Why do people laugh at creationist?

[crawfish]

sorry, duplicate post.

 

[crawfish]

So, you know some sciences. What would you say to their comments about the Genesis Flood?

I don't think you can do better than that kid.

Try.

I could do far better than that kid. For one, I won't make assertions where I'm not certain of the answers.

There's a big difference between understanding science and understanding the scientific method. I don't claim much of the former; however, I know enough of the latter to know when a theory or hypothesis has solid support and when it doesn't.

 

[crawfish]

If we admit that the Bible has ONE fiction-like paragraph, then any other paragraph in the Bible will allow a room for similar degradation.

So, since the bible has parables in it - MANY fictional paragraphs - then we should throw it out?

Since pi does not equal exactly 3, should we throw the whole thing out?

The bible cannot be taken completely literally. NOBODY does it. There is only justification for what you take literally and what you don't. And, sadly, focusing on the literal words tends to distract from the actual meaning the scripture is trying to impart.

 

[crawfish]

That is why every Christian should feel the need to defend scientific message in the Bible. You may insist: there is no scientific message in the Bible. But people who attacked your faith will attack the science regardless what you think. There is no use to hide your head in the sand. The attack will not go away just because you said the target is not there. Whether is there science in Bible or not, Christian NEEDs to defend it.

Unfortunately, due to our ignorance, it is not that easy to defend the attacks on Genesis 1-11 with a complete scientific answer. Creationists are doing their best on that. They are also trying to arm up general church congregation for the defense. No matter their science is good or bad. I will absolutely support them. We need to recognize that this is not a war about science, it is a war about theology and faith. The general Christians do not need to know how good the science is. They just need to have some scientific statements to fight back. We can not allow the shake on their faith because people attack the science in the Bible.

If people ridicules Christian on their limited knowledge of science, then we who know better, should stand up and fight back with good, or at least, acceptable science. In fact, since nobody knows the truth answer, it is pretty easy to refute any of those so-call "scientific truth". For example, the video said that 5 minutes is not enough for the flood water to run through the Grand Canyon. How do you rebuke it? Very simple, nobody is suggesting the water ran "along" the canyon. It would only take one second for the water to cover all the canyon if it came at a right angle to it.

Why on earth with the lost listen to us about the things that matter - Christ's sacrifice, God's grace, our need for obedience - when we get so many things DEAD WRONG?

What exactly is our mission as Christians? To protect our current understanding of the bible? Or to seek and save the lost? If it's the latter, then we are in DIRECT VIOLATION of God's law by putting a stumbling block in their way.

 

[Assyrian]

If we admit that the Bible has ONE fiction-like paragraph, then any other paragraph in the Bible will allow a room for similar degradation.

Gen 49:14 "Issachar is a strong donkey, crouching between the sheepfolds. 15 He saw that a resting place was good, and that the land was pleasant, so he bowed his shoulder to bear, and became a servant at forced labor.

 

[Mikeb85]

I think alot of people don't take creationists seriously because alot of creationists are a joke. They try to fit the history of the world into a narrow interpretation of a book that was written 3000+ years ago, and the stories inspired by events that happened much longer ago... Creationists have got to remember, the ancients didn't have the knowledge of science we do - they had to describe alot of events with analogous language. Not to mention, theres no way humans can understand exactly how God created the universe with all it's intricacies.

That being said, evidence that the universe was created is everywhere, you've just got to look in the right places. Alot of creationists go about trying to prove it in the wrong ways, making the concept look like a joke.

 

[busterdog]

I think alot of people don't take creationists seriously because alot of creationists are a joke.

OK. But so are lots of evolutionists.

What about the peppered moth? It shows honesty but also stupidity within the same community.

The main beef with creationists is that its ALL wrong as far as I can tell, not that some of us eccentric.

 

[Mikeb85]

OK. But so are lots of evolutionists.

The main beef with creationists is that its ALL wrong as far as I can tell, not that some of us eccentric.

The first part is true, many evolutionists fall into the same category, average people don't take those people seriously. Heck, when I learned about evolution in school, it was stressed that it was only a theory, we learned more the history behind it, and stuff like natural selection. Never once did the teachers push the idea that we descended from apes...(not even in a public school).

