|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: what do creationists believe? (robert true creation) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Metalpunk37 Inactive Member |
hello robert/truecreation.
I would like for each of you to give me a basic summary of each of your creationist views. thanx
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Inactive Member |
Greetings:
For starters, Metalpunct, a Creationist is one who believes in the existence of God. A person who does not believe in the existence of God cannot be a Creationist. This distinguishes itself from Evolution. It is possible for an Evolutionist to believe or not to believe in the existence of God. The existence of God is a "given" among Creationists, and it need not be proved. Secondly, a Creationist is one who believes in the infallible nature of the Christian Holy Bible. When you read the Bible it is God talking to you. The words written on the pages of the Bible were written by men who were inspired by God - Prophets and Apostles. God used these men to communicate His will for our lives. The Creationist, then can only be a Christian. The Bible, therefore, is considered the ultimate guide in all things concerning faith and life. When it comes to science a Creationist will seek to show how scientific fact (not theory) is consistent with the teachings of the Bible - that is - when the two can and should interract. The Bible does not give exact details about what God did and how he did it when He created the universe, but there are some, and, it is those details that Creationists use to reconcile science with Creation. To give you an example: One of these facts is the existence of the fossils. Fossils can be found just about everywhere on the planet. Fish fossils, for example, have been found on the highest mountains and the lowest valleys. A Creationist would argue that this is evidence of a universal flood. That is, if the highest mountains were once underwater (as evidenced by fish fossils) then what can one surmise about the valleys? Rapid flooding and burial would also account for the existence of the fossils themselves. When an animal dies it usually decomposes too fast for it to be perfectly fossilized in the way we see fossils today. Rapid death and burial is a very plausible explanation for how we have fossils. This is not the ONLY explanation for the existence of fossils, but it is reliable and plausible. Other explanations seem a bit far-fetched. Since the Creationist is committed to the Bible as the Word of God he believes that God created the universe in six literal twenty-four hour earth days. Theistic Evolutionists, like Hugh Ross, try to explain away the "days" of creation by claiming that the Bible is just being figurative and not literal. But such a proposition does not fit the grammatical structure of Genesis 1 - especially when one considers the phrase "evening and morning" which in all its other references means only a 24 hour earth day. From a Christian perspective Hugh Ross has to denigrate the Bible in order to introduce his theories. In talking with skeptics, atheists, and even theistic evolutionists the Creationist has much to account for before he even starts talking science. For skeptics and atheists he has to 1) Prove the existence of God, then, 2) Prove the Bible is the Word of God. For theistic evolutionists he has to show them why they are misinterpreting the Bible. In short, in discussing science with anyone "outside" he has an uphill battle to climb. This is a brief outline and is not intended to be a defense for the Creationist position. I have not "proved" anything but have simply described what it means to be a Creationist. A definition, by definition, is not a proof but a clarification. I certainly invite my brother Creationists to critique, add, or change anything I have said here. I hope it suffices, Robert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
I had a Muslim friend over for dinner the other night, as we were sitting around after the meal talking he mentioned that a)mankind is devolving (as evidence he cited the giant footprint attributed to Abraham at Mecca), b)Everyone is descended from Noah en famile due to a certain global flood and c)that anything that disagrees with the word of God (Qu`ran not KJV) is necessarily wrong....
So are you sure that only christians can be creationists? (added by edit - And what is it with you and names? Its Metalpunk) [This message has been edited by joz, 04-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I would actually say that a Creationist is someone who believes that God created the universe. Generally, though, the term "Creationist" in the US and in these debates usually refers to "Biblical Fundamentalist, usually Protestant Christian".
quote: Creationism is a religious belief, while the Theory of Evolution is not. The ToE is an extremely well-supported scientific theory. This is the main difference between them.
quote: Agreed, but only if you wish to remain a Creationist, and not call yourself a Creation "scientist".
quote: No Jews or Muslims can be Creationists?
quote: These 'explanations' of geologic features are not reliable, nor plausible. They were abandoned long ago in favor of copious and better evidence. Creation science is not science, and does both religion and science a grave disservice.
quote: Are you "denigrating" the Bible if you accept that rabbits do not chew their cud, or by not classifying bats as birds?
quote: Hmm, perhaps the special kind of "science" that Creationists claim to do is at fault. Just because the Creationists call it "science" soesn't mean that Creation "science" fits the standards and tennets of real science. In fact, Creation "science" violates every one of the tennets of science, so it is most certainly named "science" to try to make it appear itellectual and educated. It is, in fact, religion dressed up in a lab coat, holding a beaker, doing it's best to appear scientific while preaching religion.
