Young Earth Creationist.. Troubling thoughts?

@ikurwa89,

Desperation, trying to save a sinking ship. At the time the bible was written they couldn't concieve of our modern science. Now that it's here they have to deny it or come up with some plausible explanation. It's easier to stick your head in the sand, point out the faults in science, and deny it.

@ikurwa89,

Wayne just read my second link, I just lost brain cells reading that article.

This organization is world wide educating kids that MAN and DINOSAURS coexisted!

@ikurwa89,

ikurwa89;153133 wrote:

Wayne just read my second link, I just lost brain cells reading that article.

This organization is world wide educating kids that MAN and DINOSAURS coexisted!

It's crazy, I know, Just think how I feel, I was raised in Fred Phelps hometown.
People want to believe some crazy stuff, the worst thing is that they gotta try and get other people to join in.
All I can say is the truth will out. I really don't see the problem with accepting the bible as what it is, there's still plenty of room for God. It just takes away their power to speak for God, I think thats what they don't like.

@ikurwa89,

I thought the dark ages were over.. guess I was wrong Sad

It's distributing seeing stuff like this and especially seeing so called "intelligent" scientist with degrees and PhD's also claiming that the earth is 6000 years old.

@ikurwa89,

ikurwa89;153141 wrote:

I thought the dark ages were over.. guess I was wrong

It's distributing seeing stuff like this and especially seeing so called "intelligent" scientist with degrees and PhD's also claiming that the earth is 6000 years old.

When you are handed brief cases full of money, most people will say anything even if they know it is a lie. Not everyone bends to these tactics but there will always be someone who will. Regardless of their education and their understanding, they will lie when you hand them over some cash.

Most apologetic that I talk to or debate with, simply lie and bend truths to suit their needs. It's called, lying for god. What ever it takes to preserve the belief system they will do, even if it requires deceitful tactics, they believe it to be a righteous endeavor.

@Krumple,

There's probably a good number of mental dynamics going on here. The issue seems to be one of what mental contortions some will go through to accept some of the more ostensibly-iffy aspects of a faith set or belief system. I'm sure for many, these seeming contradictions aren't much of an issue; some don't think about them while for others such inconsistencies might just not have occurred to their conscious mind. We probably ought to keep in mind, also, that what we personally see as a 'glaring contradiction' might well not be at all (depending on their and our 'take' or interpretation).

For my part, I've gotten a kick out of how - over time - the interpretation of christian scripture has changed, morphed or been mitigated over time as empirical evidence surfaces that seems to contradict what has been held as 'undeniable'. It's a bit like humanity's view of the earth in the cosmos has changed over time as knowledge increases. I don't view this as so much of a "Ha! I told you so", as perhaps a testiment to the attainment of knowledge and its accompanying perspective shifts; both inevitable and forgivable.

But for those left who still cling to what many of us see as 'absurd', I'd offer the following as a few of the possible mechanisms at play:

"It's just a Metaphor": This is a popular one. When a description doesn't seem to fit the facts, the sage leans back in an easy chair and proclaims, "Don't take it so literally, this is just an allegory, or metaphor, for <whatever>". Though much could legitimately be viewed as such, one can't deny the fact that this same issue was once hard fact, then the way it is, probably and perhaps now just a metaphor; further, that in most cases the text doesn't indicate, at all, that it shouldn't be taken literally.Metaphor and allegory are interpretative mechanisms that reduce the message, lesson or essence of a writing to relativism (which likely has been the case all along - truth be told). This is fine, OK, and may not diminish its value one iota. Even so, for those who try to separate fact from fiction, such retreats from fact weigh heavily the scales to the latter.

"It's just a Story": My feeling is that scripture (for pretty much every religion that adheres to any holy, revered or closely-held texts) has always been just stories. The worth to the individual is much like a fable or cautionary tale. Did this really happen? Probably not, maybe, but such really doesn't matter because that's not the point. Even so, the "Its just a Story", like the metaphorical argument above, is another retreat from what was once (or still is) held as fact. Like the metaphor rationalization, it's another way for someone to say "Oh, well that's not really a contradiction - it's just a story". Again, a forgivable retreat.

