Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Please be more specific about which type of creationist you're speaking of...

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   
When you speak of creationist folks, please be specific as to whether you're speaking of Young Earth Creationist (people who believe earth is 6,000 - 10,000 years old and there is no such thing as evolution), and Old Earth Creationists (people who believe earth is 4.54 billion years old but do not agree with the theory evolution), and Theistic Evolutionists (people such as myself who believe earth is 4.54 billion years old and mankind came about through Darwinian evolution - basically, we believe all of the latest theories about Evolution on top of our Bible).

I am not going to go into too much depth for why I believe what I believe, although I will say the answers are out there. Bio Logos, Answers in Creation, God & Science are all great places to start.

I just wanted to clear this up, because I see many people referring to creationists and how creationists believe earth is 6,000 years old, etc. I'm just asking for people to use the term YEC instead of the blanket term creationists, as my personal stance is YEC's make more educated and open minded Christians look bad, sometimes... (I am not attacking YEC's or there beliefs, just sometimes they make Christians look ignorant when bafoons like Hovind go around and get evidence shoved in there faces and theories explained in depth to them and it seems as though the words go in one ear and out the other)

Thank you & God bless




posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Iason321
 


I here you,but for all the studying and research i have compiled...I still think we have been mislead.where is the truth in the matter?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by saroncan
reply to post by Iason321
 


I here you,but for all the studying and research i have compiled...I still think we have been mislead.where is the truth in the matter?


In the end it all boils down to faith. I know it's been beaten to death, but it really is true. Whether you place your faith in man or faith in God, the choice is yours. Free will is a great thing
Check out the links I provided.
And ask Father God to reveal Himself to you in your heart, in any way He so wills



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Iason321
 


Them all. We are talking about them all.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Iason321
 


Haha, good luck with that... asking people to define their thoughts about creation, before entering in any form of conversation that is conducive to any form of enlightenment. Also, the couple versions of the story in which you have provided obviously doesn't cover all of the possible beliefs and thoughts about the subject.

I'm seriously debating on making a little tag that I can use every time I entertain the subject of God, so that people to apply their own interpretations to the meanings and understandings in which I'm presenting.

God - Universe
Man - Fractal representation of Universe
Evolution - Process of Fractal non-linearity correlating with Time
Divine Beings - Like Man, but created during a different time
God (As A Being) - Plausible, through fractal implications, and self replication, there being a 'being' such as God isn't ruled out.
Creation - Pantheistic approach, mixed with fractal implications and meets 'A Universe From Nothing'(reference to a well known lecture) and the quantum possibility.

and so forth, that way when I start to explain things, people can finally understand what I mean, and not introduce their own dogmas that only distract from the conversation.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   
I truly don't mean to be facetious, but if you are going throw around terms such as "ignorant" (as if you possess some kind of intellectual advantage over those who believe in YEC), might I suggest that you first make an attempt at learning some grammar basics. After all, even a "bafoon like Hovind" probably knows the correct usage of the word "there" vs "their."

Once you have that in the bag, I might even take a look at some of the "supporting evidence" that so handily gives credence to Darwin and his little theory.

To your credit, it sounds like you are a true man of faith. After all, it would take ample more faith than I possess to adhere the basic tenets of Theistic Evolution than to just take the Bible at face value...in it's most literal sense. Really, how much faith is required to see what is so clearly spelled out not only in God's Word, but by nature itself. What's your excuse?

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Iason321
 


I love ya bro..and there will never be a day that you shall suffer.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
I truly don't mean to be facetious, but if you are going throw around terms such as "ignorant" (as if you possess some kind of intellectual advantage over those who believe in YEC), might I suggest that you first make an attempt at learning some grammar basics. After all, even a "bafoon like Hovind" probably knows the correct usage of the word "there" vs "their."

Once you have that in the bag, I might even take a look at some of the "supporting evidence" that so handily gives credence to Darwin and his little theory.

To your credit, it sounds like you are a true man of faith. After all, it would take ample more faith than I possess to adhere the basic tenets of Theistic Evolution than to just take the Bible at face value...in it's most literal sense. Really, how much faith is required to see what is so clearly spelled out not only in God's Word, but by nature itself. What's your excuse?

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.


Excuse my bad grammar :p I have considered YEC but under close examination, the theories fall apart. To say the earth is only 6 - 10,000 years old, you discredit the entire fields of Biology, Psychology, Geology, and Archaeology, and Astronomy, and numerous others. How can you reconcile your belief in YEC with that fact? I also was not referring to all YEC's, just the looney ones like Hovind. Look at the place he got his "degree" (a trailer) and look where he lives now (a prison). If this is the person you are placing your faith in to guide you with correct scientific theory, might I suggest you take a step back and look at the big picture?

