Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[stevil]

I
I said something to the order of:

"Welcome to Creation 101. This is creationism as I see it. You're going to get some deep theology here, and I'm sure some of you are going to disagree with me, which is your prerogative. Feel free to do so. But be assured, I'm teaching this class, and if you don't pass my tests, I'll fail you."

I'm not sure other Creationists would like the "This is creationism as I see it." bit, it seems to defeat the whole purpose of being a fundamental Creationist.

But then again, I'm not a Creationist so what would I know.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure other Creationists would like the "This is creationism as I see it." bit, it seems to defeat the whole purpose of being a fundamental Creationist.

But then again, I'm not a Creationist so what would I know.

Then go take someone else's class.

But be assured, you'd better give them the answers they're looking for, or they'll flunk you.

Or at least they should.

Same for me if I took Mormonism 101 and wanted to argue with their final exams.

I've had classes in Astronomy, Oceanography, and an introductory course in Space Technology; and I can assure you, whether I agreed with them or not, I'd better have given them the answers they're looking for, or I just wasted six weeks (apiece) for nothing.

 

[SelfSim]

.I've had classes in Astronomy, Oceanography, and an introductory course in Space Technology; and I can assure you, whether I agreed with them or not, I'd better have given them the answers they're looking for, or I just wasted six weeks (apiece) for nothing.

Was that during your (at least) 3 weeks at college too?

 

[AV1611VET]

Was that during your (at least) 3 weeks at college too?

Maybe you'd better read that link a little more slowly.

 

[sjastro]

Then go take someone else's class.

But be assured, you'd better give them the answers they're looking for, or they'll flunk you.

Or at least they should.

Same for me if I took Mormonism 101 and wanted to argue with their final exams.

I've had classes in Astronomy, Oceanography, and an introductory course in Space Technology; and I can assure you, whether I agreed with them or not, I'd better have given them the answers they're looking for, or I just wasted six weeks (apiece) for nothing.

There is a story perhaps an urban legend in the early 20th century at the University of Copenhagen a student was posed the question "show how it is possible to determine the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer."

The simple answer is found by measuring the difference in pressure at the top and bottom of the building and solving for height. Contrary to the examiner's expectations, the student responded with a series of completely different answers. These answers were also correct, yet none of them proved the student's competence in the specific academic field being tested.
The student knew the answer, but was fed up with the examiner’s one dimensional view of the subject gave a number of different answers.

(1) Drop the barometer off the top off the building and timing its fall and using the equation of motion d = 0.5gt² to solve for the distance d.
(2) Using the proportion between the lengths of the building's shadow and that of the barometer to calculate the building's height from the height of the barometer.
(3) Using the barometer as a measuring rod to mark off its height on the wall while climbing the stairs, then counting the number of marks.
(4) Suspending the barometer from a string to create a pendulum, then using the pendulum to measure the strength of Earth's gravity at the top and bottom of the building, and calculating the height of the building from the difference in the two measurements.
(5) The unethical way is to take the barometer to the basement and knock on the superintendent’s door. When the superintendent answers, you speak to him as follows: ‘Mr. Superintendent, here I have a fine barometer, if you will tell me the height of the building, I will give you this barometer.”

The smart a*se student was believed to be Niels Bohr who won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work in quantum mechanics.
The moral of the story here is firstly you are no Niels Bohr who knew enough about the subject to provide alternate answers where as you are motivated by willful ignorance.
Secondly along with having natural talent, Bohr was developing his critical thinking skills which education in any subject provides; your attacks on education and in believing one doesn't have to understand the subject in order to agree or disagree with it is a reflection of your own absence of critical thinking skills common in your posts which stems from a lack of education.

 

[AV1611VET]

The moral of the story here is firstly you are no Niels Bohr who knew enough about the subject to provide alternate answers where as you are motivated by willful ignorance.
Secondly along with having natural talent, Bohr was developing his critical thinking skills which education in any subject provides; your attacks on education and in believing one doesn't have to understand the subject in order to agree or disagree with it is a reflection of your own absence of critical thinking skills common in your posts which stems from a lack of education.

In that case, if I were you, I would opt out of the class and take something else.

No one would be forcing you to take my class.

Like I said, if you don't agree, don't.

But if you decide to stay, you'd better answer my questions on my tests to my satisfaction, or I'll flunk you.

 

[sjastro]

In that case, if I were you, I would opt out of the class and take something else.

No one would be forcing you to take my class.

Like I said, if you don't agree, don't.

But if you decide to stay, you'd better answer my questions on my tests to my satisfaction, or I'll flunk you.

Did even bother to try to read my post?
I know enough of your brand of creationism (like any other form); it can be summarized as follows and should be avoided at all costs.

 

[SelfSim]

In that case, if I were you, I would opt out of the class and take something else.

No one would be forcing you to take my class.

Like I said, if you don't agree, don't.

But if you decide to stay, you'd better answer my questions on my tests to my satisfaction, or I'll flunk you.

In what type of twisted thinking/classroom is the abandonment of critical thinking and logic, regarded as deserving of commendations?

 

[stevil]

Then go take someone else's class.

But be assured, you'd better give them the answers they're looking for, or they'll flunk you.

I think unfortunately my points are being completely lost.
I understand that if people don't like the premise of your course that they don't have to take it.

But my two mains points are this:
1. Is your course really being true to the value "The bible says it, that settles it"
of which all Fundamental Creationists should be striving to be true to?
If you get two Fundamental Creationists into a room (two strangers) shouldn't they be lock step aligned in their understanding of the bible, because they steadfastly stick to what is literally in the bible.
Your course isn't steadfastly sticking to the bible, your course is "This is creationism as I see it." and this presents many things that are not in the bible but are taught as if they are fact.

