The Theory of Creationism (briefly)

michel · Aug 23, 2005

JerryL said:
I'm sure each individual evolitionist has an individual answer that they will stick with as well... but obviously creationists as a whole lack a date.

The answer you have given me is "God did it, I don't know how", which is entirely consistant with Deut's original claim (which you have railed against). You've flopped postions.

So was "dog" big or small? Yippy of woofy? Brown? Black? Grey?

Refresh your memory on your comments in the past 24 hours on this thread? You must be joking.

Deut's claim: "creation theory" amounts to "God did it"
You: No, it doesn't.
Me: What caused the fracturing of rock with Uranium in it that indicates millions of years of decay?
You: God did it.

See where you agreed with Deut and contradicted yourself?

So "you don't know"... You've argued as to the claim of creationsim from a position of ignorance.

BTW, neither accounts for a false, but graduated age.

HOW? I'm asking how the light got from there to here. I'm asking how old the light is. I'm asking what fills the gap for millions of light-years in which light should not have yet traveled.

I don't think your assertion is even Biblically consistant.

But did they actually exist AS I CURRENTLY SEE THEM, and how come you didn't answer my "if so, when"? How old is the light I'm looking at when I see a star a million light-years away? Is it a million years old? If it's younger, how much younger?

Can you answer any of the questions I'm posting with something other than "god did it"?

Jerry, you've more than convinced me that nothing I have to say is good enough for you. Take your questions to someone else. I've spent more than enough time with you. If I contradicted myself, then SHAME ON ME, and I owe Deut and these viewers an apology.

Sunstone · Aug 23, 2005

To return somewhat to the original post, does anyone here believe creationism should be taught in science classes?

michel · Aug 23, 2005

Sunstone said:
To return somewhat to the original post, does anyone here believe creationism should be taught in science classes?

Good question. I personally don't think so. What would you teach? Genesis 1 says it all. I've taught Genesis 1 before, and believe me, unless you parse it down to segments of verses, it's gonna be a very short course.

BUDDY · Aug 23, 2005

AV1611 said:
Jerry, you've more than convinced me that nothing I have to say is good enough for you. Take your questions to someone else. I've spent more than enough time with you. If I contradicted myself, then SHAME ON ME, and I owe Deut and these viewers an apology.

No you don't. All the questions are loaded. Creationism can't be explained in scientific terms. You fell into their trap, that's all. See, they wait for a theist to come along and try to explain to them about how the universe and everything in it was created, then jump on them with the how, how, how. Creationism isn't a theory, and should not be treated as one. There is no scientific evidence to support something that is done in the spiritual realm. Some people have real problems with that, for obvious reasons. I do not. Now, they will give us grief by calling us narrow minded and illogical, but the fact of the matter is they are just uncomfortable talking about things that can't be physically tested.

michel · Aug 23, 2005

EEWRED said:
No you don't. All the questions are loaded. Creationism can't be explained in scientific terms. You fell into their trap, that's all. See, they wait for a theist to come along and try to explain to them about how the universe and everything in it was created, then jump on them with the how, how, how. Creationism isn't a theory, and should not be treated as one. There is no scientific evidence to support something that is done in the spiritual realm. Some people have real problems with that, for obvious reasons. I do not. Now, they will give us grief by calling us narrow minded and illogical, but the fact of the matter is they are just uncomfortable talking about things that can't be physically tested.

Well, I quite agree. Not all do, but some stand out. I have noticed the "why, why, why" questions, and it does tend to wear you down. Like I said before, if the Bible was to explain itself in every verse, it would be at least twice its size, and very few would probably read it. I'm finding a good way to answer their questions though. I'm going to try to answer using scripture only, and if I can't do that, then it's not worth answering in my opinion. I also agree with you that Creationism is NOT a theory - it's FACT, and all we Christians know about it is what God wants us to know (which is way more than most scientists know). Keep up the faith!

JerryL · Aug 23, 2005

No you don't. All the questions are loaded. Creationism can't be explained in scientific terms. You fell into their trap, that's all. See, they wait for a theist to come along and try to explain to them about how the universe and everything in it was created, then jump on them with the how, how, how. Creationism isn't a theory, and should not be treated as one. There is no scientific evidence to support something that is done in the spiritual realm. Some people have real problems with that, for obvious reasons. I do not. Now, they will give us grief by calling us narrow minded and illogical, but the fact of the matter is they are just uncomfortable talking about things that can't be physically tested.

