IRH writes:
For example, literalist creationists believe:
1) some guy 2000 years ago (it happened so long ago and no one witnessed it, how do you know it really happened?) healed the sick just by touching them, raised someone from the dead, rose from the dead himself, made lots of loaves and fishes out of thin air.
2) some being who is supposedly all-powerful (but somehow can't make himself known to anyone who doesn't already worship him) poofed the world into existence and has been screwing around with it ever since for reasons unknown.
3) a man can be swallowed by a whale and survive, that humanity started from one man and one woman, that snakes and burning bushes can talk, and that some evil bogeyman called Satan is making people do bad things.
All this is in defiance of what doctors, physicists, geologists, biologists, whoever say about it based on their years of rigorous training and research in their particular fields. In comparison, thinking that the world is very very old and creatures can evolve is pretty tame.
Essentially this seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. What right does a creationist have to call scientists deluded when they themselves are apparently deluded about a lot of things?
Many
believers also believe many of these things. I do not consider myself a creationist in the biological/geological/archeological level of earth and its formation, but I of course DO believe that
some guy as you so disdainfully call Him DID rise from the dead 2000 years ago! You are confusing two basic issues, here. One does
not have to be an atheist or an agnostic in order to be a doctor/physicist/geologist/biologist! In the Book Nook, I point out the behavior of
Sir. Richard Dawkins. Dawkins, he himself a "famous" atheist, runs up against one of his colleagues. In fact, even some of Sir. Richards educated friends assert that he gets carried away with his rant against religion in general.
Jazzns writes:
I think most of the problem comes from the fact that your average YEC on this board won't pony up the time to even be mildly educated about geology or biology. Heck they don't even put in the effort to understand what the other side is actually saying. While most of us have actually read much of ICR, AIG, etc, they cannot even be bothered to explore talkorigins in depth because of its 'evil' factor.
I agree with you, and I think that we need to differentiate between a "creationist" and other Christians. I don't believe that Christians need to be AIG or ICR creationists!
Faith writes:
It has nothing whatever to do with my religious beliefs
When someone challenges the divinity of Christ, it has
everything to do with mine. I could care less about the age of rocks. If they are found to be a couple of billion years old, that does not disturb me in the least! My faith is not challenged by any evolutionary assumption. When the existance of Jesus is questioned, however, that gets my attention. IMO, the literalness of the resurrection is the ONLY thing that matters in the Bible in regards to my faith. I tend to let the biologists/geologists/archeolgists and historians do their jobs and admit my ignorance of the disciplines involved.
ramoss writes:
...in the case of the miracles of the gospels, they were recorded at least 30 to 40 years after the alleged events by people who were not there. How can those claims be even taken on faith?
Are you telling me that those who have examined the evidence for Jesus Christ are so unbiased as to not be willfully ignorant as well? We are crossing over from facts into beliefs right about now...and I have no problem respectfully disagreeing with you. My evidence is in my heart, as it is for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of other christians. (Not all who call themselves christian even believe the evidence in themselves.)
jar writes:
...But the TOE and old earth are unsupportable only by wilfully ignoring the evidence.
I agree, and I think that this again proves why we should differentiate between faith driven christians and the others who embrace biological creationism, an invention of the human mind!
Mammuthus writes:
...It is up to the layman whether they want to do the work to learn enough to be fluent in science
I quite agree with you, Mammuthus. I respect scientific disciplines enough to stay out of meddling with their authenticity without understanding the process which led to the conclusions. I only ask that the scientists respect my faith/belief enough to stay out of the process which defines the reasons for my faith in Jesus Christ...if they seek to disprove it.
Why must you continue these rants? Are you not aware that they are not good witnesses? Look at Neds comments above. What would you say to his daughter? Would you tell her to focus on Biblical literalism and throw the wisdom of collective human research away?
™ Version 4.2
