dominate her. Because she ate the apple she will die.

She didn't 'defy' her husband, she defied God since the prohibition was his not Adam's.

 

[mindlight]

I'm not saying Eve didn't sin. My question is: Are we sinners because of Adam's sin, Eve's sin, or the sin of both of them. In short: Who is our Federal Head? When I read the passage in Romans 5 pertaining to Original Sin which mark helpfully quoted I see only references to Adam.



She didn't 'defy' her husband, she defied God since the prohibition was his not Adam's.

There is no evidence that God ever spoke to Eve directly about this.
It is possible that Adam communicated this to her instead.
This would explain the slightly stricter phrase she used as opposed to what God actually said. E.g do not eat ... And do not touch it...

In which case the relationship with her husband is crucial to understanding why Eve sinned. She did not really understand why she should not eat. The serpent sounded reasonable and she went with his deception.
By disobeying her husband she was
Disobeying God but the relationship with her husbandd is the key here and it is this which is adversely affected by Gods judgment on her.

Adam loved his wife and his oneness with her was a powerful reason for his sin.but he should have listened to God andif he had remained faithful I wonder what would have happened. Would God have restored her or still let her die. Was it this that Adam. Could not handle. Did he think it would better to be doomed with the woman he loved than to watch her die? Either wayhis sin has wrecked everything and was a direct defiance of God.

But his wife not he brought sin into the world and rather than exercising redemptive headship and seeing her reconciled to God he went with her sin.

But Christ by his obedience is able to save not only Adam but the church his bride. Perhaps this is the model of what Adam should have done by Gods grace. But would that have made Adam and not Jesus our redeemer?

 

[theFijian]

There is no evidence that God ever spoke to Eve directly about this.

Irrelevant. Eve defied God because she broke his prohibition, not Adam's.

It is possible that Adam communicated this to her instead.
This would explain the slightly stricter phrase she used as opposed to what God actually said. E.g do not eat ... And do not touch it...

In which case the relationship with her husband is crucial to understanding why Eve sinned. She did not really understand why she should not eat. The serpent sounded reasonable and she went with his deception.
By disobeying her husband she was
Disobeying God but the relationship with her husbandd is the key here and it is this which is adversely affected by Gods judgment on her.

Adam loved his wife and his oneness with her was a powerful reason for his sin.but he should have listened to God andif he had remained faithful I wonder what would have happened. Would God have restored her or still let her die. Was it this that Adam. Could not handle. Did he think it would better to be doomed with the woman he loved than to watch her die? Either wayhis sin has wrecked everything and was a direct defiance of God.

But his wife not he brought sin into the world and rather than exercising redemptive headship and seeing her reconciled to God he went with her sin.

But Christ by his obedience is able to save not only Adam but the church his bride. Perhaps this is the model of what Adam should have done by Gods grace. But would that have made Adam and not Jesus our redeemer?

If Adam had managed to obey perfectly, then there would have been no Sin. As you say Christ by his perfect obedience and his righteousness is imputed to us, just as Adam's sin is imputed to us through his headship (Romans 5). Which is my point for asking, Are we sinners because of Adam? or Adam and Eve? Scripture says Adam.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I've been around creationists all my life, and NONE of them believed the earth was flat, the Holocaust never happened, or aliens walk among us. Some DO believe (as I do) that "global warming" is just a cyclical and normal pattern and some are reluctant to give their babies all the innoculations that hospitals now insist are necessary, but no one denies that innoculations have been absolutely instrumental in stopping certain horrible diseases.

The assumption that creationists must be knuckle-dragging, uneducated, conspiracy-driven nincompoops is a sad caricature and an unfair stereotype.

On the contrary. I've long suspected that simply believing in one unconventional idea doesn't mean you believe in all unconventional ideas. In other words being a Creationist doesn't automatically mean you believe the Earth is flat / vaccinations don't work / the holocaust was a lie.
However this doesn't just apply to Creationists. In other words I think people who think vaccinations are dangerous don't necessarily think the world is flat. The people who think the holocaust was a hoax might widely embrace the idea of climate change. Conspiracy theorists probably think Creationism is laughable.

I haven't got as many answered as I hoped. I'll bring this down to the Society section later.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

EDIT: I just read your last post, and I hope that your goal here isn't to mock Creationists. At any rate, none of those things are closely correlated with Creationism (with the possible demographic overlap between Young Earth Creationists and people who don't believe in global warming), and holocaust denial seems like something that most Christians definitely wouldn't jump on board with.

 

[miamited]

Hi all,

Yes, I must agree that this poll seems strangely tilted to make creationists out to be idiots. Could be wrong, but I'm sure she'll clear it up for us soon.

God bless you all
In Christ, Ted

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I just read your last post, and I hope that your goal here isn't to mock Creationists.

Yes, I must agree that this poll seems strangely tilted to make creationists out to be idiots. Could be wrong, but I'm sure she'll clear it up for us soon.

