Why do YE Creationists insist on a simplistic literal reading of the bible?

[KWCrazy]

(although I resort to that impolite phrase only because you used it to slur Loudmouth).

Wrong. I commented on the quote he posted, which was incredibly stupid. I didn't slur Loudmouth. You have just made a false accusation because you didn't bother to even read what was written.

THIS is why so many people have a problem with the Bible. They go off the wall and comment on what they think it says without ever reading and learning what it actually says. Thank you for illustrating that for me.

YE creationism is contrary to a massive body of scientific evidence

Wrong again. It is contrary to a naturalistic interpretation of a massive body of evidence. Science can only study the physical world and thus must base its conclusions on a naturalistic formation. The universe wasn't created according to any natural law, so therefore science cannot possibly EVER have the correct answer, REGARDLESS of how many studies it does. It can't study the supernatural. Period.

as the Professor.... states, would require virtually all contemporary science to be flushed.

This is why the professor's comment is incredibly stupid.

Science is based on what can be observed, tested, duplicated or falsified. We can test how an organism acts today and we can make PRESUMPTIONS about what it did yesterday, but we can't test yesterday. We don't have a time machine.

We can observe how a virus mutates and speculate about its condition previously, but we cannot study its origins. Anyone who says we can, frankly, is a liar. We can only "study" the past based on evidence that we have today.

Suppose 4,000 years ago, when all life on this planet had been destroyed, a man called Noah landed a spaceship filled with a multitude of life forms. He let those life forms out and they began to multiply, quickly branching out and becoming many species but always remaining of the same family. Would that origin have any bearing whatever on how the animals adapted to their surrounds 4,000 years later? No. Everything that was observable would be exactly the same, and scientists would have a theory of origins that, again, could not possibly be correct. To say that a theory of origins MUST BE BELIEVED in order to study the world as it is shows a divorce from reality that is close to insanity.

Creationism is indeed a matter of "origins."

Science can't study origins without a time machine. They can only look at what is and SPECULATE on what was. Others look at the same data and come up with a different conclusion.

YE Creationism goes far beyond origins. The age of the earth is not a matter of origins, and the best evidence suggests the earth is billions of years older than YE Creationists believe.

The age of the earth is not a matter of origins? SERIOUSLY? You think you can tell how old something is without knowing when it began? Do you even read some of the things you post?

The best evidence for the age of the earth is an eyewitness who was there. We call Him Jesus. Jesus affirmed that the Scriptures were correct, including the part when God; with Jesus present; told Moses exactly how He created the earth. If God had used evolution, He would have told us that He did. Instead what we have is a record of mankind's existence which begins with Adam's creation on the sixth day and carries forward until the birth of Jesus. Along the way there are 333 documented cases where natural law is violated. These included walking on water, raising the dead, parting the Red Sea, manna from Heaven, fire from Heaven, trumpets bringing down walls, venomous snakes biting without effect and many, many more. Can one believe in the miracles of God and yet proclaim that He could not have done as He said because the laws of the universe HE CREATED would be contradicted? This is why believers are expected to have faith. It's also why those who do NOT believe in the authority of God are referred in Psalms 14:1 as fools.

Old Earth Creationism, which I happen to find plausible, does not pose anything like the same number of issues as does YE Creationism.

However, OEC has neither the support of science or the Scriptures. It is a a compromise of truth, which is to say that it is not truth. OEC cannot be supported by Bible passages, only by taking some words and phrases out of context.

YE Creationism is more the equivalent of a golfer saying "I believe this 5-iron is going to go 420 yards, and I don't care if the scientific evidence says

Hogwash. YEC says that we believe in the word of God; that God is the ultimate ruler of the universe and by His command were all things created, both seen and unseen. We acknowledge that we can't come to Him through logic, but that we must come to Him through faith. We understand that the same God who performed miracles in the past can and does perform miracles today.

BTW. Don't golf with God. He always shoots an 18.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The best evidence for the age of the earth is an eyewitness who was there. We call Him Jesus.

This is what happens when people use Jesus for scientific purposes instead of listening to him on the things he actually spoke of.

 

[bhsmte]

This is what happens when people use Jesus for scientific purposes instead of listening to him on the things he actually spoke of.

