Creationism isn't Right

[BVS]

correct, but what that purpose is I do not yet know.
Yes, he sure does. He talks to me when I am praying to Him every night laying in bed. He talks to me through His Word in the Bible. He talks to me through my interactions with my friends and family, and them with me. God is constantly talking to me and He is constantly talking to you too. If we will only listen for Him and drown out the world we will hear Him. I highly recommend it.

It's amazing how you are so literal with the Bible yet you have no problem with metaphor here...

 

[Irvine511]

Yes, he sure does. He talks to me when I am praying to Him every night laying in bed. He talks to me through His Word in the Bible. He talks to me through my interactions with my friends and family, and them with me. God is constantly talking to me and He is constantly talking to you too. If we will only listen for Him and drown out the world we will hear Him. I highly recommend it.

so you're telling us that you cannot say for certain whether or not there were once fire breathing dragons on earth, but you are absolutely certain that God whispers into your ear every night and tells you what to do.



anyway, this thread is astonishing, though it's good for everyone to see what's out there. people who are willing to turn of their brains to the extent that dragons become possible because they think God wrote the Bible.

and this, ladies and gentlemen, is what "staring at the sun" is all about. those who spend their lives staring -- not interacting, not learning, not challenging, not questioning ... just staring -- are simply going blind with their righteousness.

 

[A_Wanderer]

But they are not malicious, thats the important thing, they are not bad people for believing whatever they do (unless it's something really wrong) but their type of faith is contradicted by the facts, so they must deny the facts and attack the theories built up around the facts (hence evolution leads to abortions, faggotry and atheistic materialism). Taken a layer up with campaigns to get this sort of thing put in public schools or presenting it as an equally valid model of the world as a purely material one does stunt minds and I suppose closes off young minds - people are free to teach what they want but it shouldn't be given a free pass until it's too late.

 

[2861U2]

so you're telling us that you cannot say for certain whether or not there were once fire breathing dragons on earth, but you are absolutely certain that God whispers into your ear every night and tells you what to do.



anyway, this thread is astonishing, though it's good for everyone to see what's out there. people who are willing to turn of their brains to the extent that dragons become possible because they think God wrote the Bible.

and this, ladies and gentlemen, is what "staring at the sun" is all about. those who spend their lives staring -- not interacting, not learning, not challenging, not questioning ... just staring -- are simply going blind with their righteousness.

Excuse me? Your entire post is ridiculous.

A) God does not whisper in my ear, and you know it. You're simply fishing for something to say. Nor does He tell me exaclty what to do every day. If you think that is how God works, you are terribly mistaken. God has not yet spoken audibly to me, though He could if He wanted to.

B) I am not "turning off my brain." As I have stated many times before (please read this very carefully and very slowly), I WRESTLE WITH MANY ISSUES AND HAVE MANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING MY FAITH. I am constantly learning, constantly questioning and constantly growing. If you think Christianity works by people "turning off their brain," you are very, very incorrect.

C) I dont know where you got that God wrote the Bible. He spoke to Adam and others, and the book of Genesis was compiled by Moses from what God said. God did not write the Bible. Again, you are mistaken.

D) As I have also stated, I do not take everything in the Bible literally as you seem to think I do. You must have missed where I said that I have not decided which parts are literal and which metaphorical. I believe creationism (the topic of this thread) really happened as the Bible depicts. I also am saying that you cannot rule out the possibility that some creature was created by an all-powerful God based solely on our lack of fossil. Maybe the creatures in the Bible are metaphors. Fair enough. But maybe they aren't.

You are right about one thing, though. This thread is astonishing.

"going blind with their righteousness?" Your attitude seems a little self-righteous to me, with your "ladies and gentlemen" sermon.

 

[randhail]

D) As I have also stated, I do not take everything in the Bible literally as you seem to think I do. You must have missed where I said that I have not decided which parts are literal and which metaphorical. I believe creationism (the topic of this thread) really happened as the Bible depicts. I also am saying that you cannot rule out the possibility that some creature was created by an all-powerful God based solely on our lack of fossil. Maybe the creatures in the Bible are metaphors. Fair enough. But maybe they aren't.

