When does "Creationism" fail?

[Assyrian]

I look them this way, and I think it is true based on my personal experience:

They just thrown out the questions. They do not have the intention and the time to continue the debate. Their target of audience is not the scientific public, but the general church public, and, may be the politicians.

True.

 

[PaladinValer]

The politians? Oh I'd absolutely agree there, spot on. I'm just grateful that our courts are intelligent enough to accept the fact that these folks are doing nothing more than dressing up Creation to look acceptable yet in the end, it is Creationism all the same (be it called Creation "Science" or "Intelligent Design").

Science cannot deduce a foreign intelligence such as God because it is out of its testable reach. ID is therefore psuedoscience.

 

[vossler]

So we have one vote of "I never let the truth get in the way of bad theology." Thank you Vossler, it is refreshing to see a creationist admit that creationism was never about truth at all.

I'm happy I was able to 'refresh' you, that's more than I could have ever hoped for.

 

[vossler]

And what are your qualifications for deciding that any part of the science you know nothing of is based solely on conjecture and speculation?

I have eyes that see, ears that hear and the brain God gave me to interpret it. I think that's all that is required. Am I suppose to have an all-knowing psychic scientist at my disposal too?

Do you just dismiss everything in science that disagrees with your interpretation of scripture as "conjecture and speculation" even though there are reams of supporting evidence for it?

No, just the stuff that require me to use my imagination.

Or do you have a more objective criterion for deciding when science is really based on evidence and when it is only conjecture and speculation?

I'm not too picky, only when that which is being purported as the truth can be empirically shown.

 

[gluadys]

I have eyes that see, ears that hear and the brain God gave me to interpret it.

But, when it comes to science, do you actually use them?

No, just the stuff that require me to use my imagination.

If you paid more attention to the evidence, there would be less work for your imagination. And you would see a lot less "conjecture and speculation".

 

[vossler]

But, when it comes to science, do you actually use them?

I'm sure most here would say no.

If you paid more attention to the evidence, there would be less work for your imagination. And you would see a lot less "conjecture and speculation".

The thing is when you're handicapped into accepting what someone says to be the truth because this person is an 'expert' it's no different than blind faith. I don't like to put my faith in man and his ideas, he certainly doesn't have a very good track record.

 

[hithesh]

I'm sure most here would so no.
The thing is when you're handicapped into accepting what someone says to be the truth because this person is an 'expert' it's no different than blind faith. I don't like to put my faith in man and his ideas, he certainly doesn't have a very good track record.

Well, it seems stange that you say "handicapped", I think you can see that most of the TEs here, do not go around saying, "this "expert said this" so therefore it must be true. We explore the observations, if they do not fit, we inquire, even when it comes from YE scientist, most of TEs here take the time to explore these claims.

Yes, I can ignore every observations, and take the Genesis account at face-value, but the Bible does not tell you to do so, and if I did do so, it's because some "theological" expert told me to do so?

I don't recall the Word telling me to count back the lineage of David, to figure out the age of the earth, these supposed experts did, and if I followed them just because of their authority, then would that not be "blind faith"?

Science does not conflict with my beliefs, if the world was 10,000 years old, or a few billions years old, my faith does not change a wink.

Perhaps you need to figure out what it means to follow blindly.

People follow blindly when they have the answer, before the question is asked, I ask questions continually.

 

[vossler]

Well, it seems stange that you say "handicapped", I think you can see that most of the TEs here, do not go around saying, "this "expert said this" so therefore it must be true.

I don't know about that, TEs are notorious for quoting other experts even though most of you see yourselves as experts already.

Yes, I can ignore every observations, and take the Genesis account at face-value, but the Bible does not tell you to do so, and if I did do so, it's because some "theological" expert told me to do so?

That's the whole point, each of us can decide for ourselves just what we choose to take at face-value. Now if I can choose which parts are applicable or how to interpret them according to my own ideas then very little of it begins to have any value at all.

