The Gullability of Creationists

I fealt like starting a thread to discuss the gullability of Creationists.

However, when I say creationism, I don't mean those who believe that a supreme being set the wheels in motion but those out there that truely and honestly feel that the world was in fact created exactly as in the Genesis story.

I myself personally believe that everything that exists is in fact an artifact of the mind of a supreme being, but I personally don't believe in the Genesis story or attribute myself to any creationist dogma. (As if what I believe matters).

It simply amazes me that simply by being raised and constantly bombarded with a particular book, that a human being can grow up and mature to the point where their entire world is encompassed by and every decision made by a single book. A book which was hand-picked and put together by humans with an opinion on not even what they thought God was but an archaic society thought God was.

And to go even farther to not apply 100% what is in the book, but only what is considered acceptable for modern soceity. The catholic church that exists today is in no way the catholic church that existsed from the start.

And before someone posts that they don't care two-bits about the catholic church...This is unfounded because the catholic church was the sole entity that derived the bible in the first place. Hand-picking and discarding texts as they saw fit. Sure there are differences here and there, but the gist is pretty much the same.

What I find interesting is that most modern day Jews don't even accredit the Genesis story as being literal, NOR todays catholic church!!

our thread is kewler because we spelled gullibility correctly, while you spelled it incorrectly, making creationists better than evolutionists, smarter to boot.

but tell me, what exactly is an evolutionist when matter cannot be destroyed, only changed in form? Does this mean .. everything that appears here, as well as on every other rock in the universe, and the pre-cursor beings and elements and so on back through time, none of that was created? and what of the matter itself which forms these things, it was never created once, eons ago?

sounds to me like you cannot be a true evolutionist, and that being a creationist does not necessarily mean you do not believe in evolution, i know i do.

I think that there is probably a God, or a spirit entity if you will. I am definitely not an atheist. I do think Biblical "literalists" are silly at best, and angry zealots at worst. If God created the world as described in Genesis, then God has been intentionally deceptive towards humans by making the Earth and the universe to appear much older. Geology can measure rock strata, fossils can be found and dated, stars that are BILLIONS of light years away twinkle in our sky. Why would you worship such a deceitful God?


[edit on 13-3-2008 by Threadfall]

[edit on 13-3-2008 by Threadfall]

Originally posted by Threadfall
If God created the world as described in Genesis, then God has been intentionally deceptive towards humans by making the Earth and the universe to appear much older. Geology can measure rock strata, fossils can be found and dated, stars that are BILLIONS of light years away twinkle in our sky.

Aye, but one minor problem. Can you tell me where in the Bible it states the date of the earth? It never mentions any such thing explicitly. The 6,000 year old Earth calculation didn't surface until the 17th century. No one before that believed the earth and universe was that young including Christians. That dating was based on a priests calculation and many creationists (known as Old Earth Creationists or OEC's) do not agree with his calculations. In the original Hebrew, we are actually given hints the earth and universe is much older.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Aye, but one minor problem. Can you tell me where in the Bible it states the date of the earth? It never mentions any such thing explicitly. The 6,000 year old Earth calculation didn't surface until the 17th century. No one before that believed the earth and universe was that young including Christians. That dating was based on a priests calculation and many creationists (known as Old Earth Creationists or OEC's) do not agree with his calculations. In the original Hebrew, we are actually given hints the earth and universe is much older.

I'll take your word on that Ashley since Im sure you know more. But I have to ask then, why is this 6000 year old Earth view seemingly so dominant? Why are the OEC's opinions being stifled by this view?

I would too defer to AshleyD about Biblical stuff.
I'm not to thrilled about the Nicene Council myself.
I can tell you this as...I guess since I haven't been excommunicated I am still a Catholic, that when, or how, the Earth was created is just some fun tradition to us. I don't know any Catholics that care one way or the other, it isn't important to our faith. As a matter of fact, it is hard to tell the difference between a Lutheran and Catholic service today. (you might find some pre-Vatican 2 Catholic churchs, but I haven't been to any in the last 20 years) Some of you might remember when Pope John Paul the 2nd said "hell is not so much of a place as it is a condition." That is about as close as us Roman Catholics are going to get to saying, there isn't the Hell that the Bible says. So we Catholics aren't too emeshed with literal interpretation. 7 days, 7 eons, 7 dr. Susess's, it doesn't really matter.
(oh, and I spell like a 3rd grader)

Originally posted by Threadfall
I'll take your word on that Ashley since Im sure you know more. But I have to ask then, why is this 6000 year old Earth view seemingly so dominant? Why are the OEC's opinions being stifled by this view?

I think it is because they use English translations and not the original Hebrew. The creation account is very 'strict' in English translations but a lot more fluid in Hebrew.

