What is Creation Science or "Biblical Creation"? Simple words, but how to flesh out?

[oxmixmudd]

Well that is an interesting question. This Evangelical minister I mentioned to Jorge? The one Jorge simply dismissed? That is exactly his point. He works on campus and is deeply concerned at the damage certain creationists do to the faith, and the people they drive away. From a post he sent to me on another forum, it goes something like this:-

1) Child taught by parents, church and junior school that God exists, Genesis is history, and that evolution is an evil idea.

2) Child gets to high school and first encounters evolution in a science class.

3) Worried, child goes and speaks to school counsellor.

4) Counsellor tells child that teacher is a buffoon and a liar, but to make sure child learns enough to pass tests and exams.

5) Child, reassured by counsellor, does what is needed.

6) Child graduates and goes to college or university.

7) There the child, now a young adult, encounters the theory of evolution for real and/or goes to a library and observes row upon row of books on evolution, many written by some of the finest minds on the planet, and all, detailing evidence upon evidence for the reality of the process.

8) The young adult has a crisis of faith.

9) Only a few ignore what they have just seen and refuse to accept it, continuing to see evolution as a lie and Genesis as true history.

10) Many leave the church altogether, on seeing that the very folk they had trusted were in fact lying about the theory.

11) Of those who leave the church, many do return, and most return as changed people.

12) But many do not return. They are irrecoverably lost from the faith altogether.


It's the group in 12) where he sees creationism doing the most damage.

This is exactly my concern as well. And I've seen it quite a few times. At the church I attended when I first came to TWEB, the one where I went to the 'YEC' class to see if they'd been able to come up with anything to address some of the questions I was dealing with in my astronomical studies, they also had a special class for the kids.

Heaven help the kid that actually paid attention and asked meaningful questions about what was being taught. Several I know from those classes were horribly mistreated, subjected to basically the same kind of brow-beating Jorge likes to dish out, only before their entire class. In one case a kid was asked to leave and not return. Mind you these are Christian kids with Christian parents just looking for answers to real questions.

My question in all of this continues to be: why do some people think that is makes sense to be nasty and mean to people when who ask questions they can't answer - especially in a Christian context. But it is very, very common. And it is very much contrary to the teachings of the Christian faith. It is what the Pharisees did to Christ. He asked them troubling questions. It made them mad. And so they killed Him.

It just amazes me that even with that example before them, so many supposedly Christian teachers follow the Pharisaical example, rather than the example of Christ.

[digression]
Jesus was a troublemaker. He didn't bow to the theological system of the the authorities. He asked difficult and troubling questions that challenged their traditions and even their 'plain reading' of the text. He did what was right, even if it was contrary to religious dogma. He went to parties, hung out with sinners. Lots of times he pointed out how the supposed 'sinner' was in reality far more righteous than the big whig religious folk.

Why do we suppose that as Christians we are not supposed to follow His example?
[/digression]


Jim

[Jorge]

Sounds like you did technology or applied science. What hypothesis testing did you do?



Projection par excellence.

K54

Talking with you is like arguing with a spoiled teenage brat - there's no hope of communication.

Hadn't I asked you nicely to go haunt someone else?

Jorge

[Jorge]

Silly fellow. So all airplane flights are miraculous events at the hand of God because someone once modeled manned flight and found that according to his assumptions it was impossible?

WOW - consider yourself the frontrunner for Straw Man of the Decade Award!

Are you seriously going to suggest that because stars exist that are higher in mass than someone once thought ought to be possible they therefore MUST be formed miraculously?

Make that the frontrunner with no competition in sight!

The fact a model is countered by reality is NOT a reason to infer that process is impossible without divine intervention.

If it were solely up to me I'd hand you that award right now.

As I said in the post you so conveniently ignored, the phases we observe, unless God Himself intervenes and STOPS the natural processes themselves, will connect simply by continuing from where they are to the next observed phase. It is that simple. Your key points have to do with what initiates collapse IIRC. And while there may be problems modeling that, we CAN and DO observe it. Likewise circumstellar disks. Likewise circumstellar disks CLEANED by the forming planets and so on and so forth.

The only thing that I "ignore" -- after years of reading your bigoted nonsense -- is you, Jim. You have an ingrained HATRED for Biblical Creationism that is leading you to walk the same path as Sylas. I know that the day is approaching -- I'll be there watching when that day comes. Just as I was there for Sylas ...