Which means that the answers to any questions regarding creationsim's actual mechanics is "God did it"

That's exactly the claim that Deut made in the first place... and AV argued that it was untrue. Now you are claiming that I've tricked him into saying "God did it" while at the same time claiming the answer is "God did it". Which is it? How would you answer the hypothetical questions that Deut asked and answered. Is he right on what the creationist answer is or is he wrong.

BTW, a great deal of prominant creationists (ie everony on "answersingenesis.com") disagrees with your posititon that it's not explainable.

michel · Aug 23, 2005

JerryL said:
Which means that the answers to any questions regarding creationsim's actual mechanics is "God did it"

Any explanation about the "actual mechanics" regarding creationism, unless it is backed by Scripture, is speculation. There are two types of truth: REVEALED and UNREVEALED. God has chosen to reveal just so much to us about what happened 6000 years ago, and that's it. Attempts to ferret out unrevealed truth is speculation at best, junk science a worst.

I'm not even sure Adam himself knew, unless God told him. And believe me, if Moses was silent on what happened that week, we'd be just as wise to be silent also.

THE SECRET THINGS BELONG UNTO THE LORD OUR GOD: BUT THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE REVEALED BELONG UNTO US AND TO OUR CHILDREN FOREVER... - (Deuteronomy 29:29).

BUDDY · Aug 23, 2005

JerryL said:
Which means that the answers to any questions regarding creationsim's actual mechanics is "God did it"

That's what I just said, but then based on other threads you seem to have a problem with reading comprehension, so I expect to have to answer this at least three more times anyway.
That's what I just said, but then based on other threads you seem to have a problem with reading comprehension, so I expect to have to answer this at least three more times anyway.
That's what I just said, but then based on other threads you seem to have a problem with reading comprehension, so I expect to have to answer this at least three more times anyway.

JerryL said:
That's exactly the claim that Deut made in the first place... and AV argued that it was untrue. Now you are claiming that I've tricked him into saying "God did it" while at the same time claiming the answer is "God did it". Which is it? How would you answer the hypothetical questions that Deut asked and answered. Is he right on what the creationist answer is or is he wrong.

I don't remember stating your name specifically, but since you mention it. I wouldn't answer them with a bunch of phrases from the Bible, because the Bible doesn't explain itself scientifically. But that doesn't take away from my belief that it happened. I am saying that you tricked him into trying to give scientific explanaitons, which can't be done.

JeeryL said:
BTW, a great deal of prominant creationists (ie everony on "answersingenesis.com") disagrees with your posititon that it's not explainable.

Ummmmmm....okay. Thanks. I disagree with him on a lot of stuff. I guess we are even.

michel · Aug 23, 2005

EEWRED said:
Ummmmmm....okay. Thanks. I disagree with him on a lot of stuff. I guess we are even.

EEWRED, I think the bottom line, is that "their" scientists can't explain where we come from without contradicting themselves, so they turn to us to explain it, and we tell them GOD SAID SO, and they don't like it. They want to hear US contradict ourselves too, and it isn't working.

michel · Aug 23, 2005

EEWRED said:
No you don't. All the questions are loaded. Creationism can't be explained in scientific terms. You fell into their trap, that's all. See, they wait for a theist to come along and try to explain to them about how the universe and everything in it was created, then jump on them with the how, how, how. Creationism isn't a theory, and should not be treated as one. There is no scientific evidence to support something that is done in the spiritual realm. Some people have real problems with that, for obvious reasons. I do not. Now, they will give us grief by calling us narrow minded and illogical, but the fact of the matter is they are just uncomfortable talking about things that can't be physically tested.

Good post Eewred,

I think that we should just accept that we are coming from two different 'levels' - the scientist, who need proof and evidence (because that is natural, for a scientist), whilst we contend (in varying degrees) to believe in creationism - or at the very least some divine 'input'.

The name calling will do neither 'side' any favours. Let us simply accept our differences, and have respect for the scientists - and hope that they will afford us the same privilege.

Jayhawker Soule · Aug 23, 2005

michel said:
Let us simply accept our differences, and have respect for the scientists - and hope that they will afford us the same privilege.

Great idea, but where to start. What about: you keep creation myths out of our classrooms and we'll keep scientific education out of your churches, synagogues, and mosques?.

jonny · Aug 23, 2005

AV1611 said:
I also agree with you that Creationism is NOT a theory - it's FACT, and all we Christians know about it is what God wants us to know (which is way more than most scientists know). Keep up the faith!

