It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The "Creationism" Conspiracy

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 02:59 AM
link   
This is my first thread I'm creating on this website. I've been browsing through the different forums and have been very active elsewhere. But for my first post I want to put down a conspiracy that I perceive happening in the world of atheists.

I used to debate the issues of Creation and Evolution all the time, ever since I had to take Biology my freshman year in High School. But I've pretty much ignored the issue for awhile now. However one things irks me more than anything about evolutionists and it is their constant use of the term "creationist." If you please continue to read on I hope I will try and explain my point. The very name of this forum is an example.

What is a creationist? Creationism has been a term that has been given a group on the religious right. They are fundamentals, and extreme radicals in their thinking and ideology, and believe that everything in the Bible must be taken literally.

They actually comprise a minority of so-called Christians, yet they are the most picked on by evolutionists, and with good reason. Because the whole premise behind their thinking is faulty, flawed, wrong, downright unscientific.

Creationists believe that the literal heavens and earth were created in six literal days some six thousand years in the past.

This is where the conspiracy comes in. There are differing and more moderate, and reasonable viewpoints about the Bible passage of Genesis 1 and yet I never have ever heard an evolutionist acknowledge them, or differentiate between the radical right wing religious nuts and other Christian thinkers.

For example, there are many millions who have come to believe with good reason that the first chapter of Genesis explains how life came to be and beautifully coincides with science.

Genesis 1:1 states: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Even many scholars agree that this statement is separate from verse two and onward. That is, some time in the indefinite past, many billions of years God created both the heavens and the earth. How he did so, or how long ago he did so is not stated.

And note, the rest of the chapter is not referring to the creation of the literal heavens and the literal earth, we've already established these have been created and in existence. Rather they are referring to the readying of the earth for human habitation.

Come along with me now and we'll look at Genesis chapter 1 from the perspective of a person who believe in Creation, but is not a Creationist:

The information about the creation of the earth must have been given from a divine source if it is indeed accurate. For no man on earth was alive at that time. The Bible claims to be inspired of God, and most scholars are in agreement that Moses was the writer of the first five books. So if God really did inspire Moses to write down these words, he must have explained how he readied the earth for human habitation from a standpoint Moses could relate to. Thus in this context we look at the following verses in Genesis form the viewpoint of a man on the surface of the earth sometime after the creation of the heavens, and the formation of the earth (which obviously came from the remnants of a Red Giant, for the elements in our solar system are to heavy to have been formed in any other place than in the core of an erupting Red Giant - stars burn hydrogen, but as these Red Giants - super massive stars millions of times larger than our sun, burn they burn through their core rather quickly. After they satiate their hunger on hydrogen, in a process that creates helium atoms, they start to eat away at the helium, and create heavier and heavier elements, until finally they have no more fuel and explode.)

One more thing when we need to keep in mind when reading the Genesis account. The word day in Hebrew does not nessicarly need to be a literal 24 hour period. In fact many times the word day can mean a long period of time...cont....




posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Calender
 




But for my first post I want to put down a conspiracy that I perceive happening in the world of atheists.


Atheism and evolution are not synonymous, there are plenty of theists who accept evolution and even, I suspect, a handful of atheists who reject it.



Creationism has been a term that has been given a group on the religious right


They gave it to themselves. Look up the text book Of Pandas and People and you will see how the creationists relabeled themselves as in favor of Intelligent Design something which is exactly the same as creationism. Its not a political term its a moniker that these fundamentalists have used FOR THEMSELVES which changed after a court case declaring Creationism unteachable in schools.



There are differing and more moderate, and reasonable viewpoints about the Bible passage of Genesis 1 and yet I never have ever heard an evolutionist acknowledge them, or differentiate between the radical right wing religious nuts and other Christian thinkers.


Because people who interpret Genesis figuratively as a metaphoric story aren't asserting the story as literally true and therefore aren't in direct conflict with the fact of Evolution. What purpose does someone who accepts Evolution have in acknowledging figurative interpretations? The conflict is between those that accept the reality of Evolution and those than deny it, there is no reason to drag the rest of Christianity into the discussion. I for one am perfectly fine with theists who accept Evolution but maintain their belief in God.



