Poll for Creationists

[Moose764]

Well, being a pop-science author is better than being a pop-psuedoscience author. As far as so-called creation "science" being too difficult for Dawkins to understand, I will say this: I'd love to see Dawkins challenge the leading pop-creationists and armchair scientists/philosopher wannabes like Ray Comfort, Ken Ham, et. al to an IQ test. But, of course, Dawkins wouldn't do that, because he's too nice, and they wouldn't take him up on the offer anyway because even they know they'd do much worse.

Hi Herbert
Have you never watch the famous debate between Richard dawkins and John Lennox the Irish mathematician? Lennox is a bible believing Christian who believes that a creator created all we see and didn’t come into being by blind chance. He explaines this to Dawkins using logic and reason.
Here is the link

 

[Moose764]

From what I understand, most all scientists now agree that the universe had a beginning. So before the universe came into being, there was nothing and then nothing exploded (the big bang) and as a result we got the universe. Now that seems to make a lot of sense to me: nothing exploded and we got the universe. So why do we need a God to explain anything?

How can nothing explode and become something make any sense?

Our options are:
1. Nothing made something
2. Something made itself
3. Something made something
The only logical explanation is No.3
It does of course beg the question, where did the something come from but that’s another subject.
Everything that had a beginning must have had a cause.
My friend go with logic even if you can’t explain it then ask the next question

 

[Moose764]

You're conflating the definition of "theist" and "creationist" because what you described defines a "theist" IMO.
I define creationist as a person who disbelieves in evolution (yes macro-evolution for those creationists who like playing semantic games). A theist could believe in evolution and thus not be a creationist, or, theoretically (though highly unlikely) an atheist could disbelieve in evolution, and thus be a creationist.

Just to pick up on your jibe about semantic games Herbert.

As you know, there is a clear distinction between macro evolution (small changes over time changing one species into another) and micro evolution (small changes over time WITHIN a species) how is that word play?

“Darwin’s” finch beaks are clear evidence for micro evolution but where is the one testable undisputed example of macro evolution? A cat does not turn into a dog no matter how much time you give it.

Please don’t fall into the trap of thinking people who believe in God are stupid as Dawkins does.

Until 16 years ago I was a committed atheist. I believed the evolution narrative and myself fell into the trap of thinking “God botheres” were stupid.

My wife became a Christian (which I hated) but asked me to go on an Alpha course. I was up for the challenge to convert some “bible bashers” so off I went.
A very nice old man quoted C.S.Lewis, if Christianity was true it was of the most importance, if false of no importance. What it can’t be is moderately important. It either was true or wasn’t.

That sent me on a quest to find truth but to do that I had to be open minded and lay down my bios to naturalism. To be open minded I had to be open to everything, that included....... wait for it....... the supernatural.

Let me tell you now, I wasn’t looking for a crutch or a club to join I was looking for truth, THE truth, objective truth and I promise you now, if I had found that truth in Islam I would be a Muslim today, if I found truth in atheism that would be my position today but no, today I’m a committed bible believing Follower of Jesus, the God who supernaturally stepped into his creation and redeemed us back to himself. Not a dead god but a God who is alive and speaks through his Spirit to this day.

So my question to you is:

A. Will you look for truth?
B. Will you be open to all explanations?
C. Or will you never be convinced of God because you have already discounted the supernatural?

I pray you will find truth, because the truth will set you free.

This maybe helpful

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

all of what is in the Genesis creation account should be taken as a metaphor

I go further than that. The entire Bible is a metaphor.

Evolution is a theory. A toxic delusion.

Toxic to religions like Christianity and Islam, but beneficial to the world. Application of evolution theory has improved the human condition.

Science will never be able to understand the truth of the universe because science seeks for what can be proved only by touching ,feeling,hearing and observing. And that,s the very parameters that limits science from discovering the truth of the universe.

So we should go to an ancient text written by primitive who didn't understand where the rain came from to find this elusive truth?

All of observational science is fixated on where did all this come from. Science tries to solve that problem through the natural processes and current activities of the earth and universe. All that does is tell them how it currently works and thats all.

Isn't that enough?

No scientist when asked where did the central focal point of the explosion come from has an answer.

Actually, they do. There is no center.

It is also an insult to our inherent intelligence to concluded that from this explosion,without any guidance, without any direction,without any code to follow that the highly complex human body came to be. Thats absurd.

The insult to our intelligence is avoided by proposing an invisible pixie in the sky.

Accumulated microevolutionary steps do not yield macroevolution changes

Actually, they do. here is no known barrier to prevent it. Or perhaps you could demonstrate one.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I do believe that primates such as humans and chimps are more closely related than human and rabbit. Past that you know doubt have put more study into that than I have.