I don't recall the Word telling me to count back the lineage of David, to figure out the age of the earth, these supposed experts did, and if I followed them just because of their authority, then would that not be "blind faith"?

If my sister was able to determine our family lineage back 14 generations are you saying that I shouldn't look to this as a source for when that first generation lived?

Perhaps you need to figure out what it means to follow blindly.

Thanks, but trust me I already know.

 

[gluadys]

I'm sure most here would say no.
The thing is when you're handicapped into accepting what someone says to be the truth because this person is an 'expert' it's no different than blind faith. I don't like to put my faith in man and his ideas, he certainly doesn't have a very good track record.

Don't be silly. You are always putting your trust in man and his ideas. You trust your mechanic's ideas when your car needs fixing. You trust your accountant's ideas when you make financial decisions. You trust your dentist's ideas when your teeth ache. And you trust David Cooper's ideas on reading scripture.

What makes trusting a scientist's ideas any different?

The fact is that if you choose to do so, you can check out the validity of the scientist's ideas just as you can check out the validity of the mechanic's, accountant's or dentist's ideas. I don't know that you can check out the validity of David Cooper's ideas. Trusting his view of how to read scripture seems to me to be blind faith indeed.

 

[hithesh]

I don't know about that, TEs are notorious for quoting other experts even though most of you see yourselves as experts already.

Now if I can choose which parts are applicable or how to interpret them according to my own ideas then very little of it begins to have any value at all.

Well, I see the whole concept of viewing Genesis as literal, as a bit contrived. It's puzzling to see that some believers cannot distinguish from a symbolic allegorical account, from a literal account, and the literal account falls quite on it's face when examined closely.

Where does the bible say that bacteria only came into existence after the fall? Did Noah really squeeze two of every 350,000 species of beatles into his ark? The literalist jumps through loops and holes to hold his interpretation together, and when one string is undone the whole thing falls apart.

On another note:
It seems quite curious to me that these supposed individuals who take Genesis literally, can also believe in pre-tribulation rapture, even though Jesus says the wheat and weeds grow together to the end of time? So who is choosing which parts to believe in and which part not to? Apparently you and your kin don't take Jesus post-tribulation account literally, so who is picking and choosing here?

The literalist has to distort the evidence and claim the dinosaurs and man coexisted, and I'm curious as to find out how this position, distinguishes itself from the position of "flat-earthers"?

The flat-earthers have numerous scripture references to back up their position, could they not make the claim that your belief in a round earth, is "blind-faith"?

Apparenly you (even if you do not admit) are well aware that the passages flat-earthers quote in their defense, is allegorical. Genesis has a similar quality to it, that shows allegory not actual events.

 

[busterdog]

What makes trusting a scientist's ideas any different?

The fact is that if you choose to do so, you can check out the validity of the scientist's ideas just as you can check out the validity of the mechanic's, accountant's or dentist's ideas.

Because scientists are not experts on origins. God is. The dentist is not telling me who my spiritual father, how I was created or why I need redemption.

And there is always the question of whether one avails oneself of the dentist by trusting in the strength of man rather than being lead by God. Even with dentists, trusting the Lord is still our first requirement. Maybe God leads to the dentist. Few pause to find out such things.

 

[Deamiter]

Because scientists are not experts on origins. God is. The dentist is not telling me who my spiritual father, how I was created or why I need redemption.

And there is always the question of whether avails oneself of the dentist by trusting in the strength of man rather than being lead by God. Even with dentists, trusting the Lord is still our first requirement. Maybe God leads to the dentist. Few pause to find out such things.

Of course, God is not the one interpreting Genesis so it makes no sense to contrast God with scientists. You're trusting your favorite theologian (who presumably has amazing insight into exactly which passages were meant to be taken in what way) over scientists who constantly gather new data to test and retest their own research and the research of others.