You sit in a 'God of the gaps' mentality. Anything we can't explain that fits your theology is necessarily impossible and proves God did it according to your assumptions drawn from a simplistic reading of scripture. And when a gap goes away, "out of sight, out of mind". You just move on to the next one, unfazed by the fact you are wrong over and over again. Witness the extra-solar planets fiasco, records of which still exist in the minds of Oh so many who post here. Or the meteor cater fiasco which still flies prominantly over at 'trueorigins'. Jim

Holeewakahmolee -- your cheese is sliding off the cracker, Jim! Worse yet, your 'hatred' towards Biblical Creationism is making you emotionally unstable revealing an inherently dishonest person. What I mean is, I have more-than-adequately explained (in the past) each and every one of those points that you mention above (and you know this - unless you are experiencing mental lapses due to age or something else). Yet here you give the (new) readers a distinctly distorted (and false) impression of reality, mostly by omission of those aforementioned explanations that I have provided in the past. You're reaching new lows, Jim ... too bad ... you're de-evolving into the primordial goo.

Jorge

[Jorge]

This is exactly my concern as well. And I've seen it quite a few times. At the church I attended when I first came to TWEB, the one where I went to the 'YEC' class to see if they'd been able to come up with anything to address some of the questions I was dealing with in my astronomical studies, they also had a special class for the kids.

Heaven help the kid that actually paid attention and asked meaningful questions about what was being taught. Several I know from those classes were horribly mistreated, subjected to basically the same kind of brow-beating Jorge likes to dish out, only before their entire class. In one case a kid was asked to leave and not return. Mind you these are Christian kids with Christian parents just looking for answers to real questions.

My question in all of this continues to be: why do some people think that is makes sense to be nasty and mean to people when who ask questions they can't answer - especially in a Christian context. But it is very, very common. And it is very much contrary to the teachings of the Christian faith. It is what the Pharisees did to Christ. He asked them troubling questions. It made them mad. And so they killed Him.

It just amazes me that even with that example before them, so many supposedly Christian teachers follow the Pharisaical example, rather than the example of Christ.

[digression]
Jesus was a troublemaker. He didn't bow to the theological system of the the authorities. He asked difficult and troubling questions that challenged their traditions and even their 'plain reading' of the text. He did what was right, even if it was contrary to religious dogma. He went to parties, hung out with sinners. Lots of times he pointed out how the supposed 'sinner' was in reality far more righteous than the big whig religious folk.

Why do we suppose that as Christians we are not supposed to follow His example?
[/digression]


Jim

Way to go, Jim - you can't beat the arguments or the truth and so you turn to vilifying your opposition. Sad ... so sad.

I'm sure that there are over-zealous Biblical Creationists without proper training, knowledge, the ability to handle certain questions and so on. But you imply that there are NONE, ANYWHERE. That is simply not true. Once again your HATRED of Biblical Creationism rears its ugly head. Hey, did a YEC steal your teenage girlfriend???

Seriously, I know of not a single question that hasn't received attention by Biblical Creationists. NOTE: this does NOT mean that we have all the answers - NO ONE HAS ALL THE ANSWERS. But we do address the question in an honest way and our position is perfectly legitimate within a sound biblical framework. The same cannot be said of Theistic Evolutionism, Humanism, Atheism, Materialism, Deism, and so on. Sorry to pop your bubble, Jim (no I'm not).

Jorge

[rwatts]

But we do address the question in an honest way and our position is perfectly legitimate within a sound biblical framework.

Since when are your opinions about the Bible, the ones God necessarily agrees with?

How do you demonstrate that God does agree with them?

Why can't you explain what creation science really is?

[Jorge]

Since when are your opinions about the Bible, the ones God necessarily agrees with?

How do you demonstrate that God does agree with them?

Why can't you explain what creation science really is?

God doesn't "agree with ME", you witless buffoon - I have to agree with HIM!!!

Are you people truly stupid, or do you merely play the part? If the latter, you deserve a few Oscars.

Interpretation is far more science than it is art - i.e., when done properly interpretation accomplishes its mission, namely, to deliver the intended message of the communicator. Applying that principle to the Bible yields Biblical Creationism (my position). NOT applying that principle yields the dangerous nonsense found in Atheism, Humanism, Theistic Evolutionism, Deism, and so on. G-e-t-a-c-l-u-e, Roland. God knows I'm trying very hard to help you et al.

Jorge

[klaus54]

Talking with you is like arguing with a spoiled teenage brat - there's no hope of communication.

Hadn't I asked you nicely to go haunt someone else?

Jorge

I don't know what you mean by "haunting". Is it some forbidden occult thing?

Well, this bratty teen asked you a few simple questions and would like answers. Let's paraphrase and re-focus:

1) Testable hypothesis for ID.

