Books By Creationists?

Contradict yourself much?Eg, I became an atheist when I started reading the Bible and found that I couldn't believe any of what I was reading. Since I was proceeding from the assumption that being a Christian required that I belief the Bible (ie, nave biblical literalism), not being able to believe what I was reading in the Bible meant that I could no longer be a Christian. So I left.It wasn't until seven years later that I started reading about evolution. I found it quite interesting and that it made so much sense of what we observe in the physical world. I certainly wasn't latching onto it to support my being an atheist; the previous few years of learning more about history had already indicated that I had made the right choice.Then the "Jesus Freak" movement boomed and I learned a lot about Christian fundamentalism through friends who converted. Everything I learned only re-enforced what history had already indicated to me. That was also my first exposure to creationism and I found the claims I was hearing so ridiculous (especially the ludicrous claim of a NASA computer that had found "Joshua's Long Day") that I paid it no attention.Ten years passed and I was still an atheist and still a big fan of science (and encountered that phrase in the first USA broadcast of a famous radio play -- and answer is "42"), of which evolution was a part but not a vital underpinning for me. And the ICR's travelling snake-oil show rolled into town. I was surprised that they were still at it 10 years later and thought that maybe they were onto something after all. I had duty the night of the show so I missed it, but I started reading about "creation science". Immediately, I found their claims to be false and misleading. I continued to study it and my initial findings were not only affirmed but I started encountering cases of outright deception.Thus began my involvement with "creation science" three decades ago. Yes, I have frequently read creationist books, tracts, and articles, most often because I was researching specific creationist claims. If I am going to discuss a particular claim, shouldn't I reference the source? Though creationists rarely do the same, even though they list those sources in their bibliographies (eg, the infamous moondust claim researched from a "1976" NASA document and which was refuted simply by pulling that 1965 document off the library shelf -- if any of the leading creationists who had used that claim had ever even looked at the document's cover, then they would have known better than to publish that claim).And yet, my work in this "debate" has not been because I felt a need to defend evolution -- though I do very much feel that "creation science" threatens science education; biology is not the only science that it attacks, but also physics. Rather, I am appalled at the gross dishonesty displayed by most creationists. I do not oppose them wanting to oppose evolution, but rather I insist that if they do so then they must do so honestly and truthfully instead of through lies and deception as they have been doing. I am not attacking their faith nor their god, but rather I insist that they abide by the moral and ethical standards that they claim their religion and their god require of them.And, still, "creation science" and my three decades of personal experience with creationists and fundamentalists have only continued to affirm my decision 45 years ago to leave Christianity. As confirmed by the Matthew 7:20 Test .

Uh, not quite. The Scopes trial was meant by the ACLU to be a test case to bring before the US Supreme Court so that it could rule on the constitutionality of the "monkey laws" that forbade for religious reasons the teaching or even the mention of evolution by a teacher. John Scopes was convicted, but the appellate court overturned his conviction purely on a procedural technicality (something about the wrong court official receiving his fine), so that Supreme Court test had to wait another 43 years for Epperson vs Arkansas (1968).While Scopes was actually a victory for the anti-evolution movement (their "monkey laws" and other methods of barring evolution from the public schools held sway for the next four decades), it is perceived by many to have been a defeat for them, because the unfavorable public scrutiny that it brought to bear on the anti-evolutionists ended up shaming them greatly and made them shrink away from the public view.Until Epperson vs Arkansas led to the striking down of the "monkey laws" and led to a revitalization of the anti-evolution movement and its newly-created deception, "creation science."

Except in order to determine those things evolution did have to be examined in a court of law, did it not?Edited by Tram law, : No reason given.

Well, no, since I said that an evolution is a requirement for atheism. Not agnosticism. Yeah, well I agree that there are a whole spectrum of creationists. I personnally pretty much have confidence that CMI is an honest organisation that tries to tackle the issue truthfully. For example, they have a ''bad arguments'' page where you can find the 'NASA found joshua's lost day'' argument. Also, they have no intention of pushing creationism in the science classroom.But anyways, I don,t understand the relevance in the testimony in the discussion. Was it to show evolution wasn't necessary for atheism ?

Hi Tram Law,It would help discussion a lot if you clicked on the little reply button at the bottom right of the message you are replying to. As it is I am always unsure of who you are responding to

Look at the facts Slevesque. In this thread you have produced a highly dubious criterion for dishonesty, and one which seems intended for use against critiques which are both fair and accurate (since if they are not, then you need no further ammunition).You seem very reluctant to apply this seem criterion to creationists, although there is plenty of evidence that creationists are far more highly biased than the people you are attacking. The statements of faith. The fact that practically every creationist "expert" starts with religious belief, the fact that many Christians who do not adhere to YEC theology have no problems with an old Earth. The fact that mainstream science explains many things which YEC belief has no adequate explanation for. Distant starlight. The order in the fossil record. The consistency of many independent dating methods, all agreeing that the Earth is older than YEC belief allows.

quote:

---

The same way you think about creationism, the same way I think of evolution. Every which way I turn it, I see it as being falsified by all angles. That is to say, even if I was not a creationist, I would be not thin kthe ToE would be true.