How do you decide what is literal and what is metaphorical? Why does the creation story get taken literally, but other things are metaphors? Is all of Genesis literal? I'm curious to hear your response.

 

[2861U2]

How do you decide what is literal and what is metaphorical? Why does the creation story get taken literally, but other things are metaphors? Is all of Genesis literal? I'm curious to hear your response.

Well I think it is a personal interpretation of whether a story is literal or metaphorical. If two people read a story, and one interprets as literally happening and the other person interprets it as a metaphor, neither is more correct than the other, as long as they receive a message or lesson from what they read. How do I personally make that decision? It is very hard. There isnt a litmus test, and it's very much a story-by-story basis.

I believe the story of creation because, to me, that is the most awesome display of God's power in history. I take joy in believing that that really happened. I have not been presented with an alternate explanation (other than the big bang and scientific explanations) and I dont care to be. The creation story is perfectly satisfying. Like I said, if someone were to somehow take that story as a symbolic metaphor, good for them.

As for Genesis being totally literal, I cant answer that. Again, I believe it varies person to person. I'm not up on my book of Genesis, but I bet that if I were to read it all, I would find a number of things that I would believe were symbolic.

 

[Irvine511]

I believe creationism (the topic of this thread) really happened as the Bible depicts. I also am saying that you cannot rule out the possibility that some creature was created by an all-powerful God based solely on our lack of fossil. Maybe the creatures in the Bible are metaphors. Fair enough. But maybe they aren't.

and this -- in the context of reason, logic, and science -- is what is astonishing.

and this is what i am talking about, and i don't feel bad about pointing it out. and of course you have the right to believe whatever you want -- insofar as it isn't presented as "science" in a classroom -- but if you are going to present your beliefs as worthwhile of defense, you'd better be ready to defend them and not claim persecution when someone takes you to task.

i see no reason to nod my head and say, "yes, of course, good on you for thinking that there were once dragons." i won't do that, in the same way that i won't let someone talk about the Mermaid they swam with or the unicorns in their backyard or the alien spaceships that they ride around in on Saturday nights.

bad thinking is bad thinking. and, when we are talking about science, Creationism is bad thinking. if you aren't secure enough to have a belief take some scrutiny, perhaps you'd better re-evaluate why you belief in it in the first place. and the fact that you don't seem to be able to defende your beliefs beyond the rote "but this is what i believe" is, to me, evidence of a refusal to think.

 

[BVS]

Well I think it is a personal interpretation of whether a story is literal or metaphorical. If two people read a story, and one interprets as literally happening and the other person interprets it as a metaphor, neither is more correct than the other, as long as they receive a message or lesson from what they read. How do I personally make that decision? It is very hard. There isnt a litmus test, and it's very much a story-by-story basis.

Once again you are copping out by leaving it up to personal interpretation. Then can some take Jesus as a metaphor, since it's all left up to personal interpretation?

 

[Irvine511]

But they are not malicious, thats the important thing, they are not bad people for believing whatever they do (unless it's something really wrong) but their type of faith is contradicted by the facts, so they must deny the facts and attack the theories built up around the facts (hence evolution leads to abortions, faggotry and atheistic materialism). Taken a layer up with campaigns to get this sort of thing put in public schools or presenting it as an equally valid model of the world as a purely material one does stunt minds and I suppose closes off young minds - people are free to teach what they want but it shouldn't be given a free pass until it's too late.

right up until the moment when the blueprint behind Creationist though -- i have a belief, now, let's fit all other information to support that belief -- becomes foreign policy and gets 3500 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I get the connection to the faith based (as in results don't matter) procecution of the occupation but not to the build up, there were good reasons to think that Saddam retained WMD - the debate was how this widely assumed fact was to be dealt with.