Which brings us to another problem. No one can be sure what Jesus actually spoke of and what he didn't speak of. How much of what the bible attributes to him was simply made up and how much really came out of his mouth? That is a question that no one will ever know the answer to.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Science can only study the physical world and thus must base its conclusions on a naturalistic formation. The universe wasn't created according to any natural law, so therefore science cannot possibly EVER have the correct answer, REGARDLESS of how many studies it does. It can't study the supernatural. Period.

Well, then I guess you agree that "If the tenets of young earth creationism were true, basically all of the sciences of geology, cosmology, and biology would utterly collapse."

Perhaps they don't collapse exactly, but they would be worthless for determining the truth.

 

[Loudmouth]

Abject stupidity. That ranks right up there among the most incredibly mindless comments ever made.

Does a golfer need to know the history of a golf ball, its construction, the materials used, the gross national product of each nation that contributed materials to it to play the game?

Science is the study of the physical world around us. It is NOT dependent on anyone's theories of origins.

Creationism doesn't study the physical world, and does its best to run away from the evidence gathered in the study of the physical world. Like the quote says, if creationism is wrong then all of science has to be wrong. It isn't a simple case of a slightly different interpretation. Creationism requires all of science to be wrong, from chemistry to physics.

 

[Loudmouth]

Uh ... yeeeahokay ...

Whatever that was supposed to mean?

Do you know what "ecumenical" means?

Do Satan's Promise Keepers & Emmaus Walk come to mind?

I am talking about your Omphalos theology where God creates a fake history for no other purpose than to create a fake history.

 

[Loudmouth]

Wrong again. It is contrary to a naturalistic interpretation of a massive body of evidence.

Right, it is contrary with all of science. Everything in science has to be wrong in order for creationism to be true.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am talking about your Omphalos theology where God creates a fake history for no other purpose than to create a fake history.

Sorry, you must have me mixed up with someone else.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sorry, you must have me mixed up with someone else.

I didn't.

If you think I am wrong, then please tell me what differences we should see between a rock with 50 million years of history and a rock with maturity.

 

[AV1611VET]

I didn't.

If you think I am wrong, then please tell me what differences we should see between a rock with 50 million years of history and a rock with maturity.

I think you've gotten me mixed up with someone else.

 

[Split Rock]

Science is based on what can be observed, tested, duplicated or falsified. We can test how an organism acts today and we can make PRESUMPTIONS about what it did yesterday, but we can't test yesterday. We don't have a time machine.

This erroneous statement is repeated here by creationists over and over.
True or false:
1. The past leaves its mark on the present.
2. The present is created by actions that occurred in the past.
3. Therefore, we can learn about what happened in the past by examining the present.

We can observe how a virus mutates and speculate about its condition previously, but we cannot study its origins. Anyone who says we can, frankly, is a liar. We can only "study" the past based on evidence that we have today.

Yes, we can only study the past based on evidence we have today, but there is nothing inherently wrong with that. It is not lying to say we can make inferences on the origin of a virus by examining its genetic sequence today. Inferences are not speculations.

Suppose 4,000 years ago, when all life on this planet had been destroyed, a man called Noah landed a spaceship filled with a multitude of life forms. He let those life forms out and they began to multiply, quickly branching out and becoming many species but always remaining of the same family. Would that origin have any bearing whatever on how the animals adapted to their surrounds 4,000 years later? No. Everything that was observable would be exactly the same, and scientists would have a theory of origins that, again, could not possibly be correct. To say that a theory of origins MUST BE BELIEVED in order to study the world as it is shows a divorce from reality that is close to insanity.

Wrong yet again. Here are some differences that would be apparant as well as some problems with yoru scenario:
1. 4,000 years isn't enough time for widespread adaptive radiation.
2. What we would find are many smaller nested hiearchies that are independent from each other, unless the lifeforms he brought were related through common descent. In that case, you are just shifting the problem back to the previous planet where they all evolved.
3. The reason we say it is unreasonable to reject evolution, is because that is where the evidence clearly leads us... Not because it is an assumption that MUST BE BELIEVED because we say so.

Science can't study origins without a time machine. They can only look at what is and SPECULATE on what was. Others look at the same data and come up with a different conclusion.

Once again, inference is not speculation.

The best evidence for the age of the earth is an eyewitness who was there. We call Him Jesus. Jesus affirmed that the Scriptures were correct, including the part when God; with Jesus present; told Moses exactly how He created the earth.