And in reference to Romans 1:20, beautiful verse, but I interpret this as to believing in the Holy Trinity and God, this makes no reference to believing in a literal interpretation of the Genesis account.

God bless you
God bless you



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   
.
edit on 1/27/2012 by Iason321 because: doublepost



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iason321

Excuse my bad grammar :p I have considered YEC but under close examination, the theories fall apart. To say the earth is only 6 - 10,000 years old, you discredit the entire fields of Biology, Psychology, Geology, and Archaeology, and Astronomy, and numerous others. How can you reconcile your belief in YEC with that fact? I also was not referring to all YEC's, just the looney ones like Hovind. Look at the place he got his "degree" (a trailer) and look where he lives now (a prison). If this is the person you are placing your faith in to guide you with correct scientific theory, might I suggest you take a step back and look at the big picture?

And in reference to Romans 1:20, beautiful verse, but I interpret this as to believing in the Holy Trinity and God, this makes no reference to believing in a literal interpretation of the Genesis account.

God bless you
God bless you


reply to post by Iason321
 


First, I want to thank you and congratulate you. My original post (upon reading it over) might have been a bit nit-picky if not downright tactless. I fully expected your response to follow suite...but it didn't. I may have misinterpreted your intent for starting this thread. Instead of a feeble attempt at discrediting opposing viewpoints, it appears that you are clearly searching for truth in the matter. That, I can respect.

So, please accept my apology for the harshness of my first post.

Honestly, I am the first to admit that my knowledge and understanding of "the sciences" referred to is limited. However, I can't even begin to imagine how a YEC view would "discredit" fields such as Psychology or Archeology. In fact, I would argue the complete opposite...a traditional view of creation answers a slew of tough scientific questions and is actually more in congruence with modern archeological finds that would otherwise remain an enigma.

I suppose before I go too much further, I need to be clear about something. I tend to approach things from a slightly different angle than most. Frankly, my belief is that the inerrant Word of God exclusively holds ultimate truth, and all things (including man's conventional wisdom) should be weighed & measured by it alone. This said, it doesn't necessarily bother me when "Big Science" is not always perfectly in tune with what the Bible teaches. I fully believe that where there is an honest and earnest search for truth, the findings will inevitably support what God has to say about any given issue (even that of a scientific nature).

Unfortunately, it appears that in the science realm there is an overt campaign to suppress any incontrovertible evidence which happens to substantiate scriptural inerrancy. I would highly encourage you to check out s8int.com for some examples (if you can get past the egregious web design/layout the information is stunning).

Now back to Romans...

I'll give it to you, Romans 1:20 doesn't necessitate a literal interpretation of the Genesis account. However, it's implications are clearly more than just a testament to the Godhead...to paraphrase, I believe Paul is stating that God is plainly evident through his creation ("being understood by the things that are made"). Which begs the question...in which view (YEC or evolution) is the "eternal power" of God more evident? I think the answer is obvious.

One last note...if you read on I think Paul provides what I believe to be some very pertinent insight into why the consensus of modern science might not always line up with scripture:

Romans 1
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   
...and BTW I am by no means an adamant Hovind defender, BUT have you ever considered that there might be more to his incarceration than meets the eye? Can't help but let my conspiratorial bent creep in. I mean after all...this is ATS!



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
I truly don't mean to be facetious, but if you are going throw around terms such as "ignorant" (as if you possess some kind of intellectual advantage over those who believe in YEC), might I suggest that you first make an attempt at learning some grammar basics. After all, even a "bafoon like Hovind" probably knows the correct usage of the word "there" vs "their."

Once you have that in the bag, I might even take a look at some of the "supporting evidence" that so handily gives credence to Darwin and his little theory.

To your credit, it sounds like you are a true man of faith. After all, it would take ample more faith than I possess to adhere the basic tenets of Theistic Evolution than to just take the Bible at face value...in it's most literal sense. Really, how much faith is required to see what is so clearly spelled out not only in God's Word, but by nature itself. What's your excuse?

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.


I would argue that ignorance definitely applies to young earth creationists.

First, 99.9999% of people "adhere the basic tenets of Theistic Evolution"; That is, micro-evolution, is a completely proven fact. Macro-Evolution, if you understand it and don't base your understanding of it on bias, debunked and outdated creationist propaganda, is also a proven framework with much evidence supporting change over time for living life.

Ok, now, about taking the Bible in it's most literal sense?




Leviticus 20:9 If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.

20:10 If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.