 

[Ormus]

Hold on. Unitarians yes, but agnostics, no way. There is simply no way, no way, you can read the words or look at the symbols of our country during it's infancy and think that the founding fathers held agnostic views towards God.
Deists, it's true, did not believed in a revealed religion, a personal God, or that Jesus was the Son of God; and thus were not Christians per se. But Deism most certainly held that there was a single creator God, a Moral Law attributable to Him, and that He worked in the world through providence. Most also held the view that religion was necessary to produce virtue in it's citizens. And they were extremely biblically literate.
Agnostic, no way.

I think these days when we say "agnostic," we think of "atheism." I interpret it, particularly in light of the Founding Fathers, of refusing to take a stand on the nature of what "God" is.

I should mention that the reference of some of the Founding Fathers being "agnostic" did not originate from me, but through historians. Feel free to disagree, and I have no real objection to the rest that you have written.

Really, this is pre-revolution but why was Pennsylvania formed? Why is it called Maryland (hint: Mary's land.) Americans were not cold to religion during the time of the revolution.

You've already addressed the answer I'm going to give you by saying "pre-revolution." Pre-revolutionary America is different than post-revolutionary America, and it has been noted that America's "religiosity" goes in cycles. America in the decades after the Salem Witch Trials were cold to religion. The decades surrounding the French-Indian War were more religious (the first "Great Awakening"), whereas the decades following the Revolutionary War up to the 1830s (the second "Great Awakening") were not.

 

[2861U2]

you have the right to believe whatever you want -- insofar as it isn't presented as "science" in a classroom

correct, and I never advocated for creationism to be taught in science class. I'm perfectly fine if it isnt.

when we are talking about science, Creationism is bad thinking.

fair enough.

and the fact that you don't seem to be able to defende your beliefs beyond the rote "but this is what i believe" is, to me, evidence of a refusal to think.

That isnt true, though. I have defended my beliefs, and will continue to. Please keep in mind folks, that Christianity is a religion. Science cannot back it up. Faith and only faith is what can defend a religion. I have chosen to accept the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Word of God, and I absolutely believe it. I dont believe that is a "refusal to think" at all. If anything, it is a great display of thinking to comprehend the existence of an un-provable being who can do anything. IMO, "this is what I believe" is a totally acceptable defense.

Once again you are copping out by leaving it up to personal interpretation. Then can some take Jesus as a metaphor, since it's all left up to personal interpretation?

personal interpretation is fine to a certain degree. I would question one who thinks Jesus is a metaphor. Unlike something as irrelevant as whether or not there is a dragon in Psalms, Jesus is the central figure in Christianity and I do not believe he can be taken too many different ways other than that He is the son of God, the Savior of mankind, performer of miracles and God in human form.


but of course, you may respectfully disagree

 

[BVS]

Science cannot back it up. Faith and only faith is what can defend a religion.

Science may not prove an existence of God, but it can and has DISPROVED a 6 day creation "theory". This is what you keep ignoring therefore looking like a refusal to think.

personal interpretation is fine to a certain degree. I would question one who thinks Jesus is a metaphor. Unlike something as irrelevant as whether or not there is a dragon in Psalms, Jesus is the central figure in Christianity and I do not believe he can be taken too many different ways other than that He is the son of God, the Savior of mankind, performer of miracles and God in human form.

But you said:

I think it is a personal interpretation of whether a story is literal or metaphorical.

So doesn't that make anything fair game? Why are you now saying to a certain degree? Aren't you now picking and choosing what should and shouldn't be a metaphor, based on YOUR opinion?

 

[2861U2]

Science may not prove an existence of God, but it can and has DISPROVED a 6 day creation "theory". This is what you keep ignoring therefore looking like a refusal to think.

So I "refuse to think" because when I read that my Bible tells me that God created the universe in 6 days, I happen to believe it? That's a tad harsh, no?

So doesn't that make anything fair game? Why are you now saying to a certain degree? Aren't you now picking and choosing what should and shouldn't be a metaphor, based on YOUR opinion?

