Any Creationists here?

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

But pretty much everything is compromised in one way or the other based on a literal reading of the Bible.

Do you accept that the modern theory of light is accurate? If you don't then how do you think your TV works? If you do then how do you reconcile that the Bible says the Universe is 10,000 years old when we are seeing light from stars that originated millions of years ago?

Perhaps, that's one of the reasons why I like Christianity. It is accessible to everyone through the Bible etc, rather than taking the word of a scientist with a huge salary to find out these answers for people. I can find God when I want His help and guidance. And all I know is, nothing in this world, no matter what it is can provide me their constant help and guidance. I will always believe in Christianity for the amount of help and guidance God has given unto me over the last few years. I don't need anything else, I have personally felt this truth. I don't need to show it unto you either, the choice is upon you to believe. It's because of this help and guidance that I can fully put my faith in Christianity, Creationism and anything that the Lord has done in the lifetime of this world.

Son Goku

Jakkass wrote:

Perhaps, that's one of the reasons why I like Christianity. It is accessible to everyone through the Bible etc, rather than taking the word of a scientist with a huge salary to find out these answers for people.

Eh, scientists don't have huge salaries. I've given up a very good job, in order to pursue postgraduate level in theoretical physics. It's commonly known that the average research physicist could have a salary about four to five times what he earns as a physicist if he went into banking, e.t.c.

I can understand that you think the bible is great and enjoy what Christianity has given you, but I don't understand the need to make up random facts about science and scientists for no reason.

Plus science doesn't try to answer the questions religion does, so I don't know what these "answers" are that people can get from the bible instead of scientists. I'd guess you've absolutely no idea what science really is or how it works.

philologos

Son Goku wrote:

Plus science doesn't try to answer the questions religion does, so I don't know what these "answers" are that people can get from the bible instead of scientists. I'd guess you've absolutely no idea what science really is or how it works.

This debate wouldn't even exist if science didn't try to answer the question of how the world was created. This debate is quite clearly here today because of what scientists have put forward.

bonkey

Jakkass wrote:

Perhaps, that's one of the reasons why I like Christianity. It is accessible to everyone through the Bible etc, rather than taking the word of a scientist with a huge salary to find out these answers for people.

I beg to differ.

I would hazard a guess that you didn't come to your faith by reading the bible in the original, translating and interpreting it for yourself and as a result concluding that it is true.

Rather, I would say people told you that it was true, told you what various sections meant, and this struck a resonance with you and you have accepted their word as you believe it to be true.

Science, on the other hand, is verifiable. The details of how an experiment was carried out are detailed. You don't have to take the word of a scientist (regardless of their salary) at all, because if you have the time and resources you can start from scratch and verify the stuff for yourself. In all cases, science is falsifiable. Its not about taking anyone's word for it....there is no "closed circle" of people who get to decide the truth which we must accept or refuse based purely on their word.

So I would put it to you that you have your cases mixed up. Christianity is the one where you have put (blind) faith in someone else's word. Science is where you have the opportunity to verify or falsify something for yourself.

I can find God when I want His help and guidance. And all I know is, nothing in this world, no matter what it is can provide me their constant help and guidance. I will always believe in Christianity for the amount of help and guidance God has given unto me over the last few years. I don't need anything else, I have personally felt this truth.

I'm happy for you. I think its fantastic that your religion helps you in your life so much.

I fail to see, though, how any of this has to do with the bible being historically true though. There are many Christians who could testify exactly as you have done but who also believe Genesis to be allegorical.

(This, obviously, does not hold true if, like Wolfsbane, you redefine "Christian" t mean "believer in the historical accuracy of Gensis".)

The greatness of God does not require one to believe in Genesis.

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

Jakkass wrote:

Perhaps, that's one of the reasons why I like Christianity. It is accessible to everyone through the Bible etc, rather than taking the word of a scientist with a huge salary to find out these answers for people.

Eh, scientists don't have huge salaries. I've given up a very good job, in order to pursue postgraduate level in theoretical physics. It's commonly known that the average research physicist could have a salary about four to five times what he earns as a physicist if he went into banking, e.t.c.

I can understand that you think the bible is great and enjoy what Christianity has given you, but I don't understand the need to make up random facts about science and scientists for no reason.