This whole, "the Bible says so" is as always utterly useless as the Bible also clearly states that Jesus is a vine and a door (and no these aren't identified as parables any more than Genesis 1 is). Even creationists use common sense to establish when something is symbolic or allegorical (i.e. when it doesn't fit with reality like Jesus being a wooden door). You've just been taught that it is heresy to apply the same common sense to Genesis.

 

[Assyrian]

My dentist talks to me about insurance plans, flossing and root canals. When my children go to the dentist there are posters up with smiling molars holding toothbrushes 'Timmy Tooth brushes every day'. Is my child's dentist less professional or does she know less about teeth?

Sure God knows more about origins, but do we know if we have been given the bicuspid version or are we reading Timmy Tooth?

 

[gluadys]

Because scientists are not experts on origins. God is. The dentist is not telling me who my spiritual father, how I was created or why I need redemption.

Nor is the scientist telling me who my spiritual father is or why I need redemption. The scientist cannot tell me I am made in the image of God or even what that means, but that doesn't prevent the scientist from describing my development from a fertilized egg to an adult human being. So the scientist can tell me, on a limited basis, how I was created. There is really no difference in the quality of the science that traces embryological development and that which traces evolutionary development or cosmological development.

And there is always the question of whether one avails oneself of the dentist by trusting in the strength of man rather than being lead by God. Even with dentists, trusting the Lord is still our first requirement. Maybe God leads to the dentist. Few pause to find out such things.

Maybe God leads to the dentist, but it is still the dentist's advice you rely on. You have no way of knowing whether that advice has God's seal of approval. All you can check out is the reputation of the dentist and verify that s/he is using standard procedures recognized by the Dental Association as appropriate and effective.

And maybe God also leads the scientist to correct conclusions about origins of the created world through the study of the created world. Is that any more farfetched than a dentist learning about teeth by studying teeth?

What riles me is the all-too-prevalent attitude (in this case expressed by vossler) that one can wave away the work of many lifetimes, cross-checked and cross-referenced in numerous ways, as a vast will-o-the wisp of imaginative speculation when one has made no effort whatsoever to learn any of it.

I am not talking about becoming a professional scientist. God knows I am not one and have no calling in that direction. But IMO it is fundamentally dishonest to disclaim sufficient interest to even learn the basics and then presume to know that it is all "conjecture and speculation". One's avowed ignorance and lack of interest means one has no right to come to that conclusion. It is sheer laziness compounded with prejudice.

Contrast that with laptoppop's valiant effort to understand the evidence from a creationist point of view. Although IMO it is a futile and wasted effort, it is at least a genuine effort to understand, and I can respect that. But if one doesn't have the decency to at least try and understand the science, the only honest stance is to shut up about it, not make claims you have already admitted you have no qualifications to make.

 

[vossler]

Don't be silly. You are always putting your trust in man and his ideas. You trust your mechanic's ideas when your car needs fixing. You trust your accountant's ideas when you make financial decisions. You trust your dentist's ideas when your teeth ache. And you trust David Cooper's ideas on reading scripture.

What makes trusting a scientist's ideas any different?

C'mon by now I'd think you would know the answer to that.

Man's ideas are perfectly fine for most of the things you mentioned. They don't affect my standing with God. Trusting a scientist who's telling me something not only contrary to the Bible, but also unable to clearly show me evidence of is just plain foolishness.

The fact is that if you choose to do so, you can check out the validity of the scientist's ideas just as you can check out the validity of the mechanic's, accountant's or dentist's ideas. I don't know that you can check out the validity of David Cooper's ideas. Trusting his view of how to read scripture seems to me to be blind faith indeed.

I've checked out all the pertinent data and found it terribly lacking, like I said nothing there but conjecture and speculation.

The validity of God's Word is foundational to who I am and can never be challenged, at least not via ideas clearly contrary to it.

 

[vossler]

Well, I see the whole concept of viewing Genesis as literal, as a bit contrived. It's puzzling to see that some believers cannot distinguish from a symbolic allegorical account, from a literal account, and the literal account falls quite on it's face when examined closely.