Rather they are referring to the readying of the earth for human habitation.


By a supernatural deity who cannot be shown to exist (though his existence is not an issue for those who accept Evolution). Even if we take the view that God was readying the Earth for habitation you still have the supernatural interacting with the natural and that is a testable claim - meaning that action could leave evidence behind and we would be able to find that evidence.



For no man on earth was alive at that time.


Than my question becomes, How did the Biblical authors know what happened and how is the myth they scribbled down more accurate than a century and a half of painstaking work by biologists, cosmologists and geologists (explaining how the Earth formed, life evolved and how it changed over time).

I've seen a great many attempts here on ATS to bring the Genesis accounts and real science together, none have ever presented a solid argument. The Genesis account, whether taken literally or not, doesn't correspond to what we know of the formation of Life, the Universe or anything. And it can't really be expected to because the people writing it had insufficient information to form any coherent evidence based conclusions.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 03:18 AM
link   
cont...

For example the very next chapter, in Genesis 2 we are told:


(Genesis 2:4) . . .This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the daythat Jehovah God made earth and heaven.

Here the same Hebrew word used for day in Genesis 1 several times is used to clump all of the creative days together and calls that time period a day. So very obviously right away we already know that the creative days or time periods in Genesis 1 do not have to be literal 24 hour time periods. Rather they were long periods of time.

With all of this in mind read the Genesis account:

Day 1 - God made a division between day and night. Light and darkness. - verses 3-5.

From the perspective of an observer on earth the atmosphere was thick, so thick light did not even penetrate it. Perhaps similar to that of Venus' atmosphere. At this point God somehow maneuvered enough of this atmosphere so that the light from the Sun could now reach the earth. It was still to thick to actually see anything, but at least light now penetrated the thick atmosphere.

Day 2 - God created to make an expanse of water above the heavens and one below the heavens (the sky). - verses 6-8.

Now we have a more clearcut molding of the earth's atmosphere, and no doubt water appeared now from that thick atmosphere both above our sky and beneath it.

Day 3 - God divided the waters from the dry land. He called the waters Seas, and the dry land Earth. During this day he also introduced vegetation on the earth, grass, trees, and all things green.

In that no doubt carbon dioxide rich atmosphere creating plant life makes perfect since. They can now start to filter the atmosphere and filter oxygen, an ingredient later needed for other life, into the atmosphere. At the same time the process of photosynthesis would start to clear up the atmosphere.

The fossil record shows that plant life was the first to appear on the earth.

Day 4 - God placed the luminaries in the sky. The sun for dominating the day, and the moon for dominating the night. They would serve as times and seasons, and God made a division between night and day. - verses 14-19.

Many scholars scoff at this and state that at first the scripture says that God created light on the first day, and now its saying that he just created the sun and the moon.

But they are taking what was said out of context. In the first day he only made the light visible from the already existing sun to the earth's surface. Light that was needed for the plants and vegetation he created. In turn the filtration of the plants and trees of the atmosphere slowly cleared it enough so that the sun was now clearly distinguishable in the sky, as well as the moon.

Day 5 - God creates sea creatures and all types of living things in the sea, and also every type of flying creature. - Verses 20-23.

This is in accord to fossil record. Sea life appeared before life on land. So did bird life.


Day 6 - God creates land animals, both domestic and wild. And finally after creating a beautiful garden, known as the Garden of Eden, or literally Garden of Pleasure, he places the man who he created after his image into that garden, and gives him dominion over all the creatures of the earth. - Verses 24-28.

The scientific record shows that land animals appear after sea creatures, and that man was the last to arrive.

Each of these creative days were perhaps thousands of years long, and coincide perfectly with what the scientific record, as known, to us.

This is but one example in the difference in the accurate teaching and understanding of the Bible of reasoning people who have come to conclude that the Bible, while not being a scientific textbook, nor claiming to be one, is always scientifically accurate.