It's possible you've studied it more than I have. I've read a few books but am by no means an expert on evolutionary biology. More of a math/physics guy myself but I enjoy all science.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I didn't say I wasn't interested in the books you mentioned, I just haven't read them. I am a creationist as I do believe in God. But I also do not discredit the theory of evolution. I've got lots to learn and am enjoying it.

Hmmm, I usually think of "creationist" as someone who disbelieves in evolution. IMO it's very possible to not be a creationist and still believe in God, in fact, by this definition, probably most theists are not creationists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just to pick up on your jibe about semantic games Herbert.

As you know, there is a clear distinction between macro evolution (small changes over time changing one species into another) and micro evolution (small changes over time WITHIN a species) how is that word play?

Sorry, but there is no such distinction. In biology there is a phrase "the species problem". The species problem is that there is no iron clad definition of "species". And that is because evolution is a fact. The only difference between micro and macro is time.

“Darwin’s” finch beaks are clear evidence for micro evolution but where is the one testable undisputed example of macro evolution? A cat does not turn into a dog no matter how much time you give it.

Actually since these changes eventually ended up in speciation they are examples of macro evolution in progress. And of course a cat cannot evolve into a dog. That is a creationist strawman. Evolution is a one way street.

Please don’t fall into the trap of thinking people who believe in God are stupid as Dawkins does.

Then it would be wise not to use such pathetically poor arguments if you want to prove Dawkins wrong.

Until 16 years ago I was a committed atheist. I believed the evolution narrative and myself fell into the trap of thinking “God botheres” were stupid.

Since you have a very very poor understanding of the science I find your claim hard to believe.

My wife became a Christian (which I hated) but asked me to go on an Alpha course. I was up for the challenge to convert some “bible bashers” so off I went.
A very nice old man quoted C.S.Lewis, if Christianity was true it was of the most importance, if false of no importance. What it can’t be is moderately important. It either was true or wasn’t.

Ah yes, the terribly failed Pascal's Wager argument. What if the Muslims are right? Believing in Christianity would be disastrous. He is wrong. There are plenty of possible downfalls if Christianity is wrong. It is a weak weak argument that encourages the idiocy that you seem to despise.

That sent me on a quest to find truth but to do that I had to be open minded and lay down my bios to naturalism. To be open minded I had to be open to everything, that included....... wait for it....... the supernatural.

Let me tell you now, I wasn’t looking for a crutch or a club to join I was looking for truth, THE truth, objective truth and I promise you now, if I had found that truth in Islam I would be a Muslim today, if I found truth in atheism that would be my position today but no, today I’m a committed bible believing Follower of Jesus, the God who supernaturally stepped into his creation and redeemed us back to himself. Not a dead god but a God who is alive and speaks through his Spirit to this day.

So my question to you is:

A. Will you look for truth?
B. Will you be open to all explanations?
C. Or will you never be convinced of God because you have already discounted the supernatural?

What makes you think that atheists have not looked for the truth? You do not seem to realize that many atheists were Christians and became atheists because they looked for the truth.

I pray you will find truth, because the truth will set you free.

This maybe helpful

Why would anyone believe a dishonest video? Please note that they have disabled comments. When a person makes a terrible video that is very easily refuted they tend to do this. It is not an honest tactic to use.

 

[Audie]

How can nothing explode and become something make any sense?

Our options are:
1. Nothing made something
2. Something made itself
3. Something made something
The only logical explanation is No.3
It does of course beg the question, where did the something come from but that’s another subject.
Everything that had a beginning must have had a cause.
My friend go with logic even if you can’t explain it then ask the next question

Apply same questions to the supernatural monster greater by far than the universe, aka "god".

 

[Quintessence]

What difference would that make if creationism rejects evolution, theistic or otherwise?

It doesn't; that's the problem. Technically, "creationism" is something of an umbrella term that includes things like theistic evolution, which do not reject biological evolution. The OP appears to be referencing a specific type of creationism within the umbrella.

Honestly, I don't like using the term "creationism" at all because it's assumed to mean not just Biblical mythos, but literalistic interpretations of said mythos. But technically, since I honor both scientific mythos and religious mythos when it comes to the makings and workings of things, that makes me a type of creationist (and also an evolutionist, though I hate that term even more... lol).

 

[David1967]

It's possible you've studied it more than I have. I've read a few books but am by no means an expert on evolutionary biology.

That in itself tells me you know more about it than me. My knowledge of evolutionary biology (concerning early man that is) is limited to what I have watched on Natgeo and Discovery channel. It is fascinating to me though.

