Skip to comments.Creationism makes a comeback in US
Posted on 06/25/2007 5:55:14 PM PDT by Alien Syndrome
click here to read article
First there was nothing and them there was this Big Bang!
How does that suit you?
I am, I want to look at empirical evidence (which you should know from previous discussions with me! :)
Perhaps you are the confused one.
"Do you not recognize that I believe in G D and do not believe in evolution? I believe in the Bible the way it is written. Not the way most people think it is written."
You don't believe that the first 3 days of Genesis were 24-hour days even though it violence to the text to separate days 1-3 from 4-6 when they all are written the same way.
I don't think you 'believe in the Bible the way it is written' as you think you do. That is confusion.
"Faith is all about reading and understanding, for G D hath said "my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. "Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests; Hosea 4:6 " Since you seem to be a believer as well what problem do you have with me?"
Ah, personalize the argument in order to preserve your paradigm. More confusion. You're kidding yourself.
Are you acting as AS’s agent or something?
Obviously AS has nothing but contempt for “Darwinism” and “Darwinists”, and mentions the damage they’re doing to this country. I’d like to know just exactly what he/she has in mind to mitigate this damage.
I’d also like to know which other fields of science his/her contempt for “Darwinism” extends to - I suspect it’s most, if not all, of them. A typical pattern on this site these days.
I have a bit of a personal interest in this, as someone who believes that scientific inquiry should go beyond “the Bible says it, therefore it must be true.” That attitude makes me a part of the problem in the eyes of the majority around here, so any solutions to the problem are going to affect me.
Don't mistake "Darwinism" for science. 'Darwinism' is a philosophy, not a science. The 'typical pattern' you see is manufactured by the 'Darwinists', not the creationists, as a red-herring fallacy. Are you unable to recognize that?
"I have a bit of a personal interest in this, as someone who believes that scientific inquiry should go beyond the Bible says it, therefore it must be true. That attitude makes me a part of the problem in the eyes of the majority around here, so any solutions to the problem are going to affect me."
Again, 'the Bible says it, therefore it must be true' is a red-herring fallacy invoked by the naturalists. Must be effective. You believed it.
But, self-assigned victim status is always very gratifying, no?
If God created everything, why couldnt God create evolution?
Well, God (i.e., the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) could have made something such as a process which is called "evolution", if He desired imperfection as a "showpiece" of His creative abilities -- and if He didn't have some other very specific goals to achieve as part of His creative process. Part of God's goal in the creation of mankind was to show the nature of sin and the judgement that it deserves and the perfection and holiness and wisdom of God Himself. Mankind is part of that process, in order to show that, in the end.
SO..., the problem is -- God created perfection in His creation and not a flawed process, such as evolution, which depends upon millions and millions of years of death and decay as part of its processes. With God's creation, He created perfection in His completed universe, from top to bottom, with no death and no decay, in those six days of His creative endeavors, as described in Genesis. He created it that way, until mankind brought the very physical process of death -- into the previously perfect universe that God created.
Of course, God knew this was going to happen, and He created mankind very specifically for this purpose, to show His perfection and wisdom and holiness -- and for the process of redeeming His perfect creation, back to its pristine condition, prior to the entrance of death and decay into the process of "being" and "existence" (that mankind brought into existence).
Prior to the "fall" of mankind to the wiles of Satan, in the Garden of Eden, there was no death or decay in the created universe that God had made. Death was introduced after that time, by the sinfulness of mankind -- as a "judgment" of God -- and (with the "bigger picture") for the purpose of showing God's perfection in bringing the creation back to its pristine and perfect condition, once again.
And so..., God could have created imperfection in the first place, if that's what He had wished to do. But, God did not choose to have "death and decay" enter into something that He made in perfection. And so He did not do it that way -- as the speculative theory of evolution tries to maintain is the case.
By God's own word, in the creation that He describes, in how He made it and for what purpose He made it -- the theory presented today (as "evolution") goes totally and completely against what God says He created and for what purpose He created it.
To accept this "theory" as a viable explanation of the things we see today is to basically reject what God says and basically that He even exists. The acceptance of evolution (as an explanation of what we see today) is the rejection of God, of His Word, of the explanations in Genesis and of the basic Christian faith -- as it all hinges on Genesis and that explanation. We not only don't have God any longer -- we no longer have Jesus Christ or Christianity.
Thus, it's obvious that evolution is not an explanation for what we see today, if we accept that God exists, that God spoke to us in Genesis (and the rest of the Bible) and through Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel. It's all totally invalid, in the understanding of evolution. That's why those two -- "God" (and His word, along with Jesus Christ and Christianity) is totally imcompatible with the understanding and acceptance of evolution. The two will never be accommodated to one another. One or the other dies...
It amazes me how patient God is with us.
God is only patient to the degree that He is carrying out His plan for mankind and to bring it to the point of what His goals are. There are seven "dispensations" that God has taken mankind through (one more to go after this dispensation of the Age of Grace).