Plus science doesn't try to answer the questions religion does, so I don't know what these "answers" are that people can get from the bible instead of scientists. I'd guess you've absolutely no idea what science really is or how it works.

Seems also to miss the fact that anyone can become a scientist, as well. You just need to study science...

Huge salaries, though...I'd laugh, but it isn't really funny. It's why I'm in IT these days.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

This debate wouldn't even exist if science didn't try to answer the question of how the world was created. This debate is quite clearly here today because of what scientists have put forward.

OK, that's an interesting take. You're saying that the 'origin of the world' is a religious question, and science should have left it alone?

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

Jakkass wrote:

This debate wouldn't even exist if science didn't try to answer the question of how the world was created.

Nor would it exist if religion didn't do likewise.

If we look to see which has a greater claim on said field, its hard to argue how religion - which is primarily concerned with our moral living, the well-being of our immortal souls, and so forth - has a greater claim to primacy in this respect than science - which is primarily concerned with our physical universe.

This debate is quite clearly here today because of what scientists have put forward.

Once upon a time, it was blasphemy to suggest that science could determine that the earth was not the centre of the universe or that the sun and planets did not revolve around the earth as such matters were clearly the domain of religion to determine.

You seem to be suggesting that science was wrong to dabble in this field and should have accepted that the sun orbits the earth because it was an area of knowledge that religion already laid claim to.

philologos

bonkey wrote:

I beg to differ.

I would hazard a guess that you didn't come to your faith by reading the bible in the original, translating and interpreting it for yourself and as a result concluding that it is true.

Rather, I would say people told you that it was true, told you what various sections meant, and this struck a resonance with you and you have accepted their word as you believe it to be true.

Again if you would read what I said earlier. I doubted Christianity for a good few years, until I actually picked up a Bible and started reading it for myself. I'd recommend the Good News translation to anyone infact. Actually just to add, do you think that the Bible is inaccessible to anyone in this world. It is the most published book of all time, how could anyone not get it. As such Christianity is accessible to anyone whereever they are.

bonkey wrote:

I'm happy for you. I think its fantastic that your religion helps you in your life so much.

I fail to see, though, how any of this has to do with the bible being historically true though. There are many Christians who could testify exactly as you have done but who also believe Genesis to be allegorical.

(This, obviously, does not hold true if, like Wolfsbane, you redefine "Christian" mean "believer in the historical accuracy of Gensis".)

The greatness of God does not require one to believe in Genesis.

Hold up here! It does require someone to believe in the whole Scripture. How could one believe that Jesus existed from Jewish parents, if one doesn't believe they were brought out of slavery in Egypt. (Joseph being brought there and betrayed by his brothers, interpreting dreams, being given land by the King of Egypt is documented throughout the end of that book) Actually, are you sure that you have read Genesis before making comments about it or did you only get to the first chapter describing the creation? One would have to believe that the Jews were brought out of exile in Egypt to the promised land if one is also to believe in Jesus living amongst other Jews in Israel.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Perhaps, that's one of the reasons why I like Christianity. It is accessible to everyone through the Bible etc, rather than taking the word of a scientist with a huge salary to find out these answers for people. I can find God when I want His help and guidance.

But God won't fix your TV ,or your Playstation with GTA, nor does he design it in the first place either. He won't cure you of small pox or fix you if you if you get a brain tumor.

I often think that theists with views like yourself are only given the luxury of being able to dismiss science so off hand because you take for granted all the benefits that are afforded to you by science.

We, in western society, live very comfortable lives compared to previous generations of humanity, and therefore simply assume that all these wonderful things are just there for the taking. We don't even think about them anymore. While a disease in a previous generation might have been a death sentence we can take a few pills and be done with it.

Often we (as in the last few generations) don't appreciate that these things are there because scientists established a very successful and practical way of exploring the universe around us and turning this exploration into good works.

You are free to dismiss science and look to theological questions because you basically don't have much else to worry about. If you get sick medical science will cure you. If you work 10 miles away from your home mechanical science will build you a transport system to get there. If you want to relax in front of a TV electronic science will build you a TV, a game console, a light bulb, a power grid, so you can do all that.

If you were suddenly transported back in time to 2000 years ago and found yourself living in a cave would you want a priest or a scientist with you?

Jakkass wrote:

And all I know is, nothing in this world, no matter what it is can provide me their constant help and guidance.