quote: I hope you don't mind a "sister's" pro-science critique. [Edited to fix quoted portions to be bold. --Percy] [This message has been edited by Percipient, 04-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Metalpunk37 Inactive Member |
Dear robert,
tests say that the earth is at least 4 billion years old, yet the earliest human fossils were found to be 4.4 million years old (http://www.berkeley.edu/...ia/releases/2001/07/11_bones.html) how old do you think the earth is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: One can clearly make a strong case that evening and morning had different meanings in Genesis simply due to the chronologies in Genesis. How can you have evening and morning without a Sun? The 24 hour earth day is based on its axial rotation (one hemisphere faces the sun as the other turns away). Yet, Genesis 1:14-19 tells us that the Sun and moon (presumably) were not created until Day 4 (the stars too incidentally). This verse seems to contrast with Genesis1:2-5 which is some other 'kind' of light. We therefore do not know the source of this light (cannot be the Sun, the moon or the stars). Therefore evening and morning can possibly have a different meaning up to Gen 1:14-19 and there is no compromise to the literal meaning of the bible. I am thoroughly convinced that the Bible is meaningless in terms of describing science since this was never its intent, but I don't see how you can cling to a literal 24-hour cycle without one part of the equation (the Sun). Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Inactive Member |
Greetings:
Yes, I am absolutely sure that only Christians can be Creationists. The "god" of the muslims is not Jesus Christ, so when a muslim says, "In the beginning God (Allah)..." he does not mean the same thing as a Christian. This goes for all other religions as well: Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, or whathaveyou. JM correctly points out that the phrase "evening and morning" is a reference to the rotation of the earth. Since the earth rotates in 24hr periods a "literal" interpretation of the first several days of Genesis would be "literal" days and not "figurative" days. When God created light on the first day it had to come from somwhere and shine on the earth (or what would be the earth) in 24hr periods. I honestly do not know what is the age of the universe or that the age of the earth can be calculated. I am skeptical about the dating of fossils for various reasons. It is very possible that God could create a semblance of age. Adam, for example, was created on the 6th day. Did God create an embryo, a child, an adolescent, or a fully grown man when He created Adam? We know that Adam and Eve were sexually active because when they were tossed out of the Garden of Eden they started conceiving children. Such a supposition would put Adam and Eve at about 12 years old (minimum) even though they were only created 24hrs ago. There are other examples in the Bible of God putting age in things when we know they cannot be old at all. I do not think that the fossils are as old as Darwinists say they are, but I am willing to discuss it. You must chew on this for now because I have no time to continue answering. Robert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Doesn't help. The 'light' could have simply turned on and off in order to give 'evening and morning' regardless of what the earth was doing. YOU DON'T KNOW! In fact, one is free to interpret this because there is no way to accept this in any literal fashion. Of course, since the bible is not, was not, and will not in the future be, intended as a scientific treatise, the meaning is irrelevant to science (also salvation).
quote: JM: But such an attitude would make God a trickster and (as others have pointed out) means that it is equally likely that the earth, universe and all contents were created two seconds ago with the appearance of age and memories intact. This conclusion must be considered on par with 'semblance of age' since both are equally likely and, incidentally, completely untestable and unscientific! On the other hand, if one assumes that there is a possibility of understanding the Universe, then one can look at the evidence available. Creationists in the 18th and 19th centuries concluded that the earth was old based on the evidence. That evidence did not shake, but instead reinforced their faith in God. It's ok not to know how we arrived at the current age of the earth, because that means you can open yourself up to the discussion. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Muslims believe that Islam is an elaboration of God's wordas presented in the Bible, and that God releases more accurate information as and when he/she/it feels that mankind is ready for it. For the muslim, therefore, god the creator in the Bible IS Allah. Please show me the biblical references which STATE that jesushad divinity. quote: Adam and Eve are cast out of Eden some UNSPECIFIED time after thecreation. They could easily have been created at any age. quote: With your viewpoint debate seems pointless ... if God couldcreate whatever to look however then there is nothing to debate ... BUT ... that being the case surely you are saying that the physical, observable evidence on earth DOES support ToE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3851 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
[QUOTE][b]IOW, who was Jesus praying to when he was on Earth if he is, in fact, God also? Was he praying to himself?[/QUOTE]
[/b] Must have been a ventriloquist too: "This is my Son, with whom I am well pleased"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Evolutionists don't engage in this debate because of some perverse fascination with conservative Christian opinions about evolution. They only get involved because of the threat posed to science education when Creationists insist that Creationism is science and should be taught along side (they'd prefer instead of) evolution. Once you concede that Creationism is a sectarian religious belief the debate is lost. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Inactive Member |