Don't worry, I'm not interested at laughing at Creationists. The poll was just to see if Creationists were more inclined to believe other unconventional beliefs. Maybe they're not - that's why I added the "None of the Above" option.

 

[Biblewriter]

Don't worry, I'm not interested at laughing at Creationists. The poll was just to see if Creationists were more inclined to believe other unconventional beliefs. Maybe they're not - that's why I added the "None of the Above" option.

Your inclusion of global warming in this poll only shows your prejudice. The truth is that while over 200 "scientists" signed a statement endorsing the doctrine of human caused global warming, there was no vetting of these alleged "scientists." Yet the media has wholly ignored the fact more than thirty thousand scientists have signed an opposing statement rejecting this same doctrine. To even be included in this list, every scientist had to present his or her credentials, and if the proof did not check out, they were not included. This opposing list included more certified experts in weather and climatology than the total number of non-certified "scientists" in the list of those supporting the doctrine.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Your inclusion of global warming in this poll only shows your prejudice. The truth is that while over 200 "scientists" signed a statement endorsing the doctrine of human caused global warming, there was no vetting of these alleged "scientists." Yet the media has wholly ignored the fact more than thirty thousand scientists have signed an opposing statement rejecting this same doctrine. To even be included in this list, every scientist had to present his or her credentials, and if the proof did not check out, they were not included. This opposing list included more certified experts in weather and climatology than the total number of non-certified "scientists" in the list of those supporting the doctrine.

There are some real problems with the 31,000 signature project. The breakdown of its signers included only 40 climatologists, 341 meteorologists, and 114 atmospheric scientists. The other people who signed were not actively involved in a field related to the climate (with a handful of possible exceptions from fields like earth science and from other fields that might involve a high level of knowledge about the climate). It would be a lot more interesting to see a project that included only scientists involved in a related field and surveyed them about whether they did or didn't agree with climate change.

Edit:

Posting a link to the actual petition site, rather than a third party blog; scroll down and you can see the break down by individual profession:

http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

 

[miamited]

Hi globalwolf,

Perhaps you posted the incorrect site link.

According to the one that you posted there were over 3800 signatories involved ii atmospheric, environmental and earth sciences. A further breakdown of that group shows that, yes 39 were climatologists. However, in this issue I don't think just being a climatologist necessarily comes as the only science field that covers global warming. Another 112 were studied in the atmospheric sciences. Surely this field overlaps a lot of the climatology science. And a whopping 343 were meteorologists. Yes, I know those are just weathermen, but they've surely had some training in climate changes. So it's not exactly like they asked plumbers how to change the brakes on a car.

I can also produce a list of thousands of scientists who support the some sort of evolutionary theory. Doesn't make it true either.

While you have our attention what was the breakdown of speciality among the 200 signers who believed that global warming was a real event? After all, if we're going to breakdown what speciality signed one document and use that infomation to refute the authority of that document shouldn't a fair sampling also insist on the same information among the other document signers?

It's never a good idea to argue with facts that are only applied to half the issue. Of course, I'm not one to worry much about global warming even if it is a real phenomenom. I already know how the end will come about and who wins. Read Revelation 19 beginning in verse 11.


God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi globalwolf,

Ok, so out of 31,000 signers we have about 500 who are studying some field of atmospheric science. That is still 500 to 200. Now how many ofthe 200 were in the atmospheric sciences? If you're going to use this argument to knock down the validity of he claim, then you have to prove that your sampling meets some stricter criteria. Otherwise I can say, "Well, let's see, that's just under 2% of the total signatoies that were involved in some sort of atmoshpheric science. If I apply that same percentae to the 200, well, gosh golly gee there may have only been 3 in the group of the 200 signatories.

What are the facts to support this argument? And keep in mind that even if half of the 200 (100) were involved in atmospheric science fields the total would still stand at 500 to 100. Still a very wide gap between those who believe and those who don't even within the very field of atmospheric sciences and a short count even at that.

BTW, I don't worry about climate change even if it is real. I already know how the story ends. I know that in the end God will destroy the wicked and those who are to receive His promise; those whose names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life will be upon the earth and it will then last forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and then forever after that. I don't really concern myself much with the science of men choosing rather to trust in the truth of God.

God bless you.
in Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

ooooops! Sorry for a lot of the duplication in the above two posts. My post rolled over to a new page and I thougt it hadn't posted so I reposted, although the second post says it more to the point.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

The site that I got the information off of (the one that I had originally linked to before linking to the petition site itself) might have had a slightly older list of the statistics, but it still sounds about the same. I was just pointing out that the number of individuals involved in atmospheric sciences who signed the petition was less than a thousand, so 31,000 signatures was less impressive than the petition's organizer makes it out to be. I'm not saying that the opinions of those who did sign are unimportant, just that the petition was overly broad in the scope of fields who were allowed to sign it.

At any rate, I think that climate change is something that I can agree to disagree with people on. It's not something that I concern myself about too much either, actually.