---

And yet there are very many people, far more familiar than you with the evidence who accept evolution and reject creationism. How many people can you find were converted to creationism by the evidence ? I'd say none whatsoever - for the simple fact that the evidence is so heavily against creationism. Can you give any objective reason to think that your claim is true and not the product of a massive bias ? (Which you call dishonest)

No it isn't. What you have here is what's called a positive correlation, not a cause and effect.Being an evolutionist is not a requirement for being an atheist. They are completely different things.Atheism has been around far longer than evolution, and John Locke argued against it in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding as well as a few other writings.He was born in 1632 and died in 1704.Other examples include Russia. Under Stalin anybody trying to study or teach evolution were sent to the gulags to die. Early 20th century communist leaders were strictly opposed to evolution and many of them were atheists.Lysenkoism - Wikipedia

actually, i would debate it's truth value entirely. for instance,

quote:

---

The presuppositions that enabled a scientific approach to investigating the worldthat the created universe is real, consistent, understandable, and possible to investigate, for examplecame from the Bible.

---

is just an outright lie. the bible says no such things, and indeed portrays a natural world that obeys the every whim of god. god is in charge of everything:

quote:

---

Who hath cleft a channel for the waterflood,
or a way for the lightning of the thunder;
To cause it to rain on a land where no man is,
on the wilderness, wherein there is no man;
To satisfy the desolate and waste ground,
and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth?
Hath the rain a father?
Or who hath begotten the drops of dew?
Out of whose womb came the ice?
And the hoar-frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?
The waters are congealed like stone,
and the face of the deep is frozen.
Canst thou bind the chains of the Pleiades,
or loose the bands of Orion?
Canst thou lead forth the Mazzaroth in their season?
Or canst thou guide the Bear with her sons?

​

-- Job 38

---

etc. it goes on like that, for two chapters, about how god is in charge of everything, and how stupid and little mankind is in comparison.this is not a "real, consistent, understandable" universe. it's one run by a god who will temporarily suspend the apparent rules to do stuff like lead his people of slavery, or destroy the entire planet, or whathaveyou.

---

אָרַח

That creates a huge problem and trap. If God is in charge of everything, , then that means he is responsible for all evil on this planet and kills thousands of people in earthquakes and other natural disasters. If he is not responsible for all evil, then that could mean he is not omnipotent and Satan could be stronger than him. And that means he is not a kind and loving God, nor is he a perfect God, and is indeed petty, killing hundreds of thousands of people each year just on a whim.Why would anyone serve a being like that? I could not, even if I did believe such a being existed.But that's going off subject.

um, yes. that is true. ... have you read job? that's more or less what it's about: god being unjust. ...have you read any of the bible? god kills everyone on the planet on a whim. god kills all the first born sons on egypt (including infants!) just to prove a point. god says he's a jealous and wrathful god. and sends his own people into slavery and exile because of it.i mean, he still loves you, and all. fear. duty. ownership. any of those reasons are valid.

---

אָרַח

Your cited statement of faith applies to a segment of creos and fundies. Not all of us ascribe to it all. The literal six days and the "three persons" fallacies come to mind.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Haven't you read Dennis Markuze's posts on this very forum?That does indeed seem to be a succinct paraphrase of his views. There are a few; though not many because atheism imposes no religious taboo against understanding biology.However, many creationist arguments are taken wholesale from the atheist, antievolutionist and crackpot Fred Hoyle, demonstrating the possibility. Well, that depends on the claim. Creationism is a disparate collection of errors, including both the false and the unfalsifiable. You could say the same of gravity or the germ theory of disease.You could also say the same of a theist, really. There is no intellectual fulfillment in attributing an effect you don't understand to a cause you don't understand.

Well, that depends.The data shows that the Earth is much older than YECism will allow for. At this point, you should agree that not only is it falsifiable, but that it has been proven false. In which case let me be the first to welcome you to reality.However, what a creationist usually does at this point is start adding unevidenced miracles to his hypothesis which gave the Earth the appearance of age (see my posts on the RATE project, for example).Now if you're allowed to do that, then no hypothesis is falsifiable. Perhaps I have three legs, but God (who Moves In Mysterious Ways) is using his magical powers to ensure that everyone only ever sees two of them.So YEC is on the face of it false, but the intellectual manoeuvres of creationists when confronted with this fact serve to render it unfalsifiable. What is a theist doing when he also embraces evolution and gives exactly the same reasons as the atheist for so doing? Yes, creationists have to believe that kind of thing, because how else do you explain why scientists who know more than you about science disagree with you about science? Either they know something you don't (which is obviously the case) or they're all dishonest.Meanwhile the evolutionist side can attribute creationist blunders to honest ignorance of science and to muddled thinking, since those are traits that creationists pre-eminently display.One thing puzzles me though --- why do you hang around here talking to people whose honesty you disbelieve in? What would be the point? I think that I could make an evolutionist of you if I exposed you to enough facts about biology; but why are you talking to me?

Do you even read the messages in a thread?In no way am I saying that all fundies/creos subscribe to this statement of faith.You may have noticed this line. You see those words "something like", by this a meant a statement of faith of some sort. Not this particular one.You really need to work on your comprehension and ability to understand context.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Regarding those statements of faith:Anyone subscribing to one of those statements can not legitimately do science.They would have to subordinate the scientific method to that statement of belief whenever the two conflicted.I suppose there might be some field where there would be no conflicts, but those statements are diametrically opposed to the scientific method.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.