So these things you think deserve death?
____



Deuteronomy
20:10-17

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. . . . This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.


So, you support slavery, and women and children being treated like livestock.

Let's see, what else... oh, how about this




Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.



So, you support slavery. And, if you almost kill your slave, no punishment.


How about literal fact errors in the Bible?



Leviticus 11:20-22

All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper.


No insects are four legged.



Matthew 4:8

Again the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.


This would only be possible if the Earth where flat. The Earth is not flat. If you belief the Earth is flat, than.... *facepalm




1 Kings 7:23

He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim . . . It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.


Pi does not equal 3...



_______

So take the Bible at face value?

Yea, right



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
 


You write:


I suppose before I go too much further, I need to be clear about something. I tend to approach things from a slightly different angle than most. Frankly, my belief is that the inerrant Word of God exclusively holds ultimate truth, and all things (including man's conventional wisdom) should be weighed & measured by it alone.


Not looking for an argument here, but, just with respect to this comment could you point me to the specific Biblical passages where you found an age for the Earth and or Universe? Also, not trying to be facetious, I admit I asked the question knowing the answer (it is not in scripture, but comes from a ~17th century interpretation of Scripture.) The Opening Post here has some very good links from Christian scientists (whom also believe in the authority of Scripture) that I, too, would recommend. Nothing wrong with being unsure, nothing wrong with asking questions. Stay humble and study... that's what I try to do. I think YEC is not just bad science but, also, bad theology. I wish you the best.

Here is an excellent place to start for a Theistic Evolutionist/scientists' perspective (many of your questions and concerns are listed there on that page).

Good luck and God Bless.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Confusion42

I would argue that ignorance definitely applies to young earth creationists.

First, 99.9999% of people "adhere the basic tenets of Theistic Evolution"; That is, micro-evolution, is a completely proven fact. Macro-Evolution, if you understand it and don't base your understanding of it on bias, debunked and outdated creationist propaganda, is also a proven framework with much evidence supporting change over time for living life.


I am a bit unclear as to what your interest in this discussion might be, since it is evident that you don't believe in the God of the Bible. The OP simply wanted to make a distinction between various God-centered views of the earth's origins/progression. A personal vendetta perhaps? Either way, I accept your challenge. I guess, I have to clarify that I am not an absolutist in regard to the idea of a "young earth," nor have I ever professed to be.

I would argue that the majority of evolutionists are not "Theistic" evolutionists, and therefore you may want to re-examine your stats. My point was this: to rectify a belief in God with a belief in Darwinist evolution is an extremely difficult thing to do, and would take more faith than I possess.

I agree that the evidence for micro-evolution is there, but to be intellectually honest, one has to admit that the transitional fossil record really doesn't cut the mustard when attempting to show the cogency of macro-evolution. In short...I need more evidence (which I just so happen to believe you won't find).




Ok, now, about taking the Bible in it's most literal sense?

Leviticus 20:9.....

So these things you think deserve death?

Deuteronomy 20:10-17

So, you support slavery, and women and children being treated like livestock.

Let's see, what else... oh, how about this

Exodus 21:20-21

So, you support slavery. And, if you almost kill your slave, no punishment.

How about literal fact errors in the Bible?

Leviticus 11:20-22

No insects are four legged.

Matthew 4:8

This would only be possible if the Earth where flat. The Earth is not flat. If you belief the Earth is flat, than.... *facepalm

1 Kings 7:23

Pi does not equal 3...


So take the Bible at face value?

Yea, right


OK, I am almost tempted to try and tackle everything that you just threw at me, and honestly if I thought that you would even remotely approach my answers with some semblance of objectivity, I gladly would. BUT, as you know, time is valuable and let's be honest...are you truly looking for answers to these questions?

I will, however, provide you with a seemingly indirect answer which ultimately when fully understood & applied will shed light on the rest.

John 3:16-17

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

and

Romans 8:1-4

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 05:49 AM
link   
There is also the type of creationist believing in evolution, but not abiogenesis, thinking instead that god created first life.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
 



I suppose before I go too much further, I need to be clear about something. I tend to approach things from a slightly different angle than most. Frankly, my belief is that the inerrant Word of God exclusively holds ultimate truth, and all things (including man's conventional wisdom) should be weighed & measured by it alone.


Not looking for an argument here, but, just with respect to this comment could you point me to the specific Biblical passages where you found an age for the Earth and or Universe? Also, not trying to be facetious, I admit I asked the question knowing the answer (it is not in scripture, but comes from a ~17th century interpretation of Scripture.) The Opening Post here has some very good links from Christian scientists (whom also believe in the authority of Scripture) that I, too, would recommend. Nothing wrong with being unsure, nothing wrong with asking questions. Stay humble and study... that's what I try to do. I think YEC is not just bad science but, also, bad theology. I wish you the best.