Greetings:
Peter: Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh. I am not sure if any of you are familiar with the doctrine of the Trinity so I will quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith: There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundent in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him: and withal most just and terrible in his judgments ... In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son..." From Chapter II: Of God, and the Holy Trinity In 1 John 5:7 the Trinity is clearly taught: For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. That is just one passage of many that shows that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost can be considered God Himself: Three separate unique persons One God. Jesus is often referred to as the Word of God, and, in context, God Himself. John 1:1-5 reads: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. These quotations, by the way, are coming from the New King James Version of the Bible. Yes, Peter, muslims do believe that Mohammed was the "seal of the prophets" but they are wrong. since they "revere" the Christian Holy bible as God's Word they should read it more closely, because after the Bible was completed it forbids anyone from adding to it: Revelation 22:18-19 reads: For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Since muslims claim that the Quran is an additional revelation of god's word they are violating the Christian Holy Bible which they claim is also a revelation of God's Word. The muslim religion is full of contradictions as such it a false religion that Paul warns about: "But even if we, or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received let him be accursed." Galatians 1:9 The muslims teach that Salvation is not through the Grace of God in Jesus Christ, but in doing good works. It is a works-oriented religion not a grace-oriented religion. As such it is a false religion according to the standards that they believe is the Word of God, i.e. the Christian Holy Bible. Insofar as the accusation that God is a "trickster" such is not the case. Darwinists are basing their views of the universe on their interpretations of the world around them. If you deceive yourselves into thinking that the world is something that God specifically says it is not, then how can you blame God for your delusions? JM: Everywhere in the Bible the phrase "evening and morning" is used to define a 24hr day: that, for example, is how Moses understood it, Ex. 27:21; Lev. 24:3. In Daniel 8:26 when more than one 24hr day is referred to it is used in the plural, "evenings and mornings". The use of the phrase "evening and morning" to mean somthing figurative is not how God wrote the Bible, therefore it is a false interpretation of what God has said. You must allow the Author to define His terms and not somebody else - like Hugh Ross. Percy: If your "science" contradicts the clear teachings of the Bible then you are leading yourself and others into ignorance and darkness rather than the truth. The Bible is not a textbook of science, but when it makes statements about the Creation of the universe and man those statements are true despite your interpretations of nature. To teach Darwinism in schools and not Creationism is to lead people astray from the truth. Jesus says that I should not throw my pearls before swine. I hope that I did not do such a thing. Robert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Makes no difference really. The 24 hour day is defined by the rotation of the Earth's axis and its relationship to facing/not facing the Sun, if there was no Sun, the definition is void and open to other interpretations. As for all your other discourse on 'true' religion, your religion is true because you think it is. Muslims' would argue that your faith is misplaced and a number of Christian sects would argue that you have misinterpreted the Bible. Why do I bring this up? There simply IS NO LITERAL UNIVERSALLY AGREED UPON WORD OF GOD! Not anywhere or at anytime-- and there never will be so your insistence that Robert holds the truth because Robert believes he has truth is nonsensical. The nice thing about science is that it has a built in relativism filter. It does not matter what I believe so long as I can provide evidence to support it. That evidence must be testable and repeatable by independent researchers no matter their religious beliefs. Guess what, the system works well! Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3851 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
[QUOTE][b]For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book[/QUOTE]
[/b] Robert; when Revelations was written there was no Bible, it had not yet been compiled. The threat of adding to that book is a reference to the Book of Revelations, not to the Bible itself. As for Galatians, it is a letter specifically addressed to the churches in Galatia which were being distorted by foreign religious concepts. You will note that if God wanted to give you another gospel, you'd better listen regardless of what Paul told the Galatians. If you refused, then, this is another example of Christian Fundamentalism turning into a Bible-worshipping cult. In fact, what can and cannot be included in the Bible is almost completely arbitrary. There is the Apocrypha which is included in some, and the Song of Solomon, which is omitted in some others. In fact, the Bible itself is product of Emperor Constantine, what Constantine wanted in the Bible was put there, what Constantine didn't want was left out. What you call infallible is actually the result of some very fallible religious scholars arguing over what was spiritually important and what wasn't. I hope they got it right, don't you? [This message has been edited by gene90, 04-17-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024