No, I'm not doing that at all, and never have been.

I know Christians who dont believe that Jonah was actually inside a fish. I know Christians who hold different positions on different Bible stories. But I have never met a Christian (meaning one who believes Jesus Christ the Messiah, the Son of God, here to preach the Gospel and tell of a way to salvation) who didnt believe that Jesus did what the Bible said he did, or simply thought he was a metaphor or not a real person. If you know of such a person, I would love to meet them. Until then, I cannot address your question to my satisfaction or to your satisfaction. I can't imagine a Christian who holds such a different belief about the core figure of Christianity.

 

[BVS]

So I "refuse to think" because when I read that my Bible tells me that God created the universe in 6 days, I happen to believe it? That's a tad harsh, no?

No, it's not harsh. You're ignoring facts, that DOES qualify you as refusing to think. Millions of Christians can look at science and facts and realize that 6 days is a metaphor. It's a story told so that when people read scriptures 1000s of years ago they could understand.

No, I'm not doing that at all, and never have been.

I know Christians who dont believe that Jonah was actually inside a fish. I know Christians who hold different positions on different Bible stories. But I have never met a Christian (meaning one who believes Jesus Christ the Messiah, the Son of God, here to preach the Gospel and tell of a way to salvation) who didnt believe that Jesus did what the Bible said he did, or simply thought he was a metaphor or not a real person. If you know of such a person, I would love to meet them. Until then, I cannot address your question to my satisfaction or to your satisfaction. I can't imagine a Christian who holds such a different belief about the core figure of Christianity.

That's not an answer to the question

Just because you've never met anyone who believes that, that's why it's not a metaphor?

Answer to me, what and why you choose to view some as a metaphor and some as literal? What's your measuring stick? You have to have one right, I mean it's not just because someone told you right?

 

[najeena]

Why would God create fossils and other natural phemomena that point exclusively to evolution just to test those who deign to doubt? Aren't there more important things to deal with?

 

[2861U2]

Answer to me, what and why you choose to view some as a metaphor and some as literal? What's your measuring stick? You have to have one right, I mean it's not just because someone told you right?

I don't have a solid answer for you. It's a matter of opinion and it derives from my relationship with God. One day I will read a story and interpret it as literally happening, and the next day I will read it and interpret it as a symbolic story. And I dont think that back-and-forth is a bad thing. I think that is what is so great about the Bible. I dont know if you are a Christian or not (forgive me, in all this discussion I have lost track), but if you are, I would think you would understand. If you arent, then sorry, this answer probably isnt making sense to you.

Going back to your "Jesus as a metaphor" proposition: If you are a Christian and want to take the entire Bible as a metaphor, fine. However, I cannot fathom a Christian believing that the life of Jesus Christ was a metaphor. He is the core figure of Christianity and his life (telling of salvation, and dying and being born again) is the core theme of Christianity. For someone to say they are a Christian, yet refuse to believe that such a personification of salvation lived is hard to imagine. The whole life of Jesus is the reason said person would call themself a Christian, and I wouldnt think they would doubt He lived. In other words, I believe you can take as symbol or metaphor everything in the Bible if you please, except the story of Jesus, in whose life and lessons is the reason you consider yourself a Christian.

 

[2861U2]

Why would God create fossils and other natural phemomena that point exclusively to evolution just to test those who deign to doubt? Aren't there more important things to deal with?

another "why would God" question, which neither I nor anyone else can answer. I am not God and I do not understand what he does or why.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Why would God create fossils and other natural phemomena that point exclusively to evolution just to test those who deign to doubt? Aren't there more important things to deal with?

Fossils don't point exclusively to evolution, they could just have been put there yesterday but fabricated so perfectly to seem as if they were old. If somebody produced evidence for this hypothesis that was more convincing than geochronoloical and palaeontological evidence then it would be quite the shift in paradigm.