 

[Biblewriter]

There are some real problems with the 31,000 signature project. The breakdown of its signers included only 40 climatologists, 341 meteorologists, and 114 atmospheric scientists. The other people who signed were not actively involved in a field related to the climate (with a handful of possible exceptions from fields like earth science and from other fields that might involve a high level of knowledge about the climate). It would be a lot more interesting to see a project that included only scientists involved in a related field and surveyed them about whether they did or didn't agree with climate change.

Edit:

Posting a link to the actual petition site, rather than a third party blog; scroll down and you can see the break down by individual profession:

Global Warming Petition Project

You are avoiding the central point, which is that there was zero vetting of the 200 "scientists" in the original group, while all the 31,000 opposing scientists were vetted, and nearly 500 of these were experts in fields directly related to the question at hand.

 

[Papias]

Biblewriter wrote:

You are avoiding the central point, which is that there was zero vetting of the 200 "scientists" in the original group, while all the 31,000 opposing scientists were vetted, and nearly 500 of these were experts in fields directly related to the question at hand.

Um, help me out here. I looked at the link, and it seems that the only qualification needed was being willing to check a box next to "degree". "Vetting" would be using an outside source to determine their degree, which I didn't see described on the web page. No doubt it's there, I'm just asking for it to be pointed out.

While I don't generally discuss climate change much, and have no intention of getting into details, I'm surprised anyone is arguing that most climatologists agree that climate change is occurring. There have been plenty of studies that have shown this. One that comes to mind is STATS, here:

Survey Tracks Scientists' Growing Climate Concern - US News and World Report

which supports (like other sources of information) the idea that a strong majority of actual atmospheric scientists are convinced by the evidence that global climate change is real.

Papias

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Biblewriter wrote:


Um, help me out here. I looked at the link, and it seems that the only qualification needed was being willing to check a box next to "degree". "Vetting" would be using an outside source to determine their degree, which I didn't see described on the web page. No doubt it's there, I'm just asking for it to be pointed out.

It says on their page regarding how the project is circulated that they have someone check to verify the singer's identity and evaluate their credentials before they add them to the list.

Global Warming Petition Project

 

[Papias]

Globalwolf -

Yes, I read that. I don't think it really says much of anything. Specifically, this is what it says:

Petition project volunteers evaluate each signers's credentials, verify signer identities, and, if appropriate, add the signer's name to the petition list.

But it doesn't explain any of that. For instance - what does "evaluate" credentials mean? It is just looking at them, and saying "yep, looks like he checked the PhD box.", or what? The right way to do that would be to contact the University that gave them the degree, and have them verify it, but they can't be doing that because the form doesn't give that information (see the home page). So I'm left wondering why they refuse to explain their unsupported claims - something I see too often in fake advertising.

Similarly "verify signer identities". What's that mean? Look them up in a phone book? OK, but what if they are a real person who lied about their degree? What if they put down the real name of someone else? This one seems both vague, and more importantly, irrelevant if the credentials aren't tested by contacting the University.

Opposed to this are the many published and documented studies were the methodology is clear, and the results always show strong majorities of the experts in the field are in support of anthropogenic climate change, as are all relevant scientific societies, encompassing literally dozens of thousands of scientists. I've linked to one, and can to many more.

Thanks for the quick reply-

Papias

 

[Biblewriter]

Globalwolf -

Yes, I read that. I don't think it really says much of anything. Specifically, this is what it says:

Petition project volunteers evaluate each signers's credentials, verify signer identities, and, if appropriate, add the signer's name to the petition list.

But it doesn't explain any of that. For instance - what does "evaluate" credentials mean? It is just looking at them, and saying "yep, looks like he checked the PhD box.", or what? The right way to do that would be to contact the University that gave them the degree, and have them verify it, but they can't be doing that because the form doesn't give that information (see the home page). So I'm left wondering why they refuse to explain their unsupported claims - something I see too often in fake advertising.

Similarly "verify signer identities". What's that mean? Look them up in a phone book? OK, but what if they are a real person who lied about their degree? What if they put down the real name of someone else? This one seems both vague, and more importantly, irrelevant if the credentials aren't tested by contacting the University.

Opposed to this are the many published and documented studies were the methodology is clear, and the results always show strong majorities of the experts in the field are in support of anthropogenic climate change, as are all relevant scientific societies, encompassing literally dozens of thousands of scientists. I've linked to one, and can to many more.

Thanks for the quick reply-

Papias

You are neglecting the leaked e-mails that prove conspiracy, both to hide known data that did not support the theory, and to blackball any publications that carried opposing conclusions.

The behavior of the scientists that support global warming is very like the pattern that we creationists have observed for many years from the evolutionists.

Both camps (global warming alarmists and evolutionists) claim that essentially all real scientists support their theories (which is not true,) actively work to marginalize anyone who dares to question their dogma, attempt to forcibly suppress the publication of any opposing views, and ignore (and sometimes actively work to suppress) evidence that they themselves know about that does not support their theory.

 

[Edial]

Closed as per OP request.