Here is an excellent place to start for a Theistic Evolutionist/scientists' perspective (many of your questions and concerns are listed there on that page).

Good luck and God Bless.



Thanks for the food for thought. I will definitely check out the website provided. As I had to clarify in my last post, I don't necessarily adhere to a strictly YEC viewpoint. Obviously, as you aptly pointed out, the Bible doesn't expressly state what year the earth was created. I am in no way qualified to assess just how old the earth is, but conversely...I find it beyond comprehension that we as a culture can be so enthusiastically convinced that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Can you even begin to grasp how old that is? I for one, cannot...and I find it more than slightly absurd that anyone would trust the geochronological dating methods used to deduce this age given the countless variables (known and unknown) involved. I also maintain a healthy skepticism with regard to the validity of macro-evolution (species evolving into other species), especially given the apparent lack of concrete, irrefutable evidence.

I respect your stance on YEC, but from my vantage point, I can't say that it looks any more implausible than old-earth/macro-evolution and the many holes presented therein. Apart from being bad science, I'd be curious to hear an elaboration on how a young earth stance is "bad theology."



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Iason321
 

Young Earth, Old Earth, it's all the same to me. If someone publicly rejects the science of biology and the theory of evolution by natural selection, that person is what I call a creationist, regardless of the specific nature of his or her beliefs. I regard creationism as a political stance, not a religious or philosophical position. I know that doesn't cleave to the dictionary definition of the word, but it is more useful for practical purposes.

As far as I'm concerned, someone who accepts that all species evolved from a common ancestor according to the rules of natural selection is not a 'creationist', even if they believe that common ancestor was created.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   


When you speak of creationist folks, please be specific as to whether you're speaking of Young Earth Creationist (people who believe earth is 6,000 - 10,000 years old and there is no such thing as evolution), and Old Earth Creationists (people who believe earth is 4.54 billion years old but do not agree with the theory evolution), and Theistic Evolutionists (people such as myself who believe earth is 4.54 billion years old and mankind came about through Darwinian evolution - basically, we believe all of the latest theories about Evolution on top of our Bible).
reply to post by Iason321
 


If Creationists won't make the distinction between Cosmology, Abiogenesis, and Biological Evolution, why should others make the distinction between indistinguishable sects of Creationists?

Didn't you leave Intelligent Designers off your list?.

If Creationists won't even use accepted scientific terminology ('kind' is not a Scientific term) when attempting to discuss Science, again why should others care what your internal personal belief system is and how it is different from other sects that are otherwise indistinguishable.

If you can't discuss things on common ground, then there is no real discussion. When a topic comes up here from say, your point of view, and responsive answers are given, those other sects pile on, then when someone gives an answer to them 'assuming' they are still talking to your sect, they get dumped on because the answer wasn't responsive to that sects belief system. Then 'you all' get a hair up your nose and sniff that 'we' aren't distinguishing between you.

Here's a better solution: when you make a post, insert a line at the beginning, maybe in blue letters or something, that identifies your personal Creationist sect, and get everybody else to do so, so that readers can tell who is who and whether you are arguing amongst yourselves or what.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 




So these things you think deserve death?


Um, could this apply to Newt?

Cool, go for it.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Iason321
 


The problem with being specific is that so many people come into this section posting false claims, based on the concept of creation or ID, without mentioning what they actually believe. This is why I often say "creationists" or "many creationists" when referring to the people in this section. It's really about the false claims. There are tons upon tons upon tons of rational creationists out there, they just don't frequent this section because they aren't close minded to science and evolution. This section generally attracts a specific type of creationist, more often than not, the fundamentalist who has no understanding of science whatsoever, yet attempts to debunk it using hasty generalizations, and ideas that often are flat out wrong or have no tangible evidence behind them. In the real world, almost every creationist I know, is rational. I only know one fundamentalist christian and he's a cool guy, but he's a bit deluded. I'll never forget the first time I saw him put on a Kent Hovind video, I was literally laughing out loud watching it and he insisting the guy was a scientist and all that. This was the first time I actually saw Hovind, so I did some research on him and sure enough he's nothing but a snake oil salesman, exploiting religious belief and twisting facts of science to sell videos.

Evolution and science do not disprove the concept of a creator, but people cling to literal interpretations of ancient texts that have been written and rewritten by man and translated several times over in various languages, some of which aren't exact translations do to the simplicity of the ancient languages.
edit on 27-1-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join