Why the Christian creation myth

[bhsmte]

i dont think so. many scientists (including biologists) reject evolution. we have many scientific evidence against evolution as you can see here:the self replicating watch argument

What is the percentage of Phd level biologists, that reject evolution and accept ID?

 

[Aman777]

Plenty of christians, many on this forum, are YECs.

ALL Christians, in the end, will be YECs. They will realize that God made the perfect Heaven and filled it with His perfect children, made perfect in Christ, in 6 Days and then rested on the 7th. Gen 2:1-3 God rests (ceases to create) from ALL of His work of creating only when His creation has been brought to perfection (Heb-finished). The final thousand years of life on planet Earth is about to begin.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The final thousand years of life on planet Earth is about to begin.

Dun-dun-duuuuuun

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

The final thousand years of life on planet Earth is about to begin.

Dun-dun-duuuuuun

 

[PsychoSarah]

i dont think so. many scientists (including biologists) reject evolution. we have many scientific evidence against evolution as you can see here:the self replicating watch argument

And that's why you don't name any?

 

[xianghua]

And that's why you don't name any?

here is a list, including biologists:

Creation scientists - creation.com

 

[Speedwell]

here is a list, including biologists:

Creation scientists - creation.com

Now you are going to have to pull up your socks and ell us exactly what you mean by creation. So far you have kept your personal beliefs a secret to the best of your ablility, but if you mean by "creation" what I think you mean, then most of the scientists on that list are (or were) not creationists.

 

[Rodan6]

Those in denial of evolution heap much ridicule upon themselves. Why tie your faith to tenants utterly lacking in logical foundation? Good intentions only have so much value. Are the hosts in heaven impressed that you deny God's evolutionary plans and works? Peoples who lived thousands had good reasons to believe such things. But God has revealed much to our modern generations and accordingly, much, much more is expected of us.

 

[SolomonVII]

Those in denial of evolution heap much ridicule upon themselves. Why tie your faith to tenants utterly lacking in logical foundation? Good intentions only have so much value. Are the hosts in heaven impressed that you deny God's evolutionary plans and works? Peoples who lived thousands had good reasons to believe such things. But God has revealed much to our modern generations and accordingly, much, much more is expected of us.

I probably take evolution for granted even much more than I should. I often use it as an explanation of why the world is like it is without giving my thoughts the testing that good science demands.
That being said, I would like to flip you statement(which I agree with) back on its head.

Those who are in denial of the truth of the Christian creation myth are likewise heaping ridicule upon themselves. By reducing the Christian creation myth to nothing more than what the six day earthers say that it is, they not only share the same lack of sophistication in understanding the Bible that they ridicule Creationists for having, but they have the hubris to think that they what the literalist Creationist say about the Bible is all that there is to know about it.

 

[Rodan6]

Indeed much has been added to Christianity that does not belong. The creation myth is just one of those things. I believe that to best understand the bible, it is necessary to put the teachings of Christ FIRST--then, apply what the Master taught to understand what others have written in the Old and New Testaments. Unfortunately, many have chosen to worship every word of the Bible instead. This practice has dramatically diluted the powerful message and teachings of Christ. The creation story is wonderful, but should NOT be taken as fact.

 

[SolomonVII]

Indeed much has been added to Christianity that does not belong. The creation myth is just one of those things. I believe that to best understand the bible, it is necessary to put the teachings of Christ FIRST--then, apply what the Master taught to understand what others have written in the Old and New Testaments. Unfortunately, many have chosen to worship every word of the Bible instead. This practice has dramatically diluted the powerful message and teachings of Christ. The creation story is wonderful, but should NOT be taken as fact.

More than a beautiful story, the first stories of Genesis have generated volumes of discussions and have generated entire civilizations. Johns Gospel itself opens by giving an understanding of Christ that comes straight from Genesis.

 

[Rodan6]

More than a beautiful story, the first stories of Genesis have generated volumes of discussions and have generated entire civilizations. Johns Gospel itself opens by giving an understanding of Christ that comes straight from Genesis.

I certainly agree that ALL of the bible has value--even Genesis. But remember that these oral histories were first put down in writing thousands of years after the events depicted in them. Is it reasonable that great accuracy can be expected? It seems to me that it is far more likely that bits and pieces of truth are surrounded with much embellishment each time the story was re-told. I find it likely that Adam and Eve really lived, but were they the first humans? The great humans featured in the Old Testament--Moses, Abraham, David etc.--It seems likely that these people all existed as well--but their achievements have likely been revised again and again.