2) What is "light" in the verse "Elohim said 'Let there be light', and there was light."? I brought that up as a starter for a discussion on what you mean by YOUR "literal" Ge 1:1-2:3 interpretation. That should be a softball question for ya, and so far you've just blown raspberries at the pitcher and not even got to the plate to whiff.

Try again, with more effort this time. I already know how to insult. Now this brat wants some schoolin'.

Thanks!

K54

[rwatts]

God doesn't "agree with ME", you witless buffoon - I have to agree with HIM!!!

So when we are listening to you, we are actually doing the equivalent of listening to God, because God thinks "X" and you agree with it?

Why can't you explain what creation science is?

[oxmixmudd]

WOW - consider yourself the frontrunner for Straw Man of the Decade Award!




Make that the frontrunner with no competition in sight!

You are the one that suggested that stars existing >8 solar masses implies they had to be created by God. So Jorge, how is a 'straw man' simply a reflection of your own argument?

If it were solely up to me I'd hand you that award right now.

Fortunately, you have very little power or authority to hand out awards

The only thing that I "ignore" -- after years of reading your bigoted nonsense -- is you, Jim. You have an ingrained HATRED for Biblical Creationism that is leading you to walk the same path as Sylas. I know that the day is approaching -- I'll be there watching when that day comes. Just as I was there for Sylas ...

Ah yes, the old, "He rejects YEC therefore He's doomed to eventually become a non-believer" ruse. I like Sylas Jorge, He is certainly a much better person than you, and more intelligent to boot. But I have no intent in following him in that particular facet. I have followed Christ for over 40 years now and have no intention of changing that direction now. But you really should be careful. You are wishing for something God would never wish for, and so you are behaving contrary to His will. You should be encouraging me to follow Christ and seek him, not suggesting I walk away.

Holeewakahmolee -- your cheese is sliding off the cracker, Jim! Worse yet, your 'hatred' towards Biblical Creationism is making you emotionally unstable revealing an inherently dishonest person. What I mean is, I have more-than-adequately explained (in the past) each and every one of those points that you mention above (and you know this - unless you are experiencing mental lapses due to age or something else). Yet here you give the (new) readers a distinctly distorted (and false) impression of reality, mostly by omission of those aforementioned explanations that I have provided in the past. You're reaching new lows, Jim ... too bad ... you're de-evolving into the primordial goo.

Jorge

There is no hatred here Jorge, not on my part. Our best family friends are YEC. We agree to disagree on that issue and focus on the hundreds of things we have in common in Christ, not the few things we disagree on. We respect that each has arrived at our positions having sought God and are doing the best we can to live in accordance with His will.

As for the arguments you accuse me of 'dishonestly' representing. I posted a link to YOUR article Jorge. How in the world can I be 'dishonest' by mentioning your work and then providing easy access to my readers to that self-same work? Did someone hack into true origins and change your article? Do you no longer stand by your attempt to answer the problem of hundreds of meteor impacts that, had they all occurred in the last 6000 years, would have rendered the planet uninhabitable?

As for dishonest. I think the comments of Inigo Montoya to Vizzini pretty much sum that up:

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"


In fact, I think you and Vizzini have a lot in common. Your 'dizzying intellect' and overall assessment of yourselves are uncannily similar ...

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Way to go, Jim - you can't beat the arguments or the truth and so you turn to vilifying your opposition. Sad ... so sad.

I'm sure that there are over-zealous Biblical Creationists without proper training, knowledge, the ability to handle certain questions and so on. But you imply that there are NONE, ANYWHERE. That is simply not true.

I ask only for one. So far (witness these last 20 pages or so) none has appeared.

Once again your HATRED of Biblical Creationism rears its ugly head. Hey, did a YEC steal your teenage girlfriend???

Hatred is the wrong term (might want to brush up on your English). The idea that there is legitimate science which supports the YEC timeframe is AFAICT a lie. I've never seen any legitimate science to back it up. And because the arguments used are in fact not what they are claimed to be, I am dedicated to making sure those arguments that are used that are wrong are clearly identified. For the reason that teaching people to put faith in Christ and the Bible based on falsehoods is eventually destructive to faith, and I want to do everything I can to help prevent that kind of destructive event from happening. But I am open to any legitimate argument that might come along, if such a thing actually exists.

Seriously, I know of not a single question that hasn't received attention by Biblical Creationists. NOTE: this does NOT mean that we have all the answers - NO ONE HAS ALL THE ANSWERS. But we do address the question in an honest way and our position is perfectly legitimate within a sound biblical framework. The same cannot be said of Theistic Evolutionism, Humanism, Atheism, Materialism, Deism, and so on. Sorry to pop your bubble, Jim (no I'm not).