However with creationists, alot of them are pushing an impossibly narrow position, using terrible science to try 'prove' their points, and while there are alot of pseudo-scientists out there doing stuff like that concerning many topics, it's sad when people are turned AWAY from Christianity because of a few fundamentalists making too much noise...

Go out on the street, and ask the average person what they thing about the origins of the universe, or the existance of God. Even among physicists and scientists who study the origins of the universe, I bet more believe it was created than just a random occurence. Very few people are truly athiests, the vast majority believe in God, however many are pushed away from Christianity because of the way alot of Christians act...

 

[juvenissun]

The first part is true, many evolutionists fall into the same category, average people don't take those people seriously. Heck, when I learned about evolution in school, it was stressed that it was only a theory, we learned more the history behind it, and stuff like natural selection. Never once did the teachers push the idea that we descended from apes...(not even in a public school).

However with creationists, alot of them are pushing an impossibly narrow position, using terrible science to try 'prove' their points, and while there are alot of pseudo-scientists out there doing stuff like that concerning many topics, it's sad when people are turned AWAY from Christianity because of a few fundamentalists making too much noise...

Go out on the street, and ask the average person what they thing about the origins of the universe, or the existance of God. Even among physicists and scientists who study the origins of the universe, I bet more believe it was created than just a random occurence. Very few people are truly athiests, the vast majority believe in God, however many are pushed away from Christianity because of the way alot of Christians act...

Just like to work in a hospital ICU, you see many sick people died as well as many recovered. Do you want to get rid of the ICU?

For those Christian who kept their faith, did you survey them on how did they deal with the attack (on Genesis 1-11) by atheists? Are you imagining that all of them simply close off their ears to the attacks? Do a survey (oral is fine) in your church to see what your church fellows say and where does their information come from.

We should be proud of those Creationists. Not for their science, but for what they do. Don't just sit here and laugh at them. Study something and help them. Can you give any better defense information than Creationist does? Or you simply surrender (agree) to atheists' idea and cry?

When I was in graduate school, I met Henry Morris and talked to him. At that time, there was no ICR and he was recruiting. I did not join them because my faith was little. I am very glad to see that they have a graduate school now. God bless them.

 

[crawfish]

Just like to work in a hospital ICU, you see many sick people died as well as many recovered. Do you want to get rid of the ICU?

If the 50% mortality rate was due to bad medical practices, then I would definitely want to fix it. If the faculty erroneously felt that those practices were correct and would not change, then yes, I would want to get rid of it. The fact that their ICU killed so many people might keep others from seeking help at another, better ICU, and would thus end up killing more than the more obvious 50%.

We should be proud of those Creationists. Not for their science, but for what they do. Don't just sit here and laugh at them. Study something and help them. Can you give any better defense information than Creationist does? Or you simply surrender (agree) to atheists' idea and cry?

Of course we're trying to help them. That's why we go to such trouble to point out where they're wrong and what's wrong with their thinking. We have NOT surrendered to the atheists, we are doing battle by taking away their chief weapons. Creationists are giving them more.

 

[juvenissun]

If the 50% mortality rate was due to bad medical practices, then I would definitely want to fix it. If the faculty erroneously felt that those practices were correct and would not change, then yes, I would want to get rid of it. The fact that their ICU killed so many people might keep others from seeking help at another, better ICU, and would thus end up killing more than the more obvious 50%.



Of course we're trying to help them. That's why we go to such trouble to point out where they're wrong and what's wrong with their thinking. We have NOT surrendered to the atheists, we are doing battle by taking away their chief weapons. Creationists are giving them more.

So you are battling enemy by weeding out our soldiers who are not doing a good job according to your standard. Right?

Then who and where is your better qualified soldiers?

 

[gluadys]

For those Christian who kept their faith, did you survey them on how did they deal with the attack (on Genesis 1-11) by atheists?

Why do you say that Genesis 1-11 is "under attack" by atheists? What is the nature of the attack? What is it about Genesis 1-11 that needs to be defended?