Again if you were transfered back in time to 2000 years ago would you want God's guidance or antibiotics?

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

Again if you were transfered back in time to 2000 years ago would you want God's guidance or antibiotics?

You rule out the possibility that God's guidance could have helped the human race to come up with antibiotics (as you so emboldened)? I would pick God's guidance and grace because through Him we could come (and have come up) with much, much more than antibiotics.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

It is the most published book of all time, how could anyone not get it. As such Christianity is accessible to anyone whereever they are.

I think his point was that you have never met Jesus.

You are accepting what someone else (or in the case of the Bible most likely a group of people) are telling you Jesus said and did. This is completely unverifiable, there isn't "Jesus: The Unauthorised Biography" that you can read along side the Bible.

As has been pointed out you are taking those who wrote the Bible's word for it, where as with science you don't have to take anyones word for it, you can do it all yourself, or someone else can do it for you.

Jakkass wrote:

One would have to believe that the Jews were brought out of exile in Egypt to the promised land if one is also to believe in Jesus living amongst other Jews in Israel.

Why?

If the Exodus never actually happened that doesn't mean no one in 20AD was Jewish. They were all Jewish (and Roman) they just have a rather unbelievable myth that explains the formation of their people.

Because there were Vikings in Ireland does that mean their myths about Scandinavia falling off the back of a giant must be true as well?

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

If the Exodus never actually happened that doesn't mean no one in 20AD was Jewish. They were all Jewish (and Roman) they just have a rather unbelievable myth that explains the formation of their people.

You fail to understand that you cannot be Jewish unless you follow the Torah, which was given to the Israelites on their way out of Egypt. This is to them the most important revelation that God had ever brought upon them. You cannot be Jewish if you do not believe in that revelation. The Torah, the Laws and the documentation of the Exodus is the most important element of scripture to them.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

You rule out the possibility that God's guidance could have helped the human race to come up with antibiotics

Well considering antibiotics were invented by the Chinese I find it doubtful.

But even if your Abrahamic god (which was largely unheard of in China until the late middle ages) was guiding the human race in science that is surely a reason to embrace science, rather than turn away from it?

Jakkass wrote:

I would pick God's guidance and grace because through Him we could come (and have come up) with much, much more than antibiotics.

God would tell you how to make antibiotics if you needed them? Is that not being a bit presumptuous of you Jakkass? Why did God wait so long before he decided to share this life saving knowledge with humanity, and why do you think that if you were living 2000 years ago he would just give you this information?

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

But even if your Abrahamic god (which was largely unheard of in China until the late middle ages) was guiding the human race in science that is surely a reason to embrace science, rather than turn away from it?

In elements of science, but not in the Science that rejects Him or turns away from his word. I embrace Science that truly helps the world, but how are Evolution or the Big Bang theories going to help anybody? To be brutally honest with you, we aren't going to be able to prove any definitive answers to you about how this all happened, and you aren't going to turn me away from my faith so I really don't even see the point of this debate.

Son Goku

Jakkass wrote:

In elements of science, but not in the Science that rejects Him or turns away from his word. I embrace Science that truly helps the world, but how are Evolution or the Big Bang theories going to help anybody? To be brutally honest with you, we aren't going to be able to prove any definitive answers to you about how this all happened, and you aren't going to turn me away from my faith so I really don't even see the point of this debate.

The Big Bang comes from General Relativity and General Relativity leads to GPS satellites. No GPS satellites means you're screwed if you're out in a storm on a fishing vessel.
Since you don't accept the Big Bang, I take it you think there is something wrong with General Relativity and hence GPS is a useless piece of equipment for deep sea fishing.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

In elements of science, but not in the Science that rejects Him or turns away from his word.

Why does that matter?

The Chinese "rejected him" and he rewarded them with antibiotics, something that western, mostly Christian Jewish or Muslims, didn't discover until hundreds of years later.

Jakkass wrote:

I embrace Science that truly helps the world, but how are Evolution or the Big Bang theories going to help anybody?

Said like someone who takes modern medicine completely for granted.

Most of modern biology, if not all, is based entirely on the theory of evolution being an accurate model of life on Earth. If it is completely wrong then most of how we think modern medicine works is also completely wrong and the fact that it does work at all is a complete fluke and should be completely unpredictable.

