Why creationists reject evolution

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Objection: “Evolution goes against the bible”
Although this may or may not be true depending on your interpretation of said myth there are plenty of other scientific theories and discoveries that “go against the bible”. The fact that there aren’t creationists railing against a heliocentric solar system or a round Earth shows that the “goes against the bible” objection is a selective excuse to oppose evolution and not the true reason.

Objection: “Evolution isn’t supported by the evidence”
Although there are many poor creationists that have been fed a false version of evolution and may believe this at first too many creationists continue to hold this position long after they have been shown the evidence. This means, once again, that this objection is just an excuse to rail against evolution and not the genuine reason.

After looking at all the creationist arguments and, more importantly, the creationists conduct themselves, I am starting to realize that the motivation to rail against evolution is personal and selfish.

If the creationists really cared about defending the bible then they would be against round-earthers, and those that support heliocentricity just as fervently as evolutionists. The only reason to single out evolution is because it takes away one of their favorite things about being a creationist… being made specially by their god. All they want is to maintain their warm fuzzy feeling of superiority over everything else in the universe. They aren’t defending the bible or even god. They are defending their own selfish feelings.

 

[LittleNipper]

The circle of the earth hangs on nothing.

 

[Dragar]

Bit like this:

 

[Phred]

After looking at all the creationist arguments and, more importantly, the creationists conduct themselves, I am starting to realize that the motivation to rail against evolution is personal and selfish.

Absolutely. As I've contended for some time, this debate is about respect.

Creationist, "I believe God created man in His image."
Scientist, "Here's the evidence that shows man evolved."
Creationist, "My idea deserves just as much consideration as your idea."

That's the goal. Equal consideration for belief with evidence. To get this they'll lie, tear down science and scientists and try to legislate their belief into fact. A tyranny of the majority is especially horrid when the majority gets ridiculous ideas like "evolution is "anti-Christian" into their heads.

.
​

 

[Edx]

The circle of the earth hangs on nothing.

A circle is a flat disk.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

The circle of the earth hangs on nothing.

Here a a few…

take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it

Edges huh?

The earth takes shape like clay under a seal.

Clay under a seal is basically like a flat relief map.

The devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them

See the entire world from a high mountain huh?

The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.

From a high tree?

It’s obvious at this point the biblical authors thought the earth was flat. But since we all now know that’s ridiculous creationists will argue against their normal literalistic interpretation to save face. What they have yet to understand is that, like a round earth, evolution is a fact. It is a more complicated fact obfuscated by religious propaganda, but a fact none the less. Follow the TEs lead and find a new interpretation for creation of man because you might as well be arguing for a flat Earth at this point.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Interesting… Although one never knows what to expect for refutation to a point, I didn’t expect to be met with virtual silence. I suppose the silence itself speaks volumes though.

 

[Opethian]

*Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!*

Listen!!!!!

What's that?


The sound of powerlessness and lack of knowledge!

 

[Apos]

To be more specific, people thought the world was, variously, a flat disk surrounded by water with the dome of the heavens over it (a literal dome). Later on in history, after the greeks, this was revised into larger and larger spheres
in which the stars and planets sat.

Let's face it: the authors of the Bible didn't know anything more about astronomy then they knew of biology. They were poetically trying to describe the world the best they knew how in order to glorify their God the best they knew how.

 

[LittleNipper]

A circle is a flat disk.

You would have to look at the original Hebrew text. Is there an ancient Hebrew word for ball or sphere? That would be the next logical question. If the word that was translated circle has the inference of dimension then the CIRCLE might be translated as round, etc.... If the Bible has the term four corners when speaking of the world, well even a circle has no corners, so it requires a believer to inquire of GOD for understanding and not jumping to conclusion to suit one's PERSONAL agenda. I know what GOD means as four corners and I feel most people accept the same understanding ---- we now know what the Bible means as a circle but some want to make an issue.

 

[Hussar]

Basically what you mean is "I am willing to creatively interpret everything even though the new interpretation bares no relation to the original to try to retrospectively rationalise my beliefs in scientific terms." Why dont creationists just keep their views as faith without constantly making futile attempts to "prove" them?

 

[EvoDan]

...Why dont creationists just keep their views as faith without constantly making futile attempts to "prove" them?...

Because they are trying to convert you!

 

[FSTDT]

You would have to look at the original Hebrew text. Is there an ancient Hebrew word for ball or sphere? That would be the next logical question. If the word that was translated circle has the inference of dimension then the CIRCLE might be translated as round, etc.... If the Bible has the term four corners when speaking of the world, well even a circle has no corners, so it requires a believer to inquire of GOD for understanding and not jumping to conclusion to suit one's PERSONAL agenda. I know what GOD means as four corners and I feel most people accept the same understanding ---- we now know what the Bible means as a circle but some want to make an issue.