We should be proud of those Creationists. Not for their science, but for what they do.

No, we should not be proud of them. No more than one would be proud of a soldier who sold ammunition to the enemy.

Study something and help them.

We are. Why do you think we are here?

Can you give any better defense information than Creationist does?

Absolutely. Just read the threads here and in the TE forum.

Or you simply surrender (agree) to atheists' idea and cry?

I haven't seen any TE agreeing to the atheist's idea that "natural" = "godless". But I do see many creationists who do.

So you are battling enemy by weeding out our soldiers who are not doing a good job according to your standard. Right?

No, it's not that they are not doing a good enough job. It is that they are doing so thoroughly bad a job that they are basically handing the victory to the enemy and endangering their comrades.

Then who and where is your better qualified soldiers?

Those who practice both good science and good theology and know that scripture does not have to be defended from good science, because good science does not attack scripture.

 

[crawfish]

So you are battling enemy by weeding out our soldiers who are not doing a good job according to your standard. Right?

Then who and where is your better qualified soldiers?

My belief is the origins theology is an incredibly unimportant issue as far as salvation is concerned. There are far more important issues to cover, and most Christians, creationist or not, are focused on those issues.

However, when creationism becomes dogma and a line is drawn that excludes all who don't believe in it regardless of their faith, we have no choice but to fight back. And when creationism becomes a force that prevents us from doing our primary job - bringing souls to Christ - it is our responsibility to get the message out that it is not the only way.

 

[juvenissun]

My belief is the origins theology is an incredibly unimportant issue as far as salvation is concerned. There are far more important issues to cover, and most Christians, creationist or not, are focused on those issues.

However, when creationism becomes dogma and a line is drawn that excludes all who don't believe in it regardless of their faith, we have no choice but to fight back. And when creationism becomes a force that prevents us from doing our primary job - bringing souls to Christ - it is our responsibility to get the message out that it is not the only way.

So, did the Creationist start the whole creation/evolution debate?
Or did they just respond to the attack and try to put out a systematic defense?

I mean that even what you said is true, the origin theology is a minor part of the gospel, but it was picked by others as the first target (and as I said before, easy target), or the weakest link, to attack the faith. Was that not the case?

 

[beamishboy]

It's so nice to read the posts. My Aunt who is a Baptist tries to get me not to believe in evolution. She says it's heresy. My parents who are Anglican don't care because they know very little about the faith.

I told her that Genesis couldn't be taken literally because it's so clearly told in a funny way. I'm tempted to say it sounds like the nursery rhymes I used to read.

I was very happy to read a book by Francis Colins who's a great scientist and a Christian. He had a debate with Richard Dawkins (that well-known atheist) and Dawkins was furious Collins did not believe in a young earth and that Collins believed in evolution. He admitted it made it so much harder to ridicule a Christian who believed in evolution. Collins said it was perfectly all right to be a Christian and to believe in facts like evolution. Dawkins then called Christians who refuted evolution clowns. I didn't make that up. I have the video clip still, I believe. It's on youtube.

Collins' book is very good. It shows the truth of evolution from the comparison of the genomes. Collins is the head of the genome research and is the first chap who mapped the entire human genome.

When Dawkins says in the debate, "I don't know why you bother with the clowns [Christians who disbelieve evolution]" Collins chides him for his arrogance. He says these Christians may be ignorant but they are sincere. Which is why I'm not rude to my Aunt. She's ignorant but sincere.

Where I live, it's almost impossible to find Christians who believe in evolution. So, this forum is quite fun to read.

 

[gluadys]

So, did the Creationist start the whole creation/evolution debate?
Or did they just respond to the attack and try to put out a systematic defense?

I mean that even what you said is true, the origin theology is a minor part of the gospel, but it was picked by others as the first target (and as I said before, easy target), or the weakest link, to attack the faith. Was that not the case?

Science never "attacked" scripture. The scientists who discovered how ancient the earth is were, by and large, believing Christians. They had no motive to attack scripture.

They believed they were exploring God's creation and learning "to think God's thoughts after him" by looking at the evidence.