Jesus didn't write anything in scripture. You have no eyewitness.

If God had used evolution, He would have told us that He did. Instead what we have is a record of mankind's existence which begins with Adam's creation on the sixth day and carries forward until the birth of Jesus. Along the way there are 333 documented cases where natural law is violated. These included walking on water, raising the dead, parting the Red Sea, manna from Heaven, fire from Heaven, trumpets bringing down walls, venomous snakes biting without effect and many, many more. Can one believe in the miracles of God and yet proclaim that He could not have done as He said because the laws of the universe HE CREATED would be contradicted? This is why believers are expected to have faith. It's also why those who do NOT believe in the authority of God are referred in Psalms 14:1 as fools.

Even if one accepts that scripture is influenced by God, why would he tell us about evolution? The bible is about theology, not science. The cases of miracles you mentioned were isolated instances, not general processes. Why would God create laws just to violate them from the very start? The definition of a fool is someone who rejects reality because dogma they believe says to do so.

However, OEC has neither the support of science or the Scriptures. It is a a compromise of truth, which is to say that it is not truth. OEC cannot be supported by Bible passages, only by taking some words and phrases out of context.

Really? How about:
Deuteronomy 33:15
"with the choicest gifts of the ancient mountains and the fruitfulness of the everlasting hills;"

Habakkuk 3:6
"He stood, and shook the earth; he looked, and made the nations tremble. The ancient mountains crumbled and the age-old hills collapsed-- but he marches on forever."

OECs can quote scripture to support their dogma, just as you can.

Hogwash. YEC says that we believe in the word of God; that God is the ultimate ruler of the universe and by His command were all things created, both seen and unseen. We acknowledge that we can't come to Him through logic, but that we must come to Him through faith. We understand that the same God who performed miracles in the past can and does perform miracles today.

That doesn't mean he did things the way you insist he must have.

BTW. Don't golf with God. He always shoots an 18.

You continue to follow the delusion that what you say and what God did are the same.

 

[lasthero]

This erroneous statement is repeated here by creationists over and over.
True or false:
1. The past leaves its mark on the present.
2. The present is created by actions that occurred in the past.
3. Therefore, we can learn about what happened in the past by examining the present.

I'd really love to see a creationist use the 'you can't speak reliably about the past' argument as a fallback in a court case. I wonder how convincing the jury would find such an argument.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think you've gotten me mixed up with someone else.

So you can't tell us how your proposed maturity differs from history?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'd really love to see a creationist use the 'you can't speak reliably about the past' argument as a fallback in a court case.

Why?

So if we lost the case, you guys could have fodder for further ridicule?

Sending Christian doctrine through the courts is almost like putting a Jew on trial in the Third Reich anymore.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you can't tell us how your proposed maturity differs from history?

I believe I've done that many times.

"My" proposed maturity is sans history.

So the difference would be: the passage of time.

 

[freezerman2000]

Why?

So if we lost the case, you guys could have fodder for further ridicule?

Sending Christian doctrine through the courts is almost like putting a Jew on trial in the Third Reich anymore.

No lawyer worth his or her salt would even attempt to use the argument you are referring to.

 

[AV1611VET]

No lawyer worth his or her salt would even attempt to use the argument you are referring to.

Thus my point.

Let's hope he never gets a chance to.

I don't trust the courts.

Remember Roe v. Wade?

And what's this recent ruling that you guys like to keep bringing up?

I can't remember it right off-hand.

 

[selfinflikted]

In the marriage of Adam and Eve, we are told that the two became one flesh, as do all later marriages of a man and a woman.

Can I go off-topic here with a really stupid question? I've always wondered, but never really asked, the "two become one flesh" phrase - does that mean metaphorically the married man and woman become one flesh, OR does it mean that they become "one flesh" because of their children?

 

[lasthero]

Why?

So if we lost the case, you guys could have fodder for further ridicule?

Yeah, pretty much.

Sending Christian doctrine through the courts is almost like putting a Jew on trial in the Third Reich anymore.

Not really.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'd really love to see a creationist use the 'you can't speak reliably about the past' argument as a fallback in a court case. I wonder how convincing the jury would find such an argument.

I suspect they'd laugh as hard as we do.