As far as criticism of the gaps in the record go that is a function of preservation as well as the tempo and mode of evolution (to borrow from Simpson). Whats interesting is that we find specimens that could adequately be labelled missing links but they are just ignored so that the statement of no missing links can continue.

 

[BVS]

I don't have a solid answer for you. It's a matter of opinion and it derives from my relationship with God. One day I will read a story and interpret it as literally happening, and the next day I will read it and interpret it as a symbolic story. And I dont think that back-and-forth is a bad thing. I think that is what is so great about the Bible. I dont know if you are a Christian or not (forgive me, in all this discussion I have lost track), but if you are, I would think you would understand. If you arent, then sorry, this answer probably isnt making sense to you.

Going back to your "Jesus as a metaphor" proposition: If you are a Christian and want to take the entire Bible as a metaphor, fine. However, I cannot fathom a Christian believing that the life of Jesus Christ was a metaphor. He is the core figure of Christianity and his life (telling of salvation, and dying and being born again) is the core theme of Christianity. For someone to say they are a Christian, yet refuse to believe that such a personification of salvation lived is hard to imagine. The whole life of Jesus is the reason said person would call themself a Christian, and I wouldnt think they would doubt He lived. In other words, I believe you can take as symbol or metaphor everything in the Bible if you please, except the story of Jesus, in whose life and lessons is the reason you consider yourself a Christian.

Well I think that's a very weak relationship if you can take everything with a grain of salt, which is pretty much in essense what you are saying by, "back and forth thing".

I guess I would think most people would choose what they take as metaphor and what they don't by logic, historical evidence, science, etc...

But I guess not, that baffles me. It also baffles me that you ignore facts in order to believe a metaphor. Yet you admit you go back and forth on everything else. Yet the most obvious metaphor and you choose to take it literally.

Seems like a very dangerous way to live.

 

[BVS]

another "why would God" question, which neither I nor anyone else can answer. I am not God and I do not understand what he does or why.

That was a rhetorical question pointing out your obvious ignoring of facts.

 

[2861U2]

Well I think that's a very weak relationship if you can take everything with a grain of salt, which is pretty much in essense what you are saying by, "back and forth thing".

I guess I would think most people would choose what they take as metaphor and what they don't by logic, historical evidence, science, etc...

But I guess not, that baffles me. It also baffles me that you ignore facts in order to believe a metaphor. Yet you admit you go back and forth on everything else. Yet the most obvious metaphor and you choose to take it literally.

Seems like a very dangerous way to live.

"Seems like a very dangerous way to live?" Get off your high horse, sir. You are becoming laughable.

As I have said (and as any pastor will tell you) logic and science play no role in Christianity. You underestimate God and overestimate science. I get the feeling that you believe God (if you believe in God) is bound by the laws of science and logic, and am disappointed if you think that.

I'm not sure why you think I take everything with a grain of salt. And also, you are in no place to call my relationship with God "weak." It is absolutely the opposite. If I were you, I would stop and examine my own relationship with Him before calling others' "weak"

 

[BVS]

"Seems like a very dangerous way to live?" Get off your high horse, sir. You are becoming laughable.

I'm becoming laughable, you may not have noticed but many in here have been laughing at you, even those who are on your side.

No high horse, I'm riding a dragon. His name is Puff and he's magic.

As I have said (and as any pastor will tell you) logic and science play no role in Christianity. You underestimate God and overestimate science. I get the feeling that you believe God (if you believe in God) is bound by the laws of science and logic, and am disappointed if you think that.

False. My grandfather was a minister and he would scoff at the idea that logic and science don't play a role. Most ministers that I know personally would laugh at that. Since "God was the one who created the laws of logic and science", as my grandfather would say...
That doesn't mean God is bound to those laws, just that God would use those laws.

Now Christians may be divided on how the world was created, but most I know are usually divided on Evolution vs Intelligent design and all the finer points in between.

I'm not sure why you think I take everything with a grain of salt. And also, you are in no place to call my relationship with God "weak." It is absolutely the opposite. If I were you, I would stop and examine my own relationship with Him before calling others' "weak"

I didn't say your relationship with God is weak your relationship with understanding the Bible is weak. Two different things.