Just for the record, here are the relevant verses:

Isaiah 22:18:

He will surely violently turn and toss thee [like] a ball [from the word duwr] into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory [shall be] the shame of thy lord's house.

From the same book of the Bible, only a few verses away:

Isaiah 40:22:

[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle [from the word chuwg] of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in

So, there you have it: two distinct words used in two distinct ways. One means round, and the second means disk.

 

[LittleNipper]

Basically what you mean is "I am willing to creatively interpret everything even though the new interpretation bares no relation to the original to try to retrospectively rationalise my beliefs in scientific terms." Why dont creationists just keep their views as faith without constantly making futile attempts to "prove" them?

No, what I'm saying is that GOD used selective human terms to discribe what really happened, and that some of those terms are misunderstood by moderns who don't really appreciate anything the Bible has to say regardless... Those that love GOD's Word will study and investigate and research to find the entire truth and not just convenient answers and the determinations of men.

 

[Opethian]

I am finding it hard not to laugh at the person who that quote came from

 

[Hussar]

No, what I'm saying is that GOD used selective human terms to discribe what really happened,

Not even the Bible literalists try to claim that the Bible was actually written by God. Divine inspiration is as good as you get unfortunately.

and that some of those terms are misunderstood by moderns who don't really appreciate anything the Bible has to say regardless...

You mean people who say that the sky is not, in fact, made of "firmament" with holes in it for rain and people who say that it's impossible to make "night and day" and "plants" before making "the sun"? That's just common sense.

Those that love GOD's Word will study and investigate and research to find the entire truth and not just convenient answers and the determinations of men.

Those who have true faith will be able to accept that god exists without having to engage in some silly and ultimately futile exercise in attempting to retrospectively rationalise the Bible, when it quite clearly doesnt work.

 

[Dragar]

You would have to look at the original Hebrew text. Is there an ancient Hebrew word for ball or sphere? That would be the next logical question.

Hello?

Considering the Hebrew cosmology was this:

I'd say it meant a flat circle, not a ball.

 

[Hydra009]

...Why dont creationists just keep their views as faith without constantly making futile attempts to "prove" them?...

Because they are trying to convert you!

Either that or they're convinced it's not true unless it's recognized as science (and thereby established). I'm still not sure which one it is.

*edit - Or it could just be a reaction to critiques of the Bible. An atheist says that the Bible's wrong because it messed up a lot of science, therefore, in their minds, now they have to argue that everything in the Bible is absolutely 100% scientific truth. It's the same thing with the contradictions argument - in their minds, it now has to be inerrant. Lol, if Dawkins said the sky was blue, they'd claim that the sky is red.

The motivation could be less of the preachy, and more of just a knee-jerk reaction against modern life. Science has made tremendous progress in the past 200 years and has gained a position of tremendous importance in people's lives. They feel that science (and secularism) threatens to usurp the power of the traditional religious ways. So what better target than a science that comes very, very close to people's creation beliefs? (the Big Bang fits this profile too, but the rhetoric against that is substantially less)

 

[RightWingGirl]

Some Bible critics have claimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a flat earth since the verse refers to angels standing at the "four corners" of the earth. Actually, the reference is to the cardinal directions: north, south, east, and west. Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun's rising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible writers used the "language of appearance," just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly. [

In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon. [DD]

A literal translation of Job 26:10 is "He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end." A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22 - "the circle of the earth."

Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10. The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe. [JSM]

The Hebrew record is the oldest, because Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Historians generally [wrongly] credit the Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical earth. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras suggested a spherical earth. [JSM]

Eratosthenes of Alexandria (circa 276 to 194 or 192 B.C.) calcuated the circumference of the earth "within 50 miles of the present estimate." [Encyclopedia Brittanica]

The Greeks also drew meridians and parallels. They identified such areas as the poles, equator, and tropics. This spherical earth concept did not prevail; the Romans drew the earth as a flat disk with oceans around it. [JSM]

The round shape of our planet was a conclusion easily drawn by watching ships disappear over the horizon and also by observing eclipse shadows, and we can assume that such information was well known to New Testament writers. Earth's spherical shape was, of course, also understood by Christopher Columbus. [DD]

The implication of a round earth is seen in the book of Luke, where Jesus described his return, Luke 17:31. Jesus said, "In that day," then in verse 34, "In that night." This is an allusion to light on one side of the globe and darkness on the other simultaneously. [JSM]

--by Dr. Donald DeYoung, Ph.D"When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate." Can you find, other than the subject of creation, which we are already debating, any evidence that contradicts this statement? If the Bible is a collection of stories written by man there should be lots of them, but if it was inspired by the living God than there should be none.

 

[Grengor]

It depends RWG, if anything you see can't be a contradiction due to a priori assumption.