Jakkass wrote:

To be brutally honest with you, we aren't going to be able to prove any definitive answers to you about how this all happened, and you aren't going to turn me away from my faith so I really don't even see the point of this debate.

Well I would be happy if you just stopped misrepresenting science which nonsense comments like "how is evolution going to help anyone?"

Be ignorant of science on your own time please.

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

Be ignorant of science on your own time please.

Be completely intolerant of other peoples beliefs in your own time please. This thread isn't to constantly interrogate people of what they believe in, infact the OP was just asking to find out what people believed in. You can go attack our beliefs as much as you like in the Atheism forum. I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe. Just accept it.

Son Goku

Jakkass wrote:

Be completely intolerant of other peoples beliefs in your own time please. This thread isn't to constantly interrogate people of what they believe in, infact the OP was just asking to find out what people believed in. You can go attack our beliefs as much as you like in the Atheism forum. I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe. Just accept it.

Come off it. Nobody has attacked your beliefs, it's the arbitrary manner in which you discard or accept scientific theories that is being questioned.

philologos

I don't accept Evolution, or the Big Bang because of my beliefs, it doesn't warrant you to completely bash me for it. I've given you my reasons, just accept them.

Son Goku

Jakkass wrote:

I don't accept Evolution, or the Big Bang because of my beliefs, it doesn't warrant you to completely bash me for it. I've given you my reasons, just accept them.

Bash you? A debate is a debate and it isn't bashing. This isn't a crèche.

philologos

Well it's quite clear that I can't prove to you that the world was created as it was or that Christianity exists. So what's the point!

Son Goku wrote:

If the forum was truly like this:
Christian #1:What do you guys think of Kings 1 verse.....
Christian #2:I think it shows...e.t.c........

Most of us wouldn't be here. Which is why you won't find us in threads like the Latin Mass one.

However there is an awful lot of "atheists are evil degenerates and not to be trusted". It's hard to avoid a thread like that. Imagine a thread like "Farmers/Scum what's the difference?", if you were a farmer you'd find it hard to avoid responding. When the amount of such threads and attitudes reaches critical mass you eventually get into the habit of debating everything Chrisitans say.

Which is bad for the Christians who just want to talk about their faith, I suppose.

I'd prefer it if the forum was like this to be honest with you. I don't believe that atheists are evil, I know a lot of them and I am friends with a lot of them.

Tar.Aldarion

prove chistianity exists? That's a new one!

If evolution is wrong, why does medicine work?
Why is there absolutely no evidence against evolution and so so so much for it?
(Even if people who know little about science think there is)

mickoneill30

This thread is going nowhere I think. Jakkass is never going to change his / her beliefs. That's everybodys right. It's nice to try and educate people but you have to realise when you're banging your head against a wall.I know some of the posts here are really outlandish but anybody who reads back about 10 posts gets a good idea of who to believe.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Be completely intolerant of other peoples beliefs in your own time please.

Jakkass you can believe what ever the hell you like, but if you state something on a public discussion forum that is nonsense or just plan wrong I'm going to respond to that.

Your religion isn't a blanket excuse to be able to say what ever you like without being challenged if what you are saying is incorrect or ignorant. I don't really care if you think evolutionary theory has never done anything useful, but if you state that publicly I'm going to point out that you are very wrong.

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

Jakkass you can believe what ever the hell you like, but if you state something on a public discussion forum that is nonsense or just plan wrong I'm going to respond to that..

What you see rubbish, I could see correct. Infact you could consider everything on this Christianity forum to be complete rubbish, and be in here constantly "responding" to everything. You could find anything in the world to be incorrect.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

What you see rubbish, I could see correct.

I don't care. Your ignorance of science is not my concern.

My concern is your (and every other Creationists) public statements based on this ignorance going unchallenged.

LFCFan

humanji wrote:

I know you said it tongue in cheek, but wouldn't you want you child growing up to support Liverpool? You'd by them little Liverpool kits, watch the games with them etc which in it's own way is pretty similar to how parents bring up their children with their beliefs. And making a child support Liverpool is child abuse

There's a massive difference between living your life based on a Book of Fiction and supporting a football team. Of course I'd want my Kid(s) to support Liverpool as it's something enjoyable that doesn't intrude on your life that we could enjoy together. Of course I wouldn't force them to support Liverpool and if they decided to support United or Chelsea, sure that's what adoption is for

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

I don't care. Your ignorance of science is not my concern.
My concern is your (and every other Creationists) public statements based on this ignorance going unchallenged.