"Team Loyalty": I probably should have listed this first because I believe that it plays the largest part in the psychological mechanisms we're talking about. This phenomena is what pits races against each other, nations and ethnic associations against each other; it's the acid in the acidity between political parties and family feuds. This is the part of the individual who's taken on the tabard, as their own, of an association; it must be defended as an element of the self and a threat to be fiercely defended. Me, mine, our, us and them are all ideological sentiments the individual guards against or proselytizes for; its acidic when threatened and a warm fuzzy blanket on a winter's night when stroked. It's a person's loyalty when they've consciously taken-on an ideology. To me, in this context, I'm not surprised that people would hang on to a notion that all other evidence seems to dispute. If I were to choose one aspect of humanity that would represent its most destructive (sociological) aspect, it'd be "Team Loyalty". For its sake, folks will swallow the most inane.

"Weight of Authority": If I believe <this> to be the word of God. That's a whole lot of authority. If I'm a true believer; and in my heart-of-hearts hold to this idea that such doctrine is derived from that ultimate arbitor, then what seeming inconsistencies might I be OK with? See what I mean? Its as if to say, "Yea, I see what you're saying but this is from the Almighty! Who are we to dispute The Word in our haughty arrogance?". No, I don't buy this at all; but to the extent that its in play in the sensitivities of those who've taken the leap to believe, I can understand it. Again, and I mean this sincerely, it's quite forgivable.

So yea, I'm with you. But so much more than any notion of 'hard-cast knowledge' or There-Is/There-Isn't arguments, I believe simple human nature: the nature of belief, idea-ownership and loyalties, explain so much more than anything else.

Apologies for the length here, and thanks.

@ikurwa89,

Some sects will go to unreasonable lengths to defend a literal interpretation of the Bible, including ignoring the vast and interconnected findings of modern science. At the same time, these sects are not bold enough to reject science completely, and attempt to find "scientific evidence" to support a theological position; to the best of my knowledge, what evidence has been put forward has been seriously questioned and then refuted by the scientific community. When this happens, the sects resort to refutations employing rather strange definitions of science or non-scientific arguments.

@ikurwa89,

ikurwa89;153127 wrote:

Please check out this website.
Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics
I have to say, man kind is doomed!

What does a person have to go psychologically to proclaim that the universe is 6000 year old?

I can't see the logic these so called "scientist" are adopting?

The Bible is relied upon as the word of God. The reason why this myth persists to the present day is perpetuated by the fact there are too few people who have actually read it.

Whether you attend a congregation of believers, or are a skeptic, I would bet my paycheck you have never read the Bible from cover to cover. The only way to eliminate ("illuminate" also works) ignorance is through knowledge.

The so-called "creation account" of the Bible is actually a reworded excerpt from earlier Sumarian texts, which themselves could be parts of earlier texts. By all means, do read Genesis, and read it all the way to the end.

Read how Moses' ancestors duped the Pharoahs with lies and walked away with huge wealth. Read how the entire faith is built upon an elderly man who had an infection in his foreskin, and after removing the foreskin, attributed the cure to God, who commanded all his offspring should also have the foreskin removed.

Read God's only promise (in Genesis) to Abraham and his descendents; that they will inherit (steal) the land of Canaan (Pheonicians) at all costs. This God commanded them to perform incest and pedophilia for building a huge army. Read how God killed those who spilled their own seed (masturbated). Read how Abraham's descendents lied to and slaughtered hundreds of millions of innocent people in the name of claiming the land of Canaan.

Read how Moses and his brother Aaron were the mightiest dark scorcerers of all time and how Moses eventually killed his own brother. Read how Moses claimed to be God, himself, and attacked the Egyptians with biological and chemical warfare using metaphysical powers. Read how the Egyptians ignorantly attacked themselves in proving their own metaphysical powers.