To the degree that the United States serves the purpose of God in bringing the world and the various nations to the battle of Armageddon and with what God has in store with Israel and those end days of the Tribulation time -- to that degree, the United States will still be around.
God is simply carrying out His plan for the world and mankind, and using the United States and the various other nations to serve His purposes...
Is there a reason that the Christian creation myth somehow deserves a place in a science curriculum while voodoo or Native American creation myths do not?
There is only one reason why the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is to be believed above all else -- it's because He has given us the truth of the matter. And He has done that because He is the Creator God of the universe and everything that exists outside of Himself.
Only the Creator God (who, by the way, is the same one who gives the "unalienable rights" in the Declaration of Independence -- i.e., He is the one who grants them, so that no government can take away) is the one who is to be believed, because of all that He has shown us to be true, from the beginning.
He has given us the Messiah of Israel, who is the Savior of mankind, the only one who is able to save from the inevitable death (which comes from the sin of mankind, as the Bible says). He has given us everlasting life in His Son, that Messiah of Israel, so that we live forevermore with Him -- on this earth.
He says that there is no one like Him -- that there are no gods besides Him and that He is the only one who created everything and no one else did.
He is either that God (the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) or He is not, and is therefore a liar to us and to all of mankind.
That is why we take what the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob said -- as to how things were created in the beginning -- and not the many other fables that we hear about. In other words, we take the true account, as given to us by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
100 years from now, the Bible will be here still, how many scientific theories that are really current dogmas will last? Just last week there was a 400,000 year correction to the dateline of emergence of man to establish a new dogma (I know nothing more, as I don’t pay attention to this nonsense.) Wasn’t it Andy Warhol who said that in the future every scientific theory will be famous for 15 minutes?!
For your argument to be of any use, scientific theories would have to be getting less accurate. If there are any changes (and it is likely there will be), then those theories will become more accurate. How does this help creationists or Bible belief or anything related? Scientific theories can improve with additional evidence and testing, dogma can't improve (remember, dogma is a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence, and that is quite the opposite of a scientific theory).
Just last week there was a 400,000 year correction to the dateline of emergence of man to establish a new dogma (I know nothing more, as I dont pay attention to this nonsense.)
You should pay more attention if you want to have an informed opinion on the issue. One group of researchers suggested a new interpretation of the archaeological record. Many others do not accept that new interpretation. Now the debate will begin, and we will see where it leads. I personally doubt it will result in very much change in current theory. But in either case you don't have a clue because you have not studied the issue, and you don't know the scientific evidence on either side of the issue. All you can do is parrot some anti-science dogma you read on some website.
But the interesting thing here is that your comment demonstrates that scientific theories are not "dogma," because if they were dogma they would not be subject to change, and those proposing change would be condemned as heretics.
Wasnt it Andy Warhol who said that in the future every scientific theory will be famous for 15 minutes?!
No. Nice try, but just no!
But I do stand by my point about scientific dogmas, or should I say dogmas du jour,as these theories about creation and the age of the universe become, or as they are transmitted and presented to the rest of us mortals.And they do change, as the new theories come up. 400,000 one way or another, pretty soon you get a millenium. And such numbers do appear on exam tests taken by our children, only to be changed on tests taken by their younger siblings. That's not dogma? Maybe dogma is not the right term, you name it.
Good. It is wise to be skeptical. That is why my initial reaction to this new 400,000 year claim is, well, skeptical. I think the scientific method will play out here. If there is evidence, the claim will be accepted. If not, to the dustbin of history (or in this case, prehistory). I have my doubts about this new idea, and I think it will not be accepted unless much additional evidence comes to light.
But I do stand by my point about scientific dogmas, or should I say dogmas du jour,as these theories about creation and the age of the universe become, or as they are transmitted and presented to the rest of us mortals.And they do change, as the new theories come up.
Theories are simply not dogmas. They are the current best explanations for the data at hand. They can change quickly if new data show new directions. My point is that dogma can't change, as dogma is generally understood as a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence. That is a far cry from science, which relies on evidence and does change.
400,000 one way or another, pretty soon you get a millenium.
A millennium is 1,000 years (minor point).
And such numbers do appear on exam tests taken by our children, only to be changed on tests taken by their younger siblings. That's not dogma? Maybe dogma is not the right term, you name it.
As I noted above, dogma is that which is accepted as true without evidence. Science relies on evidence. And science changes through time, becoming more accurate.
You hear little about phlogiston chemistry and astrology in sciences classes, and phrenology is quite passe! Science has moved on. Would you condemn science for that? For improving our understanding of the natural world? What would you have us do in its absence?
Then don't try to tell me that you believe the Bible 'the way it was written' because it was written 'evening and morning' as 24-hour days and you aren't reading it that way.
" You read it your way I'll read It mine. If I have read it wrong HIS grace is sufficient."
What happened to your "Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests" position?
And I am trying to be nice to you.
" The passage in Hosea is not about you unless you take it that way. It is the Bible that says we should seek knowledge."