Your intolerance isn't my concern either. If I say I'm a creationist then it's just going to give you a warrant to bash what I believe so it seems. I choose to believe whats written in the Bible, you choose to believe in Evolution and the Big Bang. I haven't a problem with that, I'm merely stating thats what I believe in. We aren't going to find a proof to either. So lets just accept it and perhaps be tolerant of eachother.

bonkey

Jakkass wrote:

Again if you would read what I said earlier. I doubted Christianity for a good few years, until I actually picked up a Bible and started reading it for myself. I'd recommend the Good News translation to anyone infact.

I did read what you said earlier. I just wanted you to remind yourself that you're reading a modern interpretation of an older translation of an ancient text....the original of which isn't even extant.

But you're telling me you don't have to put blind faith in anyone that what you're reading is what the original text said nor that the meaning you take out of it is the meaning that was intended to be taken.

Actually just to add, do you think that the Bible is inaccessible to anyone in this world.

I never said it was inaccessible. I said that the notion that science requires you to put faith in others but trust in the bible doesn't is faulty. The truth is the reverse. To trust the bible, I have to blindly trust the transcribers and translaters throughout history. With science, I have the possibility of verifying anything which is presented as a scientific claim.

Hold up here! It does require someone to believe in the whole Scripture.

No, it doesn't. It requires someone to believe some of what is Scripture, and to allow that the remainder is at least allegorical in nature.

How could one believe that Jesus existed from Jewish parents, if one doesn't believe they were brought out of slavery in Egypt.

Because if Jews came to be in Israel from any other cause, they'd still have been in Egypt, thus allowing Jesus to have had Jewish parents.

Actually, are you sure that you have read Genesis before making comments about it

Do you see the irony in asking this question after showing that you're willing to speak from a position of comparative ignorance when it comes to many aspects of science?

AS it happens, yes, I have read Genesis. Just because we're concentrating on Creation doesn't mean that I don't have objections to other aspects of Genesis.

or did you only get to the first chapter describing the creation?

Despite being focussed on the biblical account of Creation here, the point I was making is equally applicable to Adam and Eve, the Flood, or indeed any part of the account of Genesis.

There is no requirement for them to be factually correct. They can still contain the same intended message even if they are allegorical.

One would have to believe that the Jews were brought out of exile in Egypt to the promised land if one is also to believe in Jesus living amongst other Jews in Israel.

Actually, no, you wouldn't.

One would have to believe merely that Jews lived in Israel in the time of Jesus. Hews did live in Israel in the time of Jesus.

Again - the message contained within the bible does not require that the accounts be literally true. After all, Jesus himself used parable to spead his messages. Does this not suggest that people can be given a message without the story which contained the message eing rooted entirely in fact.

To suggest that the bible cannot have proper meaning unless it is completely factual is to suggest that nothing can have proper meaning unless it is completely factual. That would suggest that when Jesus himself preached to the first Christians, his preachnig did not have proper meaning.

If it was good enough for the son of God, then what, exactly, is the problem with allegory that means its not good enough for mortal man?

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

But even if your Abrahamic god (which was largely unheard of in China until the late middle ages) was guiding the human race in science that is surely a reason to embrace science, rather than turn away from it?

?

Sure, I agree. Science that works.

When I was in High School, we were headed for an ice age. All the experts knew it, all the evidence pointed there. If you didn't accept it, you were foolish and dumb. Well here we are 30 years later and we are in global warming, caused by CO2 emissions by humans. All the evidence points to the CO2 issue, if you don't believe us you are obviously dumb, and how can you not see the evidence.

When I was a kid, the Brontosaurus was king of the plant eating dinosaur world, They were in all the books and museums, now science tells us, oops, Brontosaurus really didn't exist.

Scientists also told us that the universe was centred around the earth, all the evidence pointed at it. Aristarchus in the 4th century BC deduced that the sun was the centre, he was shutdown and Hipparchus view and of the Earth being centre won out because all the evidence pointed to it as being so.

In the end science gives me absolutely no cause to trust it, what is todays fact, that becomes tomorrows falsity (don't know if that is a word or not:) )?

The only way that I can trust it is when it says 'here is the techcology and it works'.