Jorge

No, you don't. The 'answers' provided by you (e.g. meteor craters are massive, volcanically induced steam explosions, stars don't form by natural processes) are ridiculously ignorant assessments of the data that fail to even pretend to be science. As are those presented by organizations like AIG etc. And as I've offered to do so many times in the past, feel free to take one thread per argument type and discuss them with me over whatever time frame you like. Unlike you, I will be glad to oblige. If you can show me something legitimate, I will be forever grateful. But if they don't work, I'll be just as glad to point that out.


Jim

[Jorge]

You are the one that suggested that stars existing >8 solar masses implies they had to be created by God. So Jorge, how is a 'straw man' simply a reflection of your own argument?

I did no such thing. First you interpret something wrongly and then you proceed to make deductions and accusations based on that faulty interpretation - that has been your M.O. for as long as I can remember.

By the way, an article that I read within the past year or so -- written by an astrophysicist belonging to your camp -- highlighted this (stellar size) fact so if you fight me then you're fighting your own compadres as well.

Since you started off totally wrong, I won't even bother with the rest of your blathering nonsense.

Jorge

[Jorge]

So when we are listening to you, we are actually doing the equivalent of listening to God, because God thinks "X" and you agree with it?

In a sense, you are FINALLY beginning to get something right. We (Biblical Christians) are merely messengers. We do not and cannot speak for ourselves (i.e., proclaiming our own "gospel") as if it came from God. If we do this, we are sure to reap His wrath. So like I said, you are at least a bit "warm" on this. I'm sure, however, that this will now be twisted into perversion by yourself or one of your comrades here.

Why can't you explain what creation science is?

You mean why won't I WASTE MY TIME explaining to you Bozos what creation science is - right? Answer : because I don't want to waste my time. Simple enough, methinks.

The fact of the matter is that I HAVE explained what creation science is - several times - you clowns are simply too slow / dimwitted to pick it up. CLUE: it was when I explained about operational/observational science versus historical science versus science-falsely-so-called (i.e., ideology under the guise of 'science').

The whole flock of you are going to have to try harder (that's my phrase, BTW, and it's been hijacked by none other than Mr. Santa and used against me several times already - you guys can't even be original).

Jorge

[rogue06]

You have an ingrained HATRED for Biblical Creationism that is leading you to walk the same path as Sylas.

A bit ironic and a lot hypocritical coming from someone who would regularly talk of tar and feathering or burning at the stake those who disagreed with your YEC view. Your froth-filled diatribe against Ken Miller was quite a sight to behold as were your numerous calls for Eugene Scott to be burned as a witch^[1]1. Just a few examples (though the links don't work since the crash):

As long as I'm not the 'witch' --- whom should definitely be burned --- I can live with that.

She'd look fantastic tied to a stake and surrounded by a large pile of firewood.
Why didn't you get a picture of her in that pose? I would've paid good money for a reprint.

Just found out ...
The ol' witch (Eugenie Scott) and her organization (NCSE) has now "taken the extraordinary and unprecedented step of building a website devoted solely to discrediting" [the film EXPELLED]...
The misrepresentations and lies are simply atrocious! EXPELLED is about intellectual freedom and these
filthy lying specimens refer to it as, and I quote, "an anti-evolution, anti-science film". I say burn them at the stake!

I'd tie them all to a stake (next to Eugenie Scott) and burn them!
Errr ... I'd bet that would leave a carbon footprint!

The last one was in a thread not even remotely linked to evolution, the age of the earth or Scott and shows your obsession.

[Ucchedavāda]

By the way, an article that I read within the past year or so -- written by an astrophysicist belonging to your camp -- highlighted this (stellar size) fact so if you fight me then you're fighting your own compadres as well.

Which article was that?

[rwatts]

In a sense, you are FINALLY beginning to get something right. We (Biblical Christians) are merely messengers. We do not and cannot speak for ourselves (i.e., proclaiming our own "gospel") as if it came from God. If we do this, we are sure to reap His wrath. So like I said, you are at least a bit "warm" on this. I'm sure, however, that this will now be twisted into perversion by yourself or one of your comrades here.

So when you write the silly things you do, and make all the mistakes you do, then you are providing us with messages from God. So why should God be trusted in anything he says, given this? We can't trust you. Now you attribute your untrustworthiness to God.

And if under such impeccable guidance, you can write such silly things and make so many mistakes, then why on earth do you think the ancient writers of the Bible were immune to this, given the same impeccable guidance?


I think that, if God exists, he has nothing to do with your rants and ramblings, given the mistakes you make and the silly things you say. God is supposed to be an infallible source of pure truth.

So why are you attributing your nonsense to God?