I never thought it was about me. I was pointing out that you retreated from your former position of sure 'reading and understanding' so as not to be rejected as a priest to one where 'you do your thing and I'll do mine and rely on the grace of God if wrong'. That 180 was done with such ease as to indicate that you are confused.
"I have no need to quarrel with other believers but if you insist, I want you to tell me how you know the first days were 24 hours long."
As I have already said a couple of times now, it is written 'evening and morning' and it does violence to the text to interpret it as anything other than 24-hour days. How can you have read my previous posts and even ask such a question? I have already answered you twice, now three times.
"Do you recall the tongue lashing G D gave Job4: "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. 5: Who determined its measurements -- surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? 6: On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, 7: when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
As far as I can tell, that verse applies more to you than to me. You are the one doing violence to the text and then insisting that a literal 24-hour understanding is lacking in understanding. I think you would be wise to first see if your arguments can apply to you before you make them. You have made no argument that doesn't apply to you first. Do I detect a pattern?
"The light that Shined the first day and all preceding days came from G D himself. I don't know about you but I will put no limitations on how long his days shall last."
You merely place the opinion of men above the clear teaching of the word of God and then try to claim that you 'believe the Bible as it is written'. What a copout.
The Bible was *never* understood to refer to days of creation longer than 24-hours until *man* said the creation was older than 6,000 yrs. That's why the 'evening and morning' verbiage is there. If you can deny that, then you can't say that you 'believe the Bible as written'. Well...you can and do, but you are confused.
You are just afraid of the ridicule you will receive from men if you subscribe to a 6,000 year-old creation as taught by the Bible.
Sure you are. You're afraid to say how old the earth is because, having thrown out the literal interpretation, nothing that you say can be supported; so you say nothing to avoid being ridiculed.
"You said you know, you claimed creation was 7 24 hour days. Do you think if G D choose to, HE could have created the universe and all in it in the twinkling of an eye, I have no doubt that HE could."
Looks like our roles are reversed, because I think he did it just like it says in Genesis. In 6 24-hour days. You think God must have done it any way *except* the way he says he did in Genesis. And you claim the you 'believe the Bible as written'? Funny.
"Besides James Ussher (1581-1656) came up with the 6000 year old earth, not the Bible."
He didn't 'come up with' a 6,000 year old earth out of thin air. He merely added up the timelines recorded *in the Bible*. It is men who laugh and ridicule Ussher's work because *men* say the earth is any age *except* that recorded in the Bible. God could do anything *except* what is in Genesis.
"I will continue to believe that the days of creation are of undetermined length, an evening and a morning of unknown to me hours and you do as you please."
Again, it looks like our roles are reversed. You are the one 'doing as you please' simply because *men* say that the earth is any age *except* that recorded in the Bible. I am the one who 'believes the Bible as written'. 'Evening and morning' make it pretty clear that 24-hour days are intended. Unless you think the earth took millions of years to complete one rotation in the past, but that becomes pretty foolish pretty quickly.
Hopefully you won't try to confuse people anymore by saying you 'believe the Bible as written' and then denying that creation was recorded as taking 6 24-hour days.
Claiming that creationist claptrap deserves a spot in an official Grand Canyon gift shop is about as absurd as claiming that to show all sides of the issue the U.S. Holocaust Museum should be carrying copies of Mein Kampf.
Unless you now want to change terms and argue absolute precision, that's not the Holy Spirit telling you the world is of indeterminable age.
You are confused and fear the ridicule of men.
Apparently you believe that smug "fears the ridicule of men", so you're going to ridicule him into line.
How many creationists don’t buy the “young earth” crapola?
Count me in!
You think that was ‘ridicule’?
Rather intersting that you don’t seem to.
Not as intersting that you do seem to.
That makes what will follow too predictable to be of any interest at all.
What preceded was too predictable to be of any interest at all. That’s why I reflected it back to you.
That's between you and God. Personally I'm inclined to hold a person's belief in and adherence to the Ten Commandments as a lot more relevant that their interpretation of Genesis.
The fact of your reply belies the content.
I'm not going to stress over the age of the earth or universe or any other trivial matter. Sure it's fun to discuss and explore but it has no bearing on my faith in God or the Bible.
The account of creation is not written from the perspective of where the creator was. It was never intended to be understood as indeterminate until *man* decided that the earth cannot be 6,000 years old.
Then the compromisers started coming out and perverting the word of God to conform to the opinions of men.
How many millions of years were there between the third day when the plants were created and the fourth day when the sun was created?
"Just as I hold that the bible tells two different stories of the creation on Man. One on the sixth day and Adam and Eve on the eight day or later."
Then you have to invent a mass die-off so that Eve can eventually be the 'mother of all the living'.
Genesis 3:20 - "Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living."
That's what happens when you start perverting the word of God.
You can't stop.
Not at all. It reveals it.
If all you want is the last word, take it. It’s yours.
If you wanted the last word, all you had to do is say so.
Get ye behind me.
Try believing what the Word of God says, not what you want it to say, and you’ll see who’s behind you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.