YEC's who believe the Biblical genealogies are closed, there is no time gap between Genesis 1:1-2, and that creation lasted seven literal days come up with the calculation of a little over 6,000 years. So by taking the Bible uber literally (in English) their science has to confirm to a young earth and they dismiss the contradicting evidence. Evolutionists believe the universe and earth has to be billions of years old in order to provide us with enough time to evolve from single celled organisms into the variety of species we have today, to account for the strata layers, etc. Like YEC's, they toss out anything that contracts the mutli-billion year notion. Kind of crazy. It doesn't seem like either side is willing to budge because they feel it needs to be a certain way in order for their theories to fit.

If you research all views concerning the age of the universe and earth and listen to all arguments with an open mind, you will be left with a big question mark over your head. Secular science, OEC's, and even YEC's all have very good arguments validating their cases individually. However, when you take all the evidence collectively, it becomes a great debate because many good arguments and solid evidence supporting one view directly contradicts the many good arguments and solid evidence of another view. I almost started a thread over the topic to list the pros and cons of each angle but figured everyone was sick of this stuff by now.

I do believe Evolution is not the whole story, but it contains a lot of truth. I do believe there is more involved in the evolutionary process that mere random selection, mutation, and survival of the fittest.

On the other hand, creationism seems to be dominated by christian fundamentalists. They have in fact made serious criticism of the theory of Evolution ridiculous.

I read somewhere that the actual age of the earth and universe could not have allowed enough "time" for evolution from a single-celled organism to take place. That is if you believe the true ages as put forth by science, which I do. I'll try to find the article, but it pretty much lays out the response to that evolution theory.

Unless you believe evolution occurred outside time of course, which is a whole different topic.

I_R

Do we really need this sort of tit-for-tat silliness? Or do we really need another creation versus evolution thread?

Mod Note: Please Stay on Topic -- Please Review

[edit on 14-3-2008 by chissler]

I guess Ashley made some good points differentiating between the different types of creationists, so maybe the OP wants to amend his gullibility statement? Maybe not. Regardless, I guess I would like to amend those who I call silly and/or angry zealots. As the concept of OEC's is new to me since Ashley brought them up to me, it wouldn't be fair for me to make pejorative remarks about them. However, YEC's, I fee,l are often foolish people with weak faith. Fundamentalists, of any religion, that need to interpret their respective Holy Manuscripts in a singularly literal sense have hollow faith if you ask me. Any thought, spoken word, idea, theory or whatever that presents a different view is an instant threat to these people. The fact that NONE of them would even be willing to examine the different perspective belies the fact how fragile their faith is. And to contend with those issues they make up the fake "science" of creationism.

[edit on 14-3-2008 by Threadfall]

reply to post by AshleyD


No.

Geologists have accurately dated the creation of the earth from radioactive age dating of meteorites. The evidence, not their "wishes", point at the Earth being 4.5 billion years old. They don't need it to be older, it just is. Saying they 'need' it to be older makes it seem they've already made up their minds - scientists, by definition, have never made up their minds. What's termed "scientific knowledge" is just a snapshot of the current scientific understanding of the world. If someone found a fossil of a human carcass inside that of a T-Rex, and it could be authenticated as such, geologists and paeleontologists would turn 180 degrees in an instant.

Saying scientists "need" anything is silly, as the only thing scientists "need" is evidence. Their minds are more open than any religious type, as scientists are prepared to believe anything, should evidence present itself to indicate it to be true. The same can not be said about literal christians.

reply to post by Choronzon


I other words you do not believe in the bible as the infallible truth of the existence of human kind.

Taking into consideration that the only prof of Creationism is Genesis I guess this one will no bring a lot of challenges.

BTW if you do a nice search this topic as the one of evolution has been exhausted quite deeply in this boards already.

[edit on 17-3-2008 by marg6043]

reply to post by dave420


Yes.

Now go do your own research. I'm tired of doing everyone's dirty work for them.

I already believe in an older earth/universe and even some of the dating methods that back up my view but also cannot ignore those that refute it.

An open mind is an incredible thing to have.

reply to post by AshleyD


I will ignore people who don't have any supporting evidence, otherwise every single kook with an idea and no evidence will deserve as much attention as someone with a theory and staggering evidence. Humanity will learn a fraction of what it could if everyone took that ridiculous approach.

Originally posted by dave420
I will ignore people who don't have any supporting evidence, otherwise every single kook with an idea and no evidence will deserve as much attention as someone with a theory and staggering evidence. Humanity will learn a fraction of what it could if everyone took that ridiculous approach.

No worries. I totally understand where you're coming from.

I pretty much ignore the macros for the same reason.

reply to post by AshleyD


'Gullible' is a synonym of 'naive', 'trusting', 'innocent', and mainly 'credulous'. Seeing as a creationist needs to have no evidence to support their claim, it seems a very fitting use of the word. To believe in evolution you have to know about the science behind it, be able to follow the scientific method, to understand what evidence actually is, and to be able to follow the logic of evolution. That rules evolutionists out of being 'gullible', as they reach their conclusions via logic and evidence, as opposed to a bronze-age parenting manual.