The problem with Christianity and all the Abrahamic religions is not the religions themselves, but all the people who don't take the time to read the books and see what they actually say. The more people who are armed with the facts, the quicker this nonsense will be eradicated.

It is annoying to hear skeptics complaining about the ignorance of the religions, when the real problem is the ignorance of the skeptics. Pick up a copy of the Bible (any version) and read it from cover to cover. Help those poor people who go to church and are told not to read their Bible, but to allow the clergy to read it for them.

By picking and choosing a sentence and paragraph here and adding it to a sentence and paragraph there, they preach all kinds of things not in the Bible and ignore the horrific facts that are there.

The Bible has become a tool for magic of itself. People use the Bible to scry into the future, divine their fortunes, enslave others to whatever beliefs the clergy might hold. It is used like a Ouija board, where they ask a question and then open the book and read a sentence as though it was an answer from God. The Bible is used by numerologists in a similar way.

The Bible is a horrific story of genocide, deceipt, and immorality (with a few pleasant metaphysical works included). Using such a hate-filled Bible as a magical oracle has led people astray for thousands of years and perpetuated wars by justifying despicable behaviors.

If you don't like the unscientific and troublesome messages coming from the Bible, then read it from cover to cover and engage so that more and more people understand what it is really all about.

@ikurwa89,

@ Volantis- I have read the bible several times. But this website has people with degrees and PhD's that still claim that the earth is 6000 years old. That's what troubling me, how can someone go through life like this.

My God!
man kind will die out in the next 5000 years, even our ancestors lived longer than us Sad

@ikurwa89,

Guys, I'm sorry most of your encounters with creationists have caused you to exhibit prejudice. I have seen what many of you mean about bending truths, and even lying for God. Let me begin by saying that I have read the bible almost cover to cover (minus the really boring Chronicles and a few places in Kings) and many parts of it many times. I have discovered discrepancies which I cannot fully explain, but also some grand revelation which has shaped my life and belief.

You have to consider that both science and holy books are forms of human experience. The problem with science and religion is that each one tries to compare the other by its own standard. By comparing them both as philosophies (which they are!), we get a better idea of each.

In defense of Christianity, or even religion in general, it is one of the few disciplines left that allows for crossing the empirical positivist boundary without hiding the fact that it is doing it. Science does it too, but when science does it, people seem to be fooled into thinking that the probabilities of theory (which a lot of it is!) being truth are somehow greater because it came from an empirically informed perspective.

This simply means that someone's experience showed them a certain thing and then others accepted it after learning of its merit. Well... that is exactly what religion is also. It all falls under the umbrella of human experience.

Abiogenesis is no better off empirically than Genesis. Superdeterminism or Many Worlds is no better off than Hidden Variables or even divine control. Yet when a scientist mentions INFINITE parallel universes as the precursor to a fine-tuned universe, none of you even bat an eye.

Seriously, there are those among you who will go to THAT length to avoid the idea of God. Occam would turn over in his grave to see just how much irrelevancy has evaded his razor. These are logical theories, but far from simple and completely impossible to prove empirically... That very idea gives me hope. I think science is finally trying to break loose of its positivist bonds and will begin thinking in a more progressive and fluid way. Perhaps it will be science that allows us to seek the face of God in ways we could have never conceived of before.

Someone explain to me how Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, wave-particle duality (more specifically, wavefunctions), special relativity, and even the Big Bang itself leaves no room for God. I will bet your best efforts cannot close the gap which God supposedly resides within.

@ikurwa89,

ikurwa89;153127 wrote:

Please check out this website.

Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics

I have to say, man kind is doomed!

What does a person have to go psychologically to proclaim that the universe is 6000 year old?

I can't see the logic these so called "scientist" are adopting?

What is going on?