 

[David1967]

Hmmm, I usually think of "creationist" as someone who disbelieves in evolution. IMO it's very possible to not be a creationist and still believe in God, in fact, by this definition, probably most theists are not creationists.

It does depend on how you define terms such as 'creationist'. Today it is often applied to people who think the earth is 6000 years old (definitely not my view). Applied to myself ,it simply means that I believe that there is someone who at the very least gave this all a kick start.

 

[Moose764]

Apply same questions to the supernatural monster greater by far than the universe, aka "god".

Well I just want to thank you all for your honest answers.

The one thing you have overlooked is that the best evedence for my turning to God is not my stupidity or weakness, it’s that He revealed himself to me and I hope he does the same to you.

It’s written in the bible that we all have the knowledge of God but we suppress it in unrighteousness. ( conscience, 2 Greek words con with and science knowledge)
I guess we just want to keep doing it our own way.

Btw why not watch the video and make your own mind up as I did.

God bless you

 

[Audie]

Well I just want to thank you all for your honest answers.

The one thing you have overlooked is that the best evedence for my turning to God is not my stupidity or weakness, it’s that He revealed himself to me and I hope he does the same to you.

It’s written in the bible that we all have the knowledge of God but we suppress it in unrighteousness. ( conscience, 2 Greek words con with and science knowledge)
I guess we just want to keep doing it our own way.

Btw why not watch the video and make your own mind up as I did.

God bless you

You addresseth not the q, but no matter. There is no answer anyway.

I did not say or imply that you are stupid.

If you are satisfied that a god revealed itself to you,
I've no prob with that.

I would not overlook something that I have heard countless times.

If everyone who says the god revealed himself somehow got similar messages from the same god, I'd figure there was something to it.

As it is, not so much.

How likely I am to think that out of all the thousands of religions present and past, and all different gods and spirits that people have ever believed in, you somehow got the right one, not so much.

I wish you well.

 

[Christ's Prophet]

I am interested in how many creationists have actually researched the evidence for evolution, and I figured this would be an easy way to find out though the sample size will be pretty small. Also, if you are a creationist who has read a book or books on evolution, I would be interested in knowing which books. If you're looking for book recommendations, I'd recommend Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne and The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. Most creationists know about Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and are turned off by him. I will actually agree that The God Delusion is a somewhat poorly written book, however, Dawkins' other books on evolutionary biology are very, very good.

Please bear with me for a moment. I am a creationist because I am a Christian. It is not a matter of reading evolutionists books, but it is a matter of whether you accept the Bible as God’s inerrant word or not. People cannot stand in both camps at the same time because the two views contradict one another.
But lets’ get down to the argument at hand. What is your foundation for you to say what you say? Let me explain. If I am building a house, the first thing I must do is put down a good foundation for the house to stand strong. If the foundation is poor or non-existent, then the structure will fail. Likewise without a foundation for life, who is to say what is right or wrong. It could change from one day to the next.
So it is in our belief system. For the Christian religion, it is the fact of the resurrection. Millions of people have weighed the facts in the balance and found the resurrection to be true and undeniable. Without the resurrection, Christ is still a dead man and the Bible is just another interesting book. But Christ has been risen and His grave is empty. The founders of other religions are still dead in their tombs. But if the resurrection is true, then that legitimises everything that Christ has said is true. If the resurrection is true, then that shows that He is the Lord of life and death. If Christ had no problem with Genesis (because He is the Creator and He was there), why should we? Contrast that with Richard Dawkins who is an imperfect human being, proclaiming imperfect conclusions, which are merely his opinions at best. Like all of the human race, Dawkins will die one day and he will stay in his grave until the Lord calls him to account. Certainty for eternity.

 

[Moose764]

You addresseth not the q, but no matter. There is no answer anyway.

I did not say or imply that you are stupid.

If you are satisfied that a god revealed itself to you,
I've no prob with that.

I would not overlook something that I have heard countless times.

If everyone who says the god revealed himself somehow got similar messages from the same god, I'd figure there was something to it.

As it is, not so much.

How likely I am to think that out of all the thousands of religions present and past, and all different gods and spirits that people have ever believed in, you somehow got the right one, not so much.

I wish you well.

Sorry audie

The reply was meant for “subduction zone”
Who was belittling and condescending. And my comments were to Hubert the author of this post.

You are right I did not answer your question. to argue for the uncaused, eternal creator on this site would be futile as I’m sure you have heard them all before.