2. You are making yourself the authority as if YOU are a prophet or an infallible magistrate made up of one person. Creationists want to know the bible as it is written, not as AV interprets it. So what would compel these Creationists to sign up to your course which is presenting an altered view of the Bible?
And if they gain this qualification, how can they use it? Would religious schools, even fundamental Creationist schools, value this qualification in a teacher? Why would schools consider AV's altered vision of the bible to be better than another potential teacher who sticks steadfastly to what's actually written in the bible? All YOU are selling is your own solitary position which is your interpretation of the bible and is not recognised by any organisation anywhere in the world.

 

[SelfSim]

I think unfortunately my points are being completely lost.
I understand that if people don't like the premise of your course that they don't have to take it.

But my two mains points are this:
1. Is your course really being true to the value "The bible says it, that settles it"
of which all Fundamental Creationists should be striving to be true to?
If you get two Fundamental Creationists into a room (two strangers) shouldn't they be lock step aligned in their understanding of the bible, because they steadfastly stick to what is literally in the bible.
Your course isn't steadfastly sticking to the bible, your course is "This is creationism as I see it." and this presents many things that are not in the bible but are taught as if they are fact.

2. You are making yourself the authority as if YOU are a prophet or an infallible magistrate made up of one person. Creationists want to know the bible as it is written, not as AV interprets it. So what would compel these Creationists to sign up to your course which is presenting an altered view of the Bible?
And if they gain this qualification, how can they use it? Would religious schools, even fundamental Creationist schools, value this qualification in a teacher? Why would schools consider AV's altered vision of the bible to be better than another potential teacher who sticks steadfastly to what's actually written in the bible? All YOU are selling is your own solitary position which is your interpretation of the bible and is not recognised by any organisation anywhere in the world.

@AV wants to teach his version as History, IIRC(?)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I prefer a modern version of the omnipotence paradox.

Here is a screen shot of a topologist (a type of pure mathematician) holding an object he insists is a square.

In fact he is quite correct, the object he holds is topologically equivalent to a square.
Can God show using topological equivalence, the mathematician is not holding up a square?
The answer is no.
It's like God trying to show 1+1=3.

The full story of this screen shot is given in the video.

A popular counter-argument these days is that God is 'beyond' or 'outside' logic, or even that God is illogical (we already knew that!), which, of course, is literally no argument at all; it's the limit of 'God works in mysterious ways'... The problem here is that if God is beyond logic (and therefore, reason), or, as is often said, beyond understanding (which probably amounts to the same thing), it makes no sense to say anything about it, let alone attribute logical properties to it or anthropomorphise it... which pretty much defeats the whole point of it.

 

[SelfSim]

A popular counter-argument these days is that God is 'beyond' or 'outside' logic, or even that God is illogical (we already knew that!), which, of course, is literally no argument at all; it's the limit of 'God works in mysterious ways'... The problem here is that if God is beyond logic (and therefore, reason), or, as is often said, beyond understanding (which probably amounts to the same thing), it makes no sense to say anything about it, let alone attribute logical properties to it or anthropomorphise it... which pretty much defeats the whole point of it.

Yes .. If God is 'beyond' human understanding, why do so many want to abandon their own minds in order to understand his?

 

[BNR32FAN]

If you say you believe genesis is correct
then you say rocks were created in a day.
You also say ( falsely) that it takes millions
of years. Some do, some dont.
Ive pointed out those things before.
So this is getting ridiculous.

I said that if God created them the way they are formed naturally then they would appear to be millions of years old on the day He made them. If you can’t comprehend that, it’s not my problem. I don’t expect that you can because you don’t want to.

 

[Astrid]

I said that if God created them the way they are formed naturally then they would appear to be millions of years old on the day He made them. If you can’t comprehend that, it’s not my problem. I don’t expect that you can because you don’t want to.

There you again said one day.
But you say " if".
Does that mean you dont believe genesis?
If thats the case, what are you arguing for or
against?

Regardless -
Snarky -snarky is like super inappropriate.

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[Astrid]

It takes millions of years for sediment to become rock. So even a brand new rock is going to look millions of years old.

Here is the quote where you say it takes millions of years.

 

[AV1611VET]

But my two mains points are this:

I get your main points.

But correct me if I'm wrong.

You're of the persuasion that I should teach the Bible only?

That is, as soon as I say "photosynthesis" or "entropy," I'm shooting myself in the foot?

Anyone can stay at home and read Genesis 1 and 2.

But they can't address the tough questions about sunlight and the order of the creation events (e.g., trees without sunlight).

That's where I come in; to teach them how to defend Genesis 1 and 2 with a set of heuristics that can allow for scientific explanations of things that are scientific, and reject things that are presumed scientific but are instead miracles.

Such terms as "photosynthesis" and "entropy" and "frame story" are right at home in my class, and I would teach them in order to equip my students to be better defenders of the Faith.

Which is also what I would be getting paid to do.

Don't agree with what I teach? don't take my course.

Simple as that.

 

[AV1611VET]

@AV wants to teach his version as History, IIRC(?)

You recall correctly.

The Creation Week belongs in history class -- not science class.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes .. If God is 'beyond' human understanding, why do so many want to abandon their own minds in order to understand his?

So we can love and worship Him properly.

Sure ... as He put it:

Isaiah 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

But that doesn't mean we should have to "abandon our own minds" and hold Him at arms length.

That's why He gave us His word, so we can use It as our Standard for faith and practice.

 

[ottawak]

I said that if God created them the way they are formed naturally then they would appear to be millions of years old on the day He made them. If you can’t comprehend that, it’s not my problem. I don’t expect that you can because you don’t want to.

Sure, we comprehend it. Generally, that position is known as "Last Thursdayism" and is the only unfalsifiable version of YEC.