Challenge: Make Your Case for Creationism

[crochet1949]

In response to RickD. -- yes, I'm very familiar with this discussion.
Phillip -- ah, yes, our 'flying spaghetti monster' -- heard that term frequently on another Forum. That He MUST exist simply because we theists Say He does.

And this 'Being' HAS communicated with all of us. It's called The Bible / God's Word. People really Should take a few moments to Read It. And we CAN communicate back with Him. It's called Praying.

I agree totally with your last paragraph.

God Chose to create this universe so we could See His handiwork. But, satan, just had to mess things up. But God Knew that would happen. He's letting history play itself out. At some point He will return and reclaim this world and satan will end up chained for all eternity being punished for how he's purposefully misleading as many of us as he can.

But , in this Meantime -- we Can and Need to take a firm stand For God and His creation ability. After all He's the Only Being that CAN create and has created for Us.

[crochet1949]

What is a progressive creationist / day-age? That's what your info says you are. Is that suggesting that one day is as a thousand years and visa versa? So 'how long were the days in creation'?

[RickD]

What is a progressive creationist / day-age? That's what your info says you are. Is that suggesting that one day is as a thousand years and visa versa? So 'how long were the days in creation'?

Here, read this:
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... ssive.html

[Philip]

Secretly, Rick is a liberal democrat who just happens to believe in Creation. As progressive as he is.

Oops, I see my bio still lists "progressive rock" as one of my musical interests? Gotta edit that!

[RickD]

Secretly, Rick is a liberal democrat who just happens to believe in Creation. As progressive as he is.

Oops, I see my bio still lists "progressive rock" as one of my musical interests? Gotta edit that!

"Liberal" Democrat is not PC. I prefer Progressive, thank you very much.

[crochet1949]

I clicked into the site and there's a Lot of information to sift through. I'm one who believes Genesis creation as being true no matter what science says. And I also believe that the flood was world-wide rather than regional. Partially because the earth was much flatter back then. We are told how high the waters rose. Noah and his family were the only people to survive. The earths' population was restarted with that family. They were the Only righteous people at that time in history.
The problem that I see is that when a person starts trying to adjust God's Word / events in the Bible / it's taking Away from the authority of God and is trying to put 'everything' on a human understanding level.
I Also want to say that I am a firm believer In science. Without the various fields Of science we wouldn't have most of the things we Have Now. But scientists Do have their biases.
One more comment for now. There's been a concern as to how the ark could possibly hold all the animals that were around at that time. Actually Genesis doesn't tell us but generally about the kinds of animals that existed at that time. Nothing about the numbers. Only that what He created was Good. The only animal mentioned by name are cattle. Which means that no one really knows how many animals came into the ark. What we Do know is that Noah built it according to God's specifications which meant that it was the size needed to sustain the lives of those animals that boarded it. And their meat sustained them after they landed on dry land again. Some of those animals were meant for sacrifice after the fact.
Lots of thought provoking material to read.

[crochet1949]

I was just reading a couple previous posts -- cute A sense of humor is nice these days.

[Audie]

I clicked into the site and there's a Lot of information to sift through. I'm one who believes Genesis creation as being true no matter what science says. And I also believe that the flood was world-wide rather than regional. Partially because the earth was much flatter back then. We are told how high the waters rose. Noah and his family were the only people to survive. The earths' population was restarted with that family. They were the Only righteous people at that time in history.
The problem that I see is that when a person starts trying to adjust God's Word / events in the Bible / it's taking Away from the authority of God and is trying to put 'everything' on a human understanding level.
I Also want to say that I am a firm believer In science. Without the various fields Of science we wouldn't have most of the things we Have Now. But scientists Do have their biases.
One more comment for now. There's been a concern as to how the ark could possibly hold all the animals that were around at that time. Actually Genesis doesn't tell us but generally about the kinds of animals that existed at that time. Nothing about the numbers. Only that what He created was Good. The only animal mentioned by name are cattle. Which means that no one really knows how many animals came into the ark. What we Do know is that Noah built it according to God's specifications which meant that it was the size needed to sustain the lives of those animals that boarded it. And their meat sustained them after they landed on dry land again. Some of those animals were meant for sacrifice after the fact.
Lots of thought provoking material to read.

You are into cognitive dissonance?

[crochet1949]

Audie
Please define your term "cognitive dissonance''.