Nor do we get a sense of "attack" and "defence" in most 19th century discussion about geology and evolution. Think about it; the first response of most Christians to geology was OLD-earth creationism, not YOUNG-earth creationism. Once the church accepted Copernicus' theory, the attitude of the church has largely been that science and scripture are to be read together and in harmony with each other.

The idea of a warfare between science and religion was largely an invention of atheists.

When it comes to YEC, yes, I would say it was creationists who flung down the gauntlet. It is largely an invention of Henry Morris in The Genesis Flood. And even so, most other Christians, and the general public, took little notice of it until it was proposed that public school curricula be altered to include it.

I know you don't have much reading time, but one book you should really get is Darwin's Forgotten Defenders by David N. Livingstone. Livingstone is a conservative, evangelical Christian and his book is well researched. It would give you a much more balanced historical view.

 

[gluadys]

I told her that Genesis couldn't be taken literally because it's so clearly told in a funny way. I'm tempted to say it sounds like the nursery rhymes I used to read.

You are not that far off. I was about your age when I read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. Lewis is a pretty traditional Christian, and he writes lots of good stuff besides the Narnia tales that you probably already know. (If you want a good read one day try The Screwtape Letters. It's a series of imaginative letters of advice from a senior devil to his nephew who is trying unsuccessfully to tempt a Christian and it's very funny as well as insightful.) Anyway, Lewis was the first person who got me thinking of the bible stories as "true myths". Sounded like an oxymoron at the time because, like most people, I thought of myths as no different than fables and nursery rhymes. But it turns out there is a lot more to myth than that and there is nothing about myth that is necessarily false.

I was very happy to read a book by Francis Colins who's a great scientist and a Christian.

Another book you will probably like is Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God. If you enjoyed Francis Collins, you would probably like that too.

He had a debate with Richard Dawkins (that well-known atheist) and Dawkins was furious Collins did not believe in a young earth and that Collins believed in evolution. He admitted it made it so much harder to ridicule a Christian who believed in evolution. Collins said it was perfectly all right to be a Christian and to believe in facts like evolution.

That is why it is important for Christians who do accept evolution to speak up. The second quote in my signature comes from a book by philosopher Michael Ruse. Opening the door of Christian faith to people who already accept evolution is important. Also letting people who are beginning to doubt young-earth creationism know that you don't have to be an atheist if you change your mind about how to read bible stories is important.

When Dawkins says in the debate, "I don't know why you bother with the clowns [Christians who disbelieve evolution]" Collins chides him for his arrogance. He says these Christians may be ignorant but they are sincere. Which is why I'm not rude to my Aunt. She's ignorant but sincere.

That's a good policy. You might even thank her for praying for you, even if she is praying that you give up the "heresy" of evolution. She may be wrong in her facts, but she cares about you and that is the important thing.

 

[crawfish]

So, did the Creationist start the whole creation/evolution debate?
Or did they just respond to the attack and try to put out a systematic defense?

I mean that even what you said is true, the origin theology is a minor part of the gospel, but it was picked by others as the first target (and as I said before, easy target), or the weakest link, to attack the faith. Was that not the case?

No. If you look at the earliest proponents of controversial scientific theories, you'll typically see people of faith. Did Galileo see his discoveries as proof against God, or did the church decide they were for him? Did Darwin lose faith because of evolution, or did he lose it because of the church's reaction?

At least half of the fault that evolution & big bang theories are being used against Christianity lies directly on the heads of Christians. I'd guess even more. Sadly, it doesn't have to be that way.

 

[The Lady Kate]

So you are battling enemy by weeding out our soldiers who are not doing a good job according to your standard. Right?

Then who and where is your better qualified soldiers?

They have yet to step to the forefront... having been drwoned out too long by the poor soldiers (who also happen to be the loudest).

 

[busterdog]

Then who and where is your better qualified soldiers?

Great question.

It has always seemed pointless to argue with people who never seem to find any reasonable arguments for the opposition.

Kurt Wise got some generalized respect here from evolutionists regarding his abilities, but I have never heard an evolutionist ever show any appreciation for a specific creationist argument.

Again, since no creationist arguments hold any water with evolutionists, where is this discussion going?