What I will say though is that in response to your statement “If everyone who says the god revealed himself somehow got similar messages from the same god, I'd figure there was something to it.” The only God who speaks to his people and is still doing so is the judeo/Christian God of the bible.
According to the quran allah only spoke to Mohamed and has never spoken again, Hindus don’t say that god speaks to them today nor do any other religions in the world. Even the Jews today will say that they don’t hear God speak. But Christians who are Christ followers do hear and testify to that.

I have witness countless times God speaking to several people at the same time about a subject when in a prayer meeting. So having said that could you now ”figure there was something to it.?”

Don’t be fooled there are a lot of Christians out there in name only. You can tell a Christian by their fruit. And if they are not demonstrating love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, faithfulness and self control then I would question their faith.

 

[Moose764]

Apply same questions to the supernatural monster greater by far than the universe, aka "god".

Sorry I’m a proper newbie at this. I’d better answer this question too.

Why do you think God is a monster

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry audie

The reply was meant for “subduction zone”
Who was belittling and condescending. And my comments were to Hubert the author of this post.

How was my post "belittling and condescending"? I was merely honest. I am willing to help you to learn.

You are right I did not answer your question. to argue for the uncaused, eternal creator on this site would be futile as I’m sure you have heard them all before.

What I will say though is that in response to your statement “If everyone who says the god revealed himself somehow got similar messages from the same god, I'd figure there was something to it.” The only God who speaks to his people and is still doing so is the judeo/Christian God of the bible.
According to the quran allah only spoke to Mohamed and has never spoken again, Hindus don’t say that god speaks to them today nor do any other religions in the world. Even the Jews today will say that they don’t hear God speak. But Christians who are Christ followers do hear and testify to that.

I have witness countless times God speaking to several people at the same time about a subject when in a prayer meeting. So having said that could you now ”figure there was something to it.?”

Don’t be fooled there are a lot of Christians out there in name only. You can tell a Christian by their fruit. And if they are not demonstrating love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, faithfulness and self control then I would question their faith.

Muslims will still make very similar claims to yours, as will other religions. What very well may be wishful thinking or even delusion is not very credible evidence for a god since all religions can be believed based upon that.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I really don't understand what Raup was driving at. The full range of arguments could be handled by no more than a small squad: paleontologist, geologist, geneticist, evolutionary biologist, cosmologist, maybe a philosopher ... that'll cover anything that all the creationists in the world can pretend.

One individual cannot cover the entirety of the subject in each field. And you missed microbiologists, software architects/ computer scientists, chemists, physicists, ecologists, oceanographers, zoologists, meteorologists, botanists...

I disagree that they would be able to cope though!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Sorry audie

The reply was meant for “subduction zone”
Who was belittling and condescending. And my comments were to Hubert the author of this post.

You are right I did not answer your question. to argue for the uncaused, eternal creator on this site would be futile as I’m sure you have heard them all before.

What I will say though is that in response to your statement “If everyone who says the god revealed himself somehow got similar messages from the same god, I'd figure there was something to it.” The only God who speaks to his people and is still doing so is the judeo/Christian God of the bible.
According to the quran allah only spoke to Mohamed and has never spoken again, Hindus don’t say that god speaks to them today nor do any other religions in the world. Even the Jews today will say that they don’t hear God speak. But Christians who are Christ followers do hear and testify to that.

I have witness countless times God speaking to several people at the same time about a subject when in a prayer meeting. So having said that could you now ”figure there was something to it.?”

Don’t be fooled there are a lot of Christians out there in name only. You can tell a Christian by their fruit. And if they are not demonstrating love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, faithfulness and self control then I would question their faith.

Welcome! Compared with many other forums, I think there are lots of people here who can debate their position (on both sides) thoughtfully and respectfully- and your time is more fruitfully spent with them , disdainful posts require little time and thought and so will always come at you thicker and faster. The 'ignore' button can come in handy for these!

 

[Sapiens]

One individual cannot cover the entirety of the subject in each field. And you missed microbiologists, software architects/ computer scientists, chemists, physicists, ecologists, oceanographers, zoologists, meteorologists, botanists...

I disagree that they would be able to cope though!

Since a squad is nine to thirteen people, I stand by it, an army is in excess of 100,000 ... no army required, just a squad.

Your specification ignores the inevitable (and obvious) cross training (e.g., an oceanographer is expected to be competent as a chemist, a geologist, a physicist and a biologist and is likely a meteorologist to boot; a cosmologist is likely a completent physicist, etc.)

Besides, the depth of knowledge needed to counter any creationist claim is frankly, rather shallow never exceeding familiarity with rather standard literature search methodologies and the ability to read a scientific paper.

Just about any literate individual can deal with the full raft of creationist claims with little more than an internet connection and An Index to Creationist Claims, after all ... it ain't rocket science, its just a matter of countering bronze age fables.