 

[Rodan6]

The Prince of Peace came to reveal the true nature of a loving Father in Heaven and the brotherhood of man. Our Father has ALWAYS been this loving Father, as Jesus has taught that "even the hairs on our heads have been counted". He would never have ordered the execution of one who gathered wood on the Sabbath, or slaughtered every man, woman and child in a great flood. Primitive people believed in this depiction of God because that was all they could understand and respect in their age. The truth of God's nature had to await the coming of the Son.

 

[Abraxos]

I hope you actually list them later in this post so that there is a bit more to go on instead of just a bare assertion...

Sure.

The point is though, that there are not other sources to validate the important christian claims. As I said, it's one thing to mention real people, places, nations, even events,... in stories. But that doesn't mean the entire story is correct. cfr: spiderman and new york city.

The fact of the matter is that no claim that is actually important to christianity (the supernatural bits, and even only on the person Jesus) is validated through other contemporary / independend sources. Not a single one.

It is not.

Half of what is mentioned in a marvel comic book would be validated by independent sources. New york, countries, places, companies, products, people, references to technology like the internet, cell phones, etc etc etc. All things that are demonstrably real.

But none of it, lends any credence to spiderman actually existing....
If you have a story with 100 independent embedded claims and you can validate 99 of them - that does NOT mean that the one claim left is ALSO true.



Historical significance, isn't really the same as historical accuracy, though.
Having said that, the historical "context" of the bible, is religious scripture/lore/mythology.

I get that you, as a christian, are unable (or just refuse) to see your bible on the same level as the Quran, the Bagavad Gita, the Iliad, etc. But the fact is, that it is just religious scripture. Just like so many other (mutually exclusive and equally unverifiable) religious scriptures...

If I understand your position correctly, you believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person?

I'm not taking anything out of context.
Invalidating a certain proposed explanation, does NOT, in ANY way, lend credence to some OTHER proposed explanation.

I'll prove it to you....
Suppose I have a belief that states that pixies make my grass grow.
There's a theory that says that some natural process is actually responsible for growing grass.
Suppose that theory is then falsified somehow.

Does that falsification lend ANY kind of credence to my "grass growing pixies" belief?
Obviously, it does not.

The only thing that would lend that claim any credence, is actual positive evidence in support of that particular claim.

This is a weak analogy. A global flood being true and the theory of evolution being falsified would certainly require physical evidence and demonstrable science. No belief would be necessary when a worldwide flood could be well evidenced - hence your analogy is weak being reliant on a belief to make it a fair comparison.

So (probably no fault of your own) based on the assumption that I was talking about a belief that Noah's flood was true rather than not demonstrating it with actual evidence and actual science.

Not to mention, illegal.
"kids" don't get to decide what is good and bad science.

Education is (or should be) challenging them to decide and think critically and to ask questions without regard to the prevailing dominant consensus. I'm the opinion of simply guiding them to prepare them intellectually, ethically, and to perhaps obtain that ability to forward new research and new understandings and new conclusions in the world of science or other.

Programming them what to think is indoctrination not education. That goes for the church as well.

There actually IS only one side to the argument in biology.

You have biology, and then you have the theory of evolution.

1. "Evolution" in the sense that things change is evident because we can observe change. (microevolution, adaptation, variation, even natural selection). This is the kind of observable science that makes well with forensics, medicine, bioengineering, etc.

2. "Evolution" in the sense that all life originated from a single molecular cell and gradually changed into more complex organisms is not evident (macroevolution). It cannot be observed, tested, or repeated.

Important distinctions should be made clear on what we are actually dealing with.

 

[xianghua]

Now you are going to have to pull up your socks and ell us exactly what you mean by creation. So far you have kept your personal beliefs a secret to the best of your ablility, but if you mean by "creation" what I think you mean, then most of the scientists on that list are (or were) not creationists.

by creation i mean creation de novo and not a stepwise evolution.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Indeed much has been added to Christianity that does not belong. The creation myth is just one of those things. I believe that to best understand the bible, it is necessary to put the teachings of Christ FIRST--then, apply what the Master taught to understand what others have written in the Old and New Testaments. Unfortunately, many have chosen to worship every word of the Bible instead. This practice has dramatically diluted the powerful message and teachings of Christ. The creation story is wonderful, but should NOT be taken as fact.

The more that we know about where we have been the more we know about where we are and where we are going. You cut off the true myth and you will become more blind to Divine Revelation. Jesus taught us that knowledge of the Genesis events is necessary He said "in the beginning it was not so" Genesis is mythic literature but it reveals Truth of human origins

 

[Zoii]

Look up Exploring Biblical Creation by Eric Hovind, if you can handle it, uses science to basically prove Biblical Worldview as fact.

No it doesnt. Its still a matter of faith with diverse opinions on creation even amongst christians

 

[DogmaHunter]

If I understand your position correctly, you believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person?