I don't think it is smart to start proclaiming that the bible has more information on the creation than science. I also don't think it is possible to understand God without understanding science. Like I said earlier - God created scientific law. We may not have a perfect understanding of this law, but I don't think we have a perfect understanding of creationism either.

The bible answers the question of "who." Science attempts to answer the questions of "how." I don't think anyone but God himself has a perfect understanding of the answer to either question.

You do not have to totally disregard science to have faith that God is our creator.

BUDDY · Aug 23, 2005

Deut. 32.8 said:
Great idea, but where to start. What about: you keep creation myths out of our classrooms and we'll keep scientific education out of your churches, synagogues, and mosques?.

Deal. But, then again I never believed the creation story should be taught in public school.

michel · Aug 23, 2005

Deut. 32.8 said:
Great idea, but where to start. What about: you keep creation myths out of our classrooms and we'll keep scientific education out of your churches, synagogues, and mosques?.

Sounds fair enough; I only know of my sons' education in England - they were both presented with a general view of all the World's philosophies and religions - I doubt that they were even told about creationism.........but then, we live in England.

Besides, what you say is abit impractical, from our point of view - even the small Church near my house has a microphone on the lectern - and therefore an amp, and speakers - so the Vicar must have had some 'scientific education'..

Jayhawker Soule · Aug 23, 2005

michel said:
.....but then, we live in England.

They had a creationist book on sale at Darwin's home when I visited last year. On the other hand, I would never compare your Vicar with a KJV-only YEC advocate.

JerryL · Aug 23, 2005

That's what I just said

I know that's what you said. It's also what AV said. It's also what Deut said. The prboem is that AV said Deut was wrong when he said it and you agreed with him.

EEWRED, I think the bottom line, is that "their" scientists can't explain where we come from without contradicting themselves, so they turn to us to explain it, and we tell them GOD SAID SO, and they don't like it. They want to hear US contradict ourselves too, and it isn't working.

The claims of abiogensis from a non-creationist standpoint is not the topic. Please feel free to start a thread if you would like to discuss it.

I also agree with you that Creationism is NOT a theory - it's FACT

Believe it or not, this is almost an accurate statement. The belief of creationism makes many claims of fact. They are often false, but they are still fact.

BUDDY · Aug 23, 2005

JerryL said:
I know that's what you said. It's also what AV said. It's also what Deut said. The prboem is that AV said Deut was wrong when he said it and you agreed with him.

And where exactly did I agree with him on that?

JerryL · Aug 23, 2005

And where exactly did I agree with him on that

"Well, students, nothing is further from the truth. In fact, today we are going to discuss the Theory of Creatonism. God did it." - Deut. Post 1

"Which means that the answers to any questions regarding creationsim's actual mechanics is "God did it"" - Jerry Post 26

"That's what I just said" - EEWD Post 28 (in direct response to the comment from post 26)

So, if nothing else, you agreed with Deut that the theory of creationism amounts to "God did it" in the first line (of yours) in post 28.

BUDDY · Aug 23, 2005

JerryL said:
"Well, students, nothing is further from the truth. In fact, today we are going to discuss the Theory of Creatonism. God did it." - Deut. Post 1

"Which means that the answers to any questions regarding creationsim's actual mechanics is "God did it"" - Jerry Post 26

"That's what I just said" - EEWD Post 28 (in direct response to the comment from post 26)

So, if nothing else, you agreed with Deut that the theory of creationism amounts to "God did it" in the first line (of yours) in post 28.

Correct. But where did I agree when AV1611 said Deut was wrong?

Answer: I didn't. Your either imagining things or making them up.

Either way, this childish he said she said BS is getting old.

Ceridwen018 · Aug 23, 2005

Its perfect, Deut!

The Theory of Creationism (briefly)

Administrator Emeritus

De Diablo Del Fora

Administrator Emeritus

User of Aspercreme

Administrator Emeritus

Well-Known Member

Administrator Emeritus

User of Aspercreme

Administrator Emeritus

Administrator Emeritus

-- untitled --

Well-Known Member

User of Aspercreme

Administrator Emeritus

-- untitled --

Well-Known Member

User of Aspercreme

Well-Known Member

User of Aspercreme

Well-Known Member