There is even a flat earth society!

---------- Post added 04-17-2010 at 05:20 PM ----------

"The Bible says that earth was created before the stars and that trees were created before the sun"

Chapter 10: Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible? - Answers in Genesis

Don't waste your time with these things. There are lots of delusional people in the world. At these ones don't believe in suicide bombing.

---------- Post added 04-19-2010 at 09:57 PM ----------

altruist80;153879 wrote:

Someone explain to me how Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, wave-particle duality (more specifically, wavefunctions), special relativity, and even the Big Bang itself leaves no room for God. I will bet your best efforts cannot close the gap which God supposedly resides within.

Yes but you're not a young-earth creationist, though (are you?) It is one thing to interpret the bible and uncover its symbolic, allegorical truths, another to take it literally, which in my view is worse than not reading it at all.

@ikurwa89,

jeeprs;153928 wrote:

Yes but you're not a young-earth creationist, though (are you?) It is one thing to interpret the bible and uncover its symbolic, allegorical truths, another to take it literally, which in my view is worse than not reading it at all.

I am a creationist, but I'm not so certain about the young-earth part. I do not think there is much room to say that the earth itself is 6,000 years old by OUR standard of time. However, the bible never said the earth was 6,000 years old. It only said that MANKIND has existed in a roughly 6,000 year timeline, which is a different claim altogether; and there is plenty of room for scientific error concerning the rise of man. Most evidence is not too far off the mark when we consider that.

As for the six literal days, one would have to consider that if man did receive a revelation from God, it would have to be very dumbed down in order for man to understand it in some rudimentary way. Therefore, the word "literal" is a relative concept when describing man's interaction with God. The earth exists within a supermassive gravity well perpetuated by the source of our galaxy, and the earth is also locked into an inertial reference frame of about 550 m/s against the CMB rest frame. Time is VERY different for us than it would be for a being who is in the same frame as the Cosmic Microwave Background, that is, if this were the case. There exists a self-referencing problem as we delve deeper into this. I do not think we can even fathom how time flows relative to us outside of our galaxy. In fact, we may not even be looking at other galaxies as they were billions of years ago. This is a definite implication of special relativity and confirmed by scientists who loosely state that there infinite frames in spacetime and infinite ways to calculate the flow of time in the void between galaxies. We have only seen and/or calculated the curve of time dilation in our own solar system.

A lot of intuition goes into exploring these ideas which deviates from empirical observation, but no one complains about that. It is simpler to imagine that light and time behave only slightly different in its passage toward us, mainly because of Occam's razor. Out of the infinite possibilities, it is intuitive to pick the one we can use even though the equations show that we have infinite ways of being wrong. Science does this all the time and still claims to uphold positivism. They ignore the concepts at which the data points simply because if they proceed farther, they will end up in the realm of hidden variables. No one wants to go there. They want to know everything, and even an imagined truth is better than ignorance, so they proceed with what they have. This is theory. This is at the heart of both science and religion.

I for one feel that God did build the universe in an elegant and simple way, but maybe not simple by everyone's terms. Therefore, the communication between God and man may be somewhat lost in translation. Therefore, those symbolic and allegorical truths you speak of may be at the very heart of my belief if you look at it that way, yet it still retains the literal element.

@ikurwa89,

do everything that scientist known have been proven?
or is there questions that a scientist cannot answer that only the bible can?
there is some mystery that the science can't answer only the bible can
or maybe the bible answers the different way that science answer
bible answers Why? while science answers How?

---------- Post added 04-19-2010 at 04:33 PM ----------

ikurwa89;153127 wrote:

Please check out this website.

Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics

I have to say, man kind is doomed!

What is going on?

"The Bible says that earth was created before the stars and that trees were created before the sun"

Chapter 10: Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible? - Answers in Genesis

maybe or maybe not....

@altruist80,

altruist80;154097 wrote:

It only said that MANKIND has existed in a roughly 6,000 year timeline, which is a different claim altogether; and there is plenty of room for scientific error concerning the rise of man..