That's the beauty of how God made us. We're each able to evaluate and assess what's put before us and then make a decision. Most will be wrong, but some will be right and it won't be until we're home before it is known to all who was right.

Where does the bible say that bacteria only came into existence after the fall? Did Noah really squeeze two of every 350,000 species of beatles into his ark? The literalist jumps through loops and holes to hold his interpretation together, and when one string is undone the whole thing falls apart.

I'm not a literalist and I don't know of a single person who is, so maybe you should find someone who fits this description who is able to answer this question for you.

It seems quite curious to me that these supposed individuals who take Genesis literally, can also believe in pre-tribulation rapture, even though Jesus says the wheat and weeds grow together to the end of time? So who is choosing which parts to believe in and which part not to? Apparently you and your kin don't take Jesus post-tribulation account literally, so who is picking and choosing here?

It really shouldn't be so curious. Scripture takes on many different forms and I believe in all of them, not extra-biblical 'evidence' that contradicts Scripture. The choice is one for each of us to make; what and whom will you believe? I've made my choice and you've made yours. Your appear comfortable with yours and I'm certainly comfortable with mine.

As for my kin, well unfortunately most of them couldn't tell you pre-tribulation from post-tribulation or much of anything else in the Bible.

The flat-earthers have numerous scripture references to back up their position, could they not make the claim that your belief in a round earth, is "blind-faith"?

Homosexuals have numerous Scripture references to back up their claims too. Almost anyone with an agenda can do likewise.

 

[Assyrian]

Gosh that almost sounds, what is the word? relativist.

It really shouldn't be so curious. Scripture takes on many different forms and I believe in all of them, not extra-biblical 'evidence' that contradicts Scripture.

You mean like you don't think extra-biblical evidence for, say, a round earth and heliocentrism contradict scripture because you believe scripture is written in a different form. Then again, we don't think evolution and geological ages contradict scripture because scripture was written in a different form...

But wait, that means no one is talking about extra-biblical evidence contradicting scripture...

 

[artybloke]

target of audience is not the scientific public, but the general church public, and, may be the politicians.

Of course it is. The general church public and politicians, who generally know nothing of science, are so much easier to deceive than the scientists who know what they're talking about and can argue intelligently back.

 

[gluadys]

C'mon by now I'd think you would know the answer to that.

Indeed I do. There is no difference. If I have reservations about my doctor's opinion, I can go and get a second opinion. Same with a mechanic, a lawyer, a contractor or a scientist or a theologian. But when the second and the third and the fourth opinion all agree with the first opinion, then I have to consider it seriously.

Man's ideas are perfectly fine for most of the things you mentioned. They don't affect my standing with God.

But it is man's idea (yours or your teachers) that anything in science affects your standing with God. Nothing in a science text has any power to affect your standing with God.

Trusting a scientist who's telling me something not only contrary to the Bible, but also unable to clearly show me evidence of is just plain foolishness.

You have not shown that the scientist is telling you something contrary to the bible. Not any more contrary than a spherical and moving earth.

And the scientist is able to show you the evidence on which his conclusions are based.

I've checked out all the pertinent data and found it terribly lacking, like I said nothing there but conjecture and speculation.

Be specific. Give us an example of the pertinent data you found terribly lacking.

The validity of God's Word is foundational to who I am and can never be challenged, at least not via ideas clearly contrary to it.

Same here. The difference is that I do not find an old earth or evolution clearly contrary to God's Word or to the scriptures when interpreted in the light of God's Word.

 

[vossler]

You mean like you don't think extra-biblical evidence for, say, a round earth and heliocentrism contradict scripture because you believe scripture is written in a different form.

Unlike you, I'm not hung up on this issue, never was. First of all it never was a doctrinal issue and that in and of itself should keep it from being brought up today. Yet obviously this is a big issue for you because you never fail to raise it as a defense. Did someone try to teach these things to you when you were young? Did that contribute to you no longer believing Genesis?