Yes and no. I don't consider that the case for a historical Jesus is strong enough to warrant the acceptance of his existance to the same degree that I accept the historical existance of Julius Ceasar for example.

On the other hand, I have no problem assuming it was a real person around which the chrisian religion was developed.

So I have no "definitive" belief or disbelief about it. Nore does it keep me awake at night.
But as said, for the sake of discussion etc, I have no problem assuming there really was a human named Jesus / Joshua / some other variation around which the christian religion was developed.

This is a weak analogy.

It is not. It is a perfect analogy.
It goes to show how falsifying hypothesis 1, does not lend extra credence to unrelated hypothesis 2.

A global flood being true and the theory of evolution being falsified would certainly require physical evidence and demonstrable science.

Sure. The thing is though, a global flood makes testable predictions (global geological layer of sediments, universal genetic bottleneck,...) and when tested, these predictions do not check out. Which falsifies the flood story.

Evolution on the other hand, is an extremely solid scientific theory that accounts for all the facts, is contradicted by none and has extreme explanatory power.

The science is pretty much settled on this.

No belief would be necessary when a worldwide flood could be well evidenced

But it can't.... in fact, the opposite is true.

- hence your analogy is weak being reliant on a belief to make it a fair comparison.

Are you really going to pretend here that your religion (or indeed any religion) does not require "faith"? Come on now....

So (probably no fault of your own) based on the assumption that I was talking about a belief that Noah's flood was true rather than not demonstrating it with actual evidence and actual science.

The actual evidence and science, falsifies the flood story.
The actual evidence and science, is completely inline with evolution.

Education is (or should be) challenging them to decide and think critically and to ask questions without regard to the prevailing dominant consensus.

Sure. But kids don't get to decide what is good and bad science, because they lack the knowledge to do so. Note that by "kids", I'm talking about 12-year olds.
"kids", instead, need to be taught what science is and how they can differentiate good science from bad science. And they are taught exactly that.

Afterwards, when they have a good grasp on logical thinking, reasoning, the scientific method and to ability to identify reasoning errors and fallacies... that's when they are in a position to make such evaluations. And even then.............

Take a scientific publication from genetics, for example. Or theoretical physics.
Most well educated adults, who's subject of expertise is NOT genetics or theoretical physics, wouldn't understand a word of what is written in those papers. How, then, would well-educated adults be able to evaluate the "science" in those papers?

If well-educated adults can't even do it, how do you expect kids to do so?
You'ld basicaly need to become a geneticist to be able to evaluate the science and conclusions of a technical genetics paper.

I'm the opinion of simply guiding them to prepare them intellectually, ethically, and to perhaps obtain that ability to forward new research and new understandings and new conclusions in the world of science or other.

Sure. But that is a loooong process of learning and specific studies. Someone with a high school diploma, is not going to "forward research" or introduce "new understandings" in fields like genetics, geology, chemistry, biology, theoretical physics, astronomy, etc.

Programming them what to think is indoctrination not education

Simply teaching them the current conclusions, theories and understanding of the sciences involved, is not "indoctrinating" them. That's educating them.

You have biology, and then you have the theory of evolution.

Yes. Biology is the field. The theory of evolution, is a scientific theory within the field of biology, to explain the diversification of biological things. And it is the only game in town...

1. "Evolution" in the sense that things change is evident because we can observe change. (microevolution, adaptation, variation, even natural selection). This is the kind of observable science that makes well with forensics, medicine, bioengineering, etc.

2. "Evolution" in the sense that all life originated from a single molecular cell and gradually changed into more complex organisms is not evident (macroevolution). It cannot be observed, tested, or repeated.

It seems you might need some education on the subject as well.
I'm sure it has been told to you countless times before, but both "micro" as well as "macro" are powered by the exact same process. The only difference here is time / amount of generations.

Moving 1 inch = micro movement.
Moving 1 mile (1 inch at a time) = macro movement.

Evolution works by the gradual accumulation of micro changes.
1+1+1+1+1......+1+1 = big number.

Important distinctions should be made clear on what we are actually dealing with.

There is no distinction. It's the same process.

 

[AV1611VET]

Those in denial of evolution heap much ridicule upon themselves.

Three questions:

1. Are we mutant copy-errors, made in the image & likeness of God?

2. Did a great ape die on the Cross for our sins?

3. As for translating Genesis literally, didn't Paul admonish us not to pluralize the eleventh word of Genesis 12:7?

Genesis 12:7 And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.

Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Don't add an "s" sounds literal to me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Moving 1 inch = micro movement.
Moving 1 mile (1 inch at a time) = macro movement.

Except evolution says an ape leaves Boston, takes baby-steps to Los Angeles, and arrives as y-Adam.