But you still haven't answered the question. Why if so many other things can go back and forth, does the 6 day thing remain fact with you?

The whale thing, I can understand going back and forth, but why does the biggest metaphor of them all remain fact with you?

 

[INDY500]

Why would God create fossils and other natural phemomena that point exclusively to evolution just to test those who deign to doubt? Aren't there more important things to deal with?

I agree with you about the "Why would God". Which is why I believe the universe is billions of years old. "Why would God put craters on distant moons that, in space, couldn't have eroded to the extent that they have in only thousands of years" for instance.

However, the fossil record does not show slow advancing evolution from one species to another higher one.

The fossil record shows species appearing fully formed -- varying around a mean -- and then disappearing.

Darwinism is simply a creation story without a God.

 

[2861U2]

your relationship with understanding the Bible is weak.

I must disagree.

But you still haven't answered the question. Why if so many other things can go back and forth, does the 6 day thing remain fact with you? why does the biggest metaphor of them all remain fact with you?

I believe God created the universe in 6 days because, like I said, I take joy in believing that. It is such an awesome display of His power and love and his plan which is just beginning to unfold. He could have created that same universe in a split-second if He wanted, and so I dont know why he picked the time period He did. It is not fact with me. Perhaps the 6 days represent 6000 years. I dont know. I wasnt there. I cannot give you an answer rooted in science and logic. All I can give you is an answer rooted in faith.

I would like to see scientific studies proving God wrong, proving beyond a doubt that God did not create the universe the way He said He did.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The fossil record shows species appearing fully formed -- varying around a mean -- and then disappearing

Correct, except for marine pelagic organisms like forams and rads which do show graduated change because of the way they are preserved. But the question of speciation and the fossil record is reconciled by the discoveries in modern biology of allopatric speciation mechanisms where peripheral small populations are able to change rapidly unlike large stable ones then overtaking the geographical extent of the original one thus providing a new species in their place as well as the discoveries in epigenetics which reveal the plasticity in organism development from which macroevolutionary changes emerge. The rate and resolution of fossil preservation is a good part of why we don't see finely graduated chains in organisms and instead find species suddenly appearing.

 

[BVS]

so I dont know why he picked the time period He did. It is not fact with me. Perhaps the 6 days represent 6000 years. I dont know. I wasnt there. I cannot give you an answer rooted in science and logic. All I can give you is an answer rooted in faith.

Flip-flopper. So now it might be a metaphor?

You're right, you weren't there, no one was, so how did the story come about?

I would like to see scientific studies proving God wrong, proving beyond a doubt that God did not create the universe the way He said He did.

Wow you really don't understand science, science will never disprove God. But it does prove without doubt that it wasn't created in 6 days.

 

[phillyfan26]

B) I am not "turning off my brain." As I have stated many times before (please read this very carefully and very slowly), I WRESTLE WITH MANY ISSUES AND HAVE MANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING MY FAITH. I am constantly learning, constantly questioning and constantly growing. If you think Christianity works by people "turning off their brain," you are very, very incorrect.

C) I dont know where you got that God wrote the Bible. He spoke to Adam and others, and the book of Genesis was compiled by Moses from what God said. God did not write the Bible. Again, you are mistaken.

Please, stop generalizing yourself as a Christian. He said that you, specifically, are turning off your brain, not that Christians turn off their brains.

And you've said that you take the Bible as God's word, so you must think he wrote the Bible.

ETA: And oh yes, you did say this:

Also, if I was asked to provide proof of a God or support my belief in God using only common sense and logic, I would fail miserably.

Isn't that "turning off your brain?"

 

[BVS]

Don't you know 2861U2 speaks for all Christians? I thought everyone got that memo...

 

[phillyfan26]

Don't you know 2861U2 speaks for all Christians? I thought everyone got that memo...

Maybe he thought my email address was phillyfan36 instead of 26.