There are many Christians who are not Creationists. And for evolutionsts to limit their constant arguements over Creationism is a flat out conspiracy.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


You were too quick to reply as my first post was not finished. I guess the "cont..." did not make that evident.

Thank you for pointing out the difference between atheism and evolution. And I realize the difference, and the other nuisances of it.

Just as there are open-minded and broad thinkers who believe in Creation, so there are in Evolution. No creationist is open-minded or moderate in their thinking. And there are many evolutionists (who are also atheists) who are as close-minded and stubborn in their viewpoints. My thread is geared toward them.

Again, as I mentioned it is telling that this forum is directed only toward "Creationists." Either the creator of this forum does not know the difference between the narrow-minded Right Wing Christian Extremists views and that of others, as you pointed out, or this forum is geared specifically at that small minority of people.

Either way I still consider it a conspiracy, for it totally ignores the fact that there are other understandings of Creation, besides the creationsists viewpont.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Calender
One more thing when we need to keep in mind when reading the Genesis account. The word day in Hebrew does not nessicarly need to be a literal 24 hour period. In fact many times the word day can mean a long period of time...cont....

I am agnostic regarding both creation and evolution...
...and you are certainly welcome to your opinion...
...but if you decide to comment on the biblical canonical documents...
...please check you facts first with a theological professional.

Six of the seven days in the first of the creation stories in Genesis (there are two)...
...specify that "...the evening and the morning were the first day..." Genesis 1:5

Evening and morning are the Hebrew words ereb boqer...
...and describe the two ends of daylight hours...
...day is the word yowm which can mean day, year or a period of time.

However, because the word day (yowm) is modified in the sentance with evening/morning (ereb boqer) it means a 24 hour period.

Like it or not that is the message the first of the two creation accounts convey.



[edit on 2/7/10 by troubleshooter]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by troubleshooter
 


Again, like I said I've debated this many times over, and I thank you for your candor, but I already anticipated this response.

And I thank you for giving me the kind of advice of checking my facts. And I have done so, and find that your scholar seems to be lacking, and again the one that many always run to to claim that their can be no other understanding of Genesis 1. Which is just not true.

The Hebrew word yohm, translated “day,” can mean different lengths of time as you pointed out.

William Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies[edit - italics](page 109) includes the following concerning the Hebrew word yohm found in Genesis 1: “A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration . . . Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.”

Genesis Chapter 1 does uses the term “evening” and “morning” relative to the creative periods. Does this not indicate that they were 24 hours long? Not necessarily. In some places people often refer to a man’s lifetime as his “day.” They speak of “my father’s day” or “in Shakespeare’s day.” They may divide up that lifetime “day,” saying “in the morning [or dawn] of his life” or “in the evening [or twilight] of his life.” So ‘evening and morning’ in Genesis chapter 1 does not limit the meaning to a literal 24 hours.

“Day” as used in the Bible can include summer and winter, the passing of seasons. (Zechariah 14:8) “The day of harvest” involves many days. (Compare Proverbs 25:13 and Genesis 30:14.) A thousand years are likened to a day. (Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8, 10) “Judgment Day” covers many years. (Matthew 10:15; 11:22-24) It would seem reasonable that the “days” of Genesis could likewise have embraced long periods of time—millenniums

And don't forget the quote of Genesis chapter 2 I used that clumped the entire creative account in Genesis chapter 1 as one day.

Further if each of the six days in Genesis were literal, then the rest day, the seventh was also one day, according to your logic, and everyone else's who refuse to understand that chapter in any other light. Yet the Bible itself shows us that cannot be true:

(Hebrews 4:4-6) . . .For in one place he has said of the seventh day as follows: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works,” 5 and again in this place: “They shall not enter into my rest.” 6 Since, therefore, it remains for some to enter into it, and those to whom the good news was first declared did not enter in because of disobedience. . .


Paul writing some four thousand years after the seventh day of rest had started noted that we are still in the seventh day of rest. That is that seventh day has not ended yet, and now over 6,000 years have past.

[edit - removed an unnecessary sentence right here.]

