|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4839 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are Creationists shooting themselves in the foot? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
I thought you accepted scientific facts? Don't contradict yourself. And when pressed they cannot provide any scientific facts in support of YEC. The root of the matter is that not only do they not understand what science is, but they REFUSE to understand what science is. They truly believe that if they call it creation "science", it magically becomes science. Isn't it funny that fundies protest things like Harry Potter, but expect everyone to believe their magical tales. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3269 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Isn't it funny that fundies protest things like Harry Potter, but expect everyone to believe their magical tales. That's because they believe magical tales. Perhaps they are worried that Hogwarts is a real place that their children could be swept off to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lokins Junior Member (Idle past 5122 days) Posts: 23 From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada Joined: |
Theodoric writes: They truly believe that if they call it creation "science", it magically becomes science. What is their basis for calling it a "science" anyway? They obviously have no idea what science actually is. Is it because the things they talk about concern concepts that scientists discovered? Because it uses fancy terms that scientists made up?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Member (Idle past 3861 days) Posts: 346 From: France,Paris Joined: |
In science, you don't start with the conclusion but with observations and test with evidence. That's why evolution is science and creationism isn't. By saying that creationism is science, I feel that you are just trying to usurp its merits without the hard work most scientists did. Why don't you say that it's religion? Shouln't your faith be enough by your standard to discover the "TRUTH"?
It feels like you think that science is superior to religion in this regard so you must put your religion in equal footing with science to lend your religion more credibility.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4839 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
mike the wiz writes: The whole point of being born again is that you give everything to Christ (your life in all areas). It is clear that Christ was the second Adam, according to the NT. When you're saying Jesus was the second Adam, aren't you using a metaphor? ^^ Don't you realize how silly you sound when you use a metaphor to justify a literal interpretation? Having said that, let's please get back on topic. Most of us seem to be in agreement that creationism isn't proper science, let's not discuss that. Let's discuss the various ways in which creationists are screwing up their own agenda. Those of you who want to stand up for creationism, please tell us in what ways creationism has helped bring awareness of God (or an intelligent designer) to people, and provide actual numbers if you can. Everyone else, feel free to add to my list in the OP, or give accounts of how you see creationism is harming itself. This could be interesting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ichneumon Junior Member (Idle past 5442 days) Posts: 16 Joined: |
"Fallen" writes:
Oh dear... At that point, out of curiosity, I got a copy of Darwin’s Blackbox from the library. Frankly, that book changed the course of my life. Unlike any of the dozen or so YEC books I had read, Behe took the time to extensively discuss the objections to his work. After reading the book and going through his online articles, I was able to present a reasonably defensible case for intelligent design to the same evolutionary biologist who had shredded my creationist beliefs. If you're basing your "reasonably defensible case for intelligent design" on Behe's material, I'm afraid you've been misled. Sure, it looks kind of solid at first blush if you're not really familiar with the topic or the underlying science, but I've read it and it's shot full of fallacies, flaws, and false claims. If you'll tell us what you think are the very best 2-3 things Behe says that appear to you to be "reasonably defensible", we'll be glad to show you where and why he's actually just hand-waving. This might not be the most appropriate thread for that however, but feel free to start a new thread in the appropriate forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Creationism as an identifiable movement is around since the 70's I think.
But using the biblical account of creation as historical is as old as christianity itself, so I doubt it is really shooting christianity in the foot. I would rather think the opposite, that YEC helps sustain christianity. As a 'proof' of this, I can say that there is no creationist movement over here in Quebec (canada) and christianity is on a much more steep decline then in the US.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4839 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I think you have it backwards. In Canada and many other secular countries (like Sweden, where I'm originally from) creationism is virtually extinct because evangelical Christians are a small minority. Not that evangelical Christians have to be creationists (I'm not) but creationism depends on a large demographic of fundamentalists.
In the US, at least half of the population is Christian, so they have LOTS of political sway, and their "science" stands a lot better chance of getting recognized. They are sustaining creationism, not the other way around. That's just my humble opinion. Note: Not that I know much about Canadian demographics. I'm probably wrong to lump them in with a highly secular country like Sweden. Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Quebec is very different from Canada. In western Canada (BC, Alberta, etc.) there is a good creationist movement with religious percentages very similar to the US. Lots of evangelical christians over there.
Here in Quebec, its is not evangelical, it is catholic. In fact up to the 1950's, 99% of the population were practising catholics. In a time-span of 50 years, that pourcentage went down to maybe 5%. (and I'm being generous here). I think the fact that catholics compromised on the issue of origins with evolution had a negative impact on the number of christians here, not a positive one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
I would rather think the opposite, that YEC helps sustain christianity. When Christians cling to claims which are so obviously and demonstrably false, they make themselves look foolish. Eventually they are forced to admit that they've been wrong and they look even worse. See "The Earth is the Center of the Universe and the Sun goes around it"See "Lighting is God's wrath" See "Rainbows are made by God" All the Christians have to do to fix the problem is say "We are interested in these books for their message, not their inaccurate account of the pre-historical world."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Let's put it more directly. We observe creationists repeatedly making contrary-to-fact claims which are blatantly false. We are told by the creationists themselves that if those claims are wrong then Christianity itself is false and God does not exist.
It is not so much that they are making themselves look foolish (though they most certainly do that, and with surprising enthusiasm). They have placed a disproof of the very existence of God on a silver platter and handed it to atheists. What greater service to mankind could anyone imagine than to dispell all belief in the Judeo-Christian god? Thank you!Thank you! Thank you! Edited by dwise1, : word choice
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3458 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
Young Earth Creationists (YEC) do teach against evolution. Many of their children go off to college and end up rejecting Christianity. If the YEC are wrong, they are shooting themselves in the foot. The Bible might call this Millstone Theology. (Matt 18:6) Interestingly, there is nothing that insists the Adam of Gen 1 is the same as Adam of Gen 2. If they are different, that would allow for a huge amount of time between the two, allowing for evolution. If Gen 2 is talking about the advent of agriculture, it becomes surprisingly accurate. gardenofeden is my summary of Gen 2,3,4. So, is fundamentalist theology evolving to fit science? Or is it beginning to Biblically challenge wrong theology that iconoclasts hammer everyone for questioning? If so, it is not much different than many scientists receive from other scientists for their new theories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
is nothing that insists the Adam of Gen 1 is the same as Adam of Gen 2. Where does it say "Adam" in Gen 1?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3458 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
Gen 1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Adam is the word for man meaning mankind. Male is Ish and female is Ishah. Here, Adam refers to mankind, both male and female. Notice that there could have been more than two. Using Adam for a name in Chap 2 follows a long line of Hebrew tradition of naming children according to some characteristic. Adam means red, derived from the word dam meaning blood. Edom (the same name as Adam) was so named because he had red hair. Adam might have been red haired. Adamah is a word for reddish, fertile soil. He might have the name because he was made from red dirt. There is no reason why Adam has to be the same person as Ish of 1:27.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
greentwiga writes: There is no reason why Adam has to be the same person as Ish of 1:27. God created only one man and one woman. Who else could it be? --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024