Well I'm sorry but when you start down the slippery slope of trying to fit the observed facts of nature around the biblical truth, then you have lost me. Sure there are layers of interpretation in the Bible, including an historical narrative, but what is the sense in trying to bend the discoveries we have made around the narrative? To me it represents a deep insecurity - it is like there is a need to be sure that things are a certain way. It is a very brittle faith, in my view. Isn't the key point of the Christian teaching your attitude to others and learning to live in the spirit of Christ? 'You shall love one another as I have loved you'. I can't see how that requires a literal reading of Genesis.

I don't accept simply naturalist account of the origin of life either, because I think life itself is inherently miraculous, a divine spark. I think there is far more at work in the evolution of species than the several factors proposed by Darwinism. I suppose Christians would regard me as a pantheist - so be it. But I would never dispute the empirical facts of the descent of man, which puts H Sapiens at somewhere in the vicinity of 50,000 years, descended from Australopithecus at around 5 million years ago. But there is plenty of scope within the bare scientific narrative for the spiritual imagination. That ought to be the playing field.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;154124 wrote:

I don't accept simply naturalist account of the origin of life either, because I think life itself is inherently miraculous, a divine spark. I think there is far more at work in the evolution of species than the several factors proposed by Darwinism. I suppose Christians would regard me as a pantheist - so be it. But I would never dispute the empirical facts of the descent of man, which puts H Sapiens at somewhere in the vicinity of 50,000 years, descended from Australopithecus at around 5 million years ago. But there is plenty of scope within the bare scientific narrative for the spiritual imagination. That ought to be the playing field.

I think the fault here is that you are only looking at the life side of the issue. However life requires an environment that supports itself. So you mean to tell me that these "divine" "beings" wandered around until they found the earth and said, "Oh this place looks like it would support life." Or did they wave their magic wand and transform earth into a suitable environment for their "divine spark"? It just seems absurd that life requires some outside "intelligent agent" before it would arise. In other words you are really calling life artificial in nature. Not to mention that if humans were the supposed intention for planting life on earth, how did they know that humans would develop? I mean the dinosaurs ruled the earth for a long time. Maybe it was these same "divine beings" who hurled the asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs. "Can't have these large beasts around if we expect to have some humans ever develop." The more you investigate your theory the sillier it gets.

@ikurwa89,

We don't know what life is. We have a theory of how organisms evolve. I am not positing 'an outside intelligent agent'. Besides I think your (and many other people's) notion of 'God' is a fabrication mainly based on your dislike of religion. I don't presume to have an theory of the nature of God. What I do think is that natural law operates on many levels beyond the merely physical. There are laws of manifestation, laws of attraction, the law of karma, in addition to the laws the science has begun to describe.

Look at The Presence of the Past, by Rupert Sheldrake. "Nature has babits" and the form of organisms are the result of "morphic resonance". Of course, all the regular scientists hate him. But I think that is because he is skirting around the edge of magic. And life is magic.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;154193 wrote:

We don't know what life is. We have a theory of how organisms evolve. I am not positing 'an outside intelligent agent'. Besides I think your (and many other people's) notion of 'God' is a fabrication mainly based on your dislike of religion. I don't presume to have an theory of the nature of God. What I do think is that natural law operates on many levels beyond the merely physical. There are laws of manifestation, laws of attraction, the law of karma, in addition to the laws the science has begun to describe.

Many of these so called laws that you stated are just perspective observations. You can't say that all of them are distinct characteristics of the universe. Just like you can't claim all water falls down because that is the nature of water. It is not the nature of water to fall down, it is the nature of gravity. So it is a mistake in observation and classification. I think the same is true for some of your examples. They are a mistake in the observation and wrong classification.

Specifically, the law of karma. It is not testable. I feel it is an error in observation.

The laws of attraction. Same as above.