[edit on 2-7-2010 by Calender]

[edit on 2-7-2010 by Calender]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Calender
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 

Again, as I mentioned it is telling that this forum is directed only toward "Creationists." Either the creator of this forum does not know the difference between the narrow-minded Right Wing Christian Extremists views and that of others, as you pointed out, or this forum is geared specifically at that small minority of people.


This Forum is titled Origins and creationism.
Origins.
Get it?



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by jokei
 


Perhaps I don't. I guess you mean that term encompasses all the other ideas besides Creationism. But it is misleading, at least to me. Why would they, as countless others do, seperate out Creationism.

Like I said, I've never really had one single evolutionist debate my understanding of Genesis 1. They have done like troubleshooter, over and over and say, no, no, no you cannot look at Genesis any other way than the literal view. No, it can't be done. That's just an ad hominem attack. It has no validity. Of course they'll quote some scholar that states, no, you see there is no other way you can translate these Hebrew word Yohm than one literal day. Even though they do in many other places of the Bible.

They just don't reason. They get someone to agree to their viewpoint and then just shut down. They refuse to understand their are other valid viewpoints. But they refuse to even discuss them.

Notice troubleshooter, didn't even try, he just through out what someone said, and, that's it, shut down, said I didn't know my facts, and went on his way. I realize he said he's agnostic. And I've dealt with several agnostics with his attitude. So I realize they have that same mindset as some atheists as well.

Thus my thread on the conspiracy that is very alive and well of trying to lump anyone who believes in the Genesis account with Creationists and their view. Again they will regulate us and tell us there is no other way to view things. This is inaccurate. They have conspired against really debating the merit of the Genesis account. And using Creationists just well, it's easy to debunk them. But not good sound reasoning.

Which is why I've also learned to limit my replies to a person that is combative and doesn't want to reason to one or two. After that I never see the reason to continue a conversation with someone that is not open-minded, nor willing to reason.

Oh, for the record, I was planning on writing this thread about the Creationism Conspiracy, before I even noticed we had this forum. The fact that the name of this sub-forum uses the phrase Creationism was just an unexpected bonus.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Calender
reply to post by troubleshooter
 

Genesis Chapter 1 does uses the term “evening” and “morning” relative to the creative periods. Does this not indicate that they were 24 hours long? Not necessarily. In some places people often refer to a man’s lifetime as his “day.” They speak of “my father’s day” or “in Shakespeare’s day.” They may divide up that lifetime “day,” saying “in the morning [or dawn] of his life” or “in the evening [or twilight] of his life.” So ‘evening and morning’ in Genesis chapter 1 does not limit the meaning to a literal 24 hours.

ereb boqer always refer to morning and evening (late afternoon)...
...it is used elsewhere in relation to the morning and evening sacrifices...
...conducted by Israel post-Sinai.

You may not like or agree with the twenty-four hour day reference in the first six days of creation...
...but that is what the text says...sorry.




posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Calender
 


Yes, I would say that Origins and Creationism does encompass "The Beginning" - personally I'll state I'm an Atheist, so I might refer to it as the Big Bang.

Anyhow, Creationism is a very specific interpretation of the bible - so I think it's fair to single it out, although that doesn't (in this case) mean an attack upon creationism, it's just a framework for the terms.

As someone else said Genesis and science don't have to necessarily be at odds with each other, so they can happily sit under the title of Origins - certainly for my understanding of the purpose of this forum.

With regards your idea that people are lumping Creationists and Christians together (I think that's what you mean), not really in my experience a) here on ATS and b) in real life.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Calender
reply to post by troubleshooter
 

Further if each of the six days in Genesis were literal, then the rest day, the seventh was also one day, according to your logic, and everyone else's who refuse to understand that chapter in any other light. Yet the Bible itself shows us that cannot be true:

The seventh day of creation has no 'evening morning' ('ereb boqer)...
...God's rest was open-ended.


(Hebrews 4:4-6) . . .For in one place he has said of the seventh day as follows: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works,” 5 and again in this place: “They shall not enter into my rest.” 6 Since, therefore, it remains for some to enter into it, and those to whom the good news was first declared did not enter in because of disobedience. . .