[crochet1949]

So - what contradictory views / ideas do I hold to in your perspective -- that's more or less how Wiki define it as. It's a psychology term -- internal distress brought on by trying to hold to two contradictory views.

[Kurieuo]

What is a progressive creationist / day-age? That's what your info says you are. Is that suggesting that one day is as a thousand years and visa versa? So 'how long were the days in creation'?

Progressive Creation is the belief that God created brand new life, according to the order of creation seen in the days of Genesis, over a long period of time. Such the the Earth can be many millions of years old, and indeed be even 4.5 billion years old.

Wikipedia notes that mid-20th century, the theologian Bernard Ramm wrote The Christian View of Science and Scripture which advocated Progressive Creationism over and against the position of a young earth and global flood. Progressive Creationists broadly believe that the whole world inundated was "all of humanity" at that time, rather than the "whole Earth" globe; erets often translated as "earth" in many translations also commonly means "land".

Note: Progressive Creation is not Theistic Evolution. Rather, Progressive Creation says God is directly involved in creation, creating new life forms brand new. Such life forms may either be:

• 1) Created completely brand new, or
  2) Created brand new, but mixed together with previously existing biological code/parts
  (e.g., as God made Eve from Adam's side, God could create a new species from that of an prior species)

God's direct creation is the important distinction between "Theistic Evolution" and "Progressive Creation". Theistic Evolution says God created life and then guided or left all life to naturally unfold via natural evolutionary processes, which is very different from Progressive Creation.


Day-Age is popularly interchanged with Progressive Creation. "Day-Age" however is better understood as an interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2 that specifically supports each "day" as a long period of time (as opposed to "24 hour" days).

So then, the "Day-Age" interpretation of Scripture falls under a "Progressive Creation" category. Perhaps there are some Progressive Creationists who would allegorise words in Genesis 1 & 2 though, however those who adhere to a Day-Age interpretation would frown upon such believing Genesis covers actual historical events and literalism ought to be retained.

A Day-Age interpretation therefore attempts to provide an acceptable literal interpretation of Scripture for Biblical justification of Progressive Creationist beliefs. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe are popular promoters of their own Day-Age interpretation over and against YEC interpretations, believing Scripture advocates the "days" in the Genesis creation as long periods of time rather than 24 hours/sunrises and sunsets.

[Audacity]

I clicked into the site and there's a Lot of information to sift through. I'm one who believes Genesis creation as being true no matter what science says. And I also believe that the flood was world-wide rather than regional. Partially because the earth was much flatter back then.

"Flatter"? Like in



Hmmm. . . . .Interesting in a crazy kind of way.

I Also want to say that I am a firm believer In science.

Obviously firm until it conflicts with your interpretation of the Bible.

There's been a concern as to how the ark could possibly hold all the animals that were around at that time. Actually Genesis doesn't tell us but generally about the kinds of animals that existed at that time. Nothing about the numbers. Only that what He created was Good. The only animal mentioned by name are cattle. Which means that no one really knows how many animals came into the ark.

Well considering that there are about 8.7 million species of life on earth, and taking that X 2, and Noah and family would have had about 17 million organisms aboard, 15 million of which belonged to the kingdom Animalia .
source

What we Do know is that Noah built it according to God's specifications which meant that it was the size needed to sustain the lives of those animals that boarded it. And their meat sustained them after they landed on dry land again. Some of those animals were meant for sacrifice after the fact.

In other words, god must have preformed some kind of miracle to save all those that wouldn't fit on board. Too bad he couldn't have preformed a miracle before hand to do away with everyone but the Noah clan, and save himself the trouble of gathering all the ark animals, flooding the whole earth, etc. Truthfully, it seems quite inefficient of him.


.

[Audacity]

Without alluding to evolution . . . . . . .in any way.

But, everyone believes in evolution. Yes, even YECs.
What's the point of this game?

Not that creationist believe in evolution, but almost invariably their case for creationism involves bringing in evolution or its principles, the presumption being that if they can disprove evolution then creationism wins by default. Check out any creationist web page that makes an argument for creationism and see how long it takes before it alludes to evolution or its principles.

[abelcainsbrother]

Without alluding to evolution . . . . . . .in any way.

But, everyone believes in evolution. Yes, even YECs.
What's the point of this game?

Not that creationist believe in evolution, but almost invariably their case for creationism involves bringing in evolution or its principles, the presumption being that if they can disprove evolution then creationism wins by default. Check out any creationist web page that makes an argument for creationism and see how long it takes before it alludes to evolution or its principles.