The laws of manifestation. The same as above.

My thoughts on religion play no role in the god theory. I simply see absolutely no sign that a god or gods exist or played any role in our current consciousness. I don't think it requires there be a god for life to arise nor is there a requirement to maintain any laws. In fact I don't even think the word law should have been coined to label these functions. People misinterpret what the word means when used to explain natural occurrences. They get into their minds that laws are created and thus if something is created it must have some inspirational source of some kind. So they leap to the god concept and think it is required for all these things to occur. They don't require any making or maintenance. I think the human mind has embraced ego too much that many times people can't comprehend how natural occurrence could work without some kind of intellect controlling it or making it happen. So it is the fault of perception that is the problem like I stated before.

@ikurwa89,

But it is interesting to reflect on where reason, design, intention, and intelligence begin. It seems to me that if you take the materialist/naturalist view, then all of these attributes spring into existence with H Sapiens, more or less fully formed. But where did they come from? If there is no design in the universe, save for the designs which us clever humans make with our hands, then how did we evolve the ability to design anything?

I also think the naturalist view is a way of ego preserving a sense of its own supremacy. Ego is terrified of the idea that there might actually be a moral law in the universe, because then there might be something other than its own designs which it has to take into account.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;154243 wrote:

But it is interesting to reflect on where reason, design, intention, and intelligence begin. It seems to me that if you take the materialist/naturalist view, then all of these attributes spring into existence with H Sapiens, more or less fully formed. But where did they come from? If there is no design in the universe, save for the designs which us clever humans make with our hands, then how did we evolve the ability to design anything?

Wait a second, are you sure you are getting your definitions right here? Naturalists view, believe humans sprung into existence? I consider myself a naturalist yet I don't think humans developed that way. For me it was a slow and gradual process. The key is that with some monkeys they use their front legs or in human terms, arms and hands to make use of tools. The more you can rely on the tool and not the need of them being supportive limbs like legs, then you make two limbs more useful for utilizing tools. A human that can balance on two legs, run and use a weapon to strike at a potential meal, is just as useful as having four legs and having no tools. In fact you might in some cases say you have better odds of survival if you could use tools. This is evident because of our huge success. As the human developed, we refine and honed our methods and this process repeats, for other things like shelter building. With our growing minds we stumbled upon the idea that we would manipulate certain plants to grow where we wanted them to grow. We could also selectively plant them in ways we wanted them. We did this with domestic animals as well.

To put humans in the most simplistic terms. The human nature is to refine nature. In fact you could label philosophy that same definition.

jeeprs;154243 wrote:

I also think the naturalist view is a way of ego preserving a sense of its own supremacy. Ego is terrified of the idea that there might actually be a moral law in the universe, because then there might be something other than its own designs which it has to take into account.

There could be a moral law to the universe. I however don't see one. If there is where is the guide book? It is like my speed limit analogy. If there were no signs that told you how fast you should go, and no rule book anywhere that stated how fast you should drive, then when you get pulled over for speeding, how is it you can be held for breaking the law when it is not stated anywhere. It is just up to the cop to interpret if you broke the law? So I ask, if there is a moral law to the universe, where is it? If it is not clear as day, then I am skeptical that there is one. I think us humans adapt what we consider moral, and that makes it subjective.

For example, look at Japanese history. There was a time during the samurai era when it was perfectly alright for them to kill anyone who insulted them. The reason being they were considered the upper class. If you were of any of the lower classes and angered them, then it was perfectly fine in their class system to allow that samurai to react how ever they wanted.

We even have that same sort of thinking, yet we are much more secretive about it today. The upper class uses the lower class to fight it's wars for them. So rather than get their hands dirty or bloody they use the poor to fight their battles and get themselves killed. Yet there is absolutely NO ONE protesting this to be a cruel thing.

So where is your moral law for the universe?

Philosophy Forum

Young Earth Creationist.. Troubling thoughts?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know