Paul writing some four thousand years after the seventh day of rest had started noted that we are still in the seventh day of rest. That is that seventh day has not ended yet, and now over 6,000 years have past.

So in this we are in agreement it seems.



[edit on 2/7/10 by troubleshooter]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 05:33 AM
link   
Perhaps I'm seeing conspiracies where there are none? Anyway thanks for the enlightening response. Most of my encounters both online and in the real world with atheistic evolutionists have been with people who constantly attack Creationism and try to lump me in with them. I agree there are many people who don't, but many who do. It is nice to hear a different perspective on things.

I believe, sometimes it could be because some many perhaps mistakenly think that if you believe in the Bible's account of creation you must be a creationist.

Cheers.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by troubleshooter
 


Thanks, again for your reply. I guess we agree to disagree on the rest, which is to be expected. If you ever get past what I've learned to be the wrong concept of a word (yohm) and its application in Genesis get back with me and we can tackle the rest of my post.

In any event thanks for taking the time to express your understanding of this creationism conspiracy.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Day 5 - God creates sea creatures and all types of living things in the sea, and also every type of flying creature. - Verses 20-23.

This is in accord to fossil record. Sea life appeared before life on land. So did bird life.


Is that true ?

I understand, birds are evolved from dinosaurs.

Edit : To say that I do like your explanation. Way to go.


[edit on 7/2/2010 by Sinter Klaas]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Calender
 



Can you just clear something up for me please? you mention two things here that seem to me anyway pretty contradictory.




many millions who have come to believe with good reason that the first chapter of Genesis explains how life came to be and beautifully coincides with science


But you then go on to say




How he did so, or how long ago he did so is not stated.


So....how does it coincide with science exactly?, can you please show me scientific, peer reviewed data from these millions of people showing how god created the heavens and earth?, or rather seperated them for human habitation?



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Calender
However one things irks me more than anything about evolutionists and it is their constant use of the term "creationist."


Hypocrisy at it's finest.

"Evolutionists" aren't the only people who deny Creationism, Geology is another field that disproves creationism, but you don't go around saying "However one things irks me more than anything about geologists and it is their constant use of the term 'creationist'."



Originally posted by Calender
I believe, sometimes it could be because some many perhaps mistakenly think that if you believe in the Bible's account of creation you must be a creationist.


Yeah, that's precisely what the term "creationist" means. Someone that believes in the biblical account of creation.



Originally posted by troubleshooter
I am agnostic regarding both creation and evolution...


Agnosticism, from what I understand, is the position that you are unable to know something or do not know it. To be agnostic in terms of evolution is simply ignorance.

Evolution is the change in the gene frequency of a population. This happens all the time, and is know to occur.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by PieKeeper]

[edit on 2-7-2010 by PieKeeper]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   
The above statements of the kind worded Piekeeper are what I am referring to.

He believes that there is only one way to view the Genesis account of creation, although I shared one above with him, as well as the others that came into this thread.

Your kindness aside Piekeeper, you are a stranger to me, so I know not much about you except for your comments here, you have fed the fuel to my belief that there is a Creationist Conspiracy among many people.

I don't know whether people such as this are just that closed-minded, or they are purposefully playing, knowing that belief in creation and creationism are not the same thing.

Your statements PieKeeper, while kind-worded, are just more proof of what I stated in the OP.

Creationism has been discredited. As I stated in my OP, and restated by the kind Piekeeper, and geology has disproved it. But they have not disproved creation or the creation account in the Bible. They have only disproved that the six creative days were not literal, which I stated quite firmly that many millions who believe in the Bible and in creation agree with, such as myself agree with.

Again, you relegate everyone to one tiny segment of the population and attack us all the same.

This is what I'm talking about.

The real contradiction does is not between the Bible and science, is is between the Bible and so-called Christian Fundamentalists.

I would restate what I did in the OP, but since I already stated it, I see it pointless to continue.

So, we see the conspiracy fully operational even here on this board.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join