Except for Gap Creationism.Gap Theory creationism makes evolution wrong and would say alot of the evidence evolution uses in science points to a much,much more believable theory than evolution based on alot of the same evidence in the earth.

We would say the evidence in noway is evidence life evolves but is instead evidence of a former world that was on this earth with totally different kinds of life in it than this world we live in now has and there was a Gap inbetween the former world and this world we now live in and the evidence in the earth confirms there was a former world that perished before God made this world we now live in on the earth.

Same evidence,different theory. But also these ancient mysterious places on the earth around the earth both on the land and some now at the bottom of the ocean,these also confirm a former world did indeed exist that perished just like the bible tells us.

[Kurieuo]

Without alluding to evolution . . . . . . .in any way.

But, everyone believes in evolution. Yes, even YECs.
What's the point of this game?

Not that creationist believe in evolution, but almost invariably their case for creationism involves bringing in evolution or its principles, the presumption being that if they can disprove evolution then creationism wins by default. Check out any creationist web page that makes an argument for creationism and see how long it takes before it alludes to evolution or its principles.

With Young Earth Creationists (Creationism), it's more Scripture is considered a foundational source of knowledge.
What they mean by "Scripture" is ultimately a particular interpretation of Scripture, generally the popular one advocated in their church, people they respect or the most vocal. Indeed, Creationists (Young Earth) are some of the most vocalised in churches and in intensity.

If you understand that Scripture, their interpretation thereof, is considered as foundational truth, then you'll understand that evolution isn't even on their radar. It's not that their position wins by default, it's that evolution doesn't even register to begin with. Indeed this applies not simply to Creationists (Young Earth), but would also many Old Earth Creationists such as Progressive Creation/Day-Age or Gappists like abelcainsbrother.

Rather than seeing a range of interpretations as possible and viable, and leaving it open ended, indeed the thinking of many such Christians is quite binary. That is, either their interpretation is of Scripture is the Word of God and truth, or else the Bible is wrong. And the Bible at all costs cannot be wrong. Why? It perhaps boils down to their religious and spiritual experiences, which seem to them more real and meaningful than physical reality itself.

So then, a view of the world where God isn't responsible for all life and which contradicts Scripture they see as confirmed by their strongly perceived meaningful experiences, well... Evolution doesn't even register to begin with. It's no more on their radar that they need to debate the existence of evolution, anymore than say debating the existence of God is on yours. They're a-evolutionists if you will. Think it a fairy tale story for those who do not believe in God, as much as possibly Atheists consider God is a fairy tale and that lack of belief requires no justification.

So then, many Creationists don't see a need to disprove evolution, they'll just poke fun at it. In the same way that many Atheists see no need to disprove God, but rather poke fun at such. These people often appear ignorant and silly, both sides.

As for myself, I see that whether Old-Earth or Young-Earth, creationists are not justified by their "non-belief in" out-of-hand rejection of Evolution. Why? Due to the same reasons Atheists are not justified in rejecting God out of hand. The logical argument I'd make is as follows:

• 1) Lack of belief on a subject entails one is unaware to that subject of belief.
  2) The moment one becomes aware to a subject of belief, they conceive of something about that subject of belief.
  3) If you conceive something about a subject, then that something counts as a belief about that subject.
  4) Therefore, one has a belief on any subject that they become aware to. (from 1, 2, 3)
  
  then by extension:
  
  5) The person who claims "to lack a belief in the subject of a belief" shows an awareness of that subject of belief.
  6) It is not possible for a person to lack a belief in a subject that they are aware to (from 4).
  7) Therefore, it is a contradiction to say "I lack a belief on some subject" since such presupposes an awareness to that subject.

Further to this, dialogue and debating one's position (beliefs or lack thereof) is important ensure one is at least being rationally responsible. Secondly, it is important just as courtesy and respect for the other person (something often lost in any such debates). Thirdly, it is important because specific beliefs no matter their flavour can be dangerous and/or radically change people's lives.

For these reasons, and since people seriously believe in their beliefs, I see dialogue is extremely important. There is perhaps an idea, that for example Muslims can't possibly believe they'll have virgins waiting for them. Or Creationists can't possibly believe the world was literally created in 6 24-hour days or that some people really do believe in a flat Earth. Just like Creationists believe there are no true Atheists or Evolution is just a belief for those who stick their head in the sand.

Just writing the views of other people we disagree with off, doesn't do any side any favours.