Creationism IS a 'Cult'ural Movement!

Holy Moly! 53% I never even considered 6000 years as a valid figure even in my worst brainwashed daze!I used to think Jesus would likely return during my lifetime but I now dont worry about it. He will show up when least expected, so i always have a place set at the table for Him.I never knew that our culture was so...so...so ignorant of reality?

I'll go with that.Cult was just one of the words I used in the OP (and the title ). We could also talk about Creationism in just the fact that it is a social movement and not a line of scientific thought. It's a fad (phad?), so to speak, led not by logical science, but by conservative blabber of community figures (preachers, pastures, fathers, etc.) or by other religious leaders such as K. Hovind.The main purpose of much of this blabber is (as far as I've been able to tell) meant to restrict education of the populace in order that it adheres to a strict set of beliefs outlined by the religious leaders. In the end, it is the religious leaders that are making the rules; defining how God works; who God is. Once people are educated to the truth of science, and no longer believe that God will come fiering out of the sky in His chariots to slice them down, they tend to stop paying attention to the religious leaders; they stop seeing them as the source for God's knowledge. They seek it out on their own; they learn; they discover; and the religious leaders slowly lose control of the public. They begin to lack the ability to influence people in their decisions: how they vote, what they believe, where they give their money.Religious leaders are looking out for their own. As followers disapear, so too do collection-plate profits. And without such income, where would these religious leaders be? Poor?It's all about power.J0N

why does belief in God necessitate belief in Biblical creationism anyway?The idea of a literal inerrant interpretation of scripture is rather new, and far from conclusive in Christian circles.

Why not? Sometimes simplicity in statement can provoke generations of thoughts. For example:"I think, therefore, I am.""The only thing you have to fear is fear itself."The complexity behind these simple sentences is for those who wish to do so to decipher and debate.How is God's ability to shape the entire Earth's (or universe) future with a simple strand of molecules and create the system of evolution any less miraculous than creating each and every one of the creatures we see today de novo (and, course all those that are now extinct)?We proclaim those who decipher the mathematical and scientific laws as geniuses, but creationists would deny that their god who could simply implement such laws through sheer will and conduct the "Greatest Experiment" would ever do such a thing. They (humans) have to be specially created for some reason not postulated in the Bible.Why can't the laws of physics and chemistry and biology exist as a testament to god's immense genius? Why must god have created you (humans) as special beings who cannot question his creation? Why must the Bible be accurate as testament to a grand creation as it exists in the Bible? Why can't evolution present itself an experiment in God's design? Because it is imperfect? God didn't create perfection, as Christians can attest, with sin abounding in the world. Why would Christians assume that perfection exists in all of God's creation, when His most esteemed creation is not perfect at all?I really want to know these answers from people who think they know them.

First, Phat asked me a personal question which I answered as honestly as I could, knowing full well that some would use the info as ammunition. But I think you would be wrong to assume I was in an insular subculture as far as evolution is concerned. I don't think I said I was conservative christian, did I? I know I didn't reveal my age, but I can tell you that when I grew up evolution was not as widely accepted, and I grew up in a wealthy town where everybody's dad was vice president of something or other. Nobody talked about it, that's all. Yup, consensus is a slippery slope indeed. You must have the courage to think for yourself, which includes the certainty that you will be flat out wrong about some things sometimes. But so what? Dangerous??? Care to elaborate on that one???

You're living in fantasy land. You want to talk about how much the charts have changed since I was shown them? But of course they are tentative; nobody was there to observe evolution. I have no problem with tentative charts, you have to start somewhere. I just have a big problem with pretending they are anything other than wild-assed guesses. They may be more scientific now, but trust me, they were wild-assed guesses 30 years ago. But Darwin does not call for complex forces. Random mutations (noise) and natural selection. That's it, right? Right, of course, it always comes down to me being too stupid or ignorant. You're not going to intimidate me on this, not any more. Show me the proof or shut up (not directly at you personally).

I didn't say I rejected the age-of-the-earth evidence, though I do think a lot of it is bogus, profoundly prejudiced by a need to find enough time span to numb the imagination.
But evolutionists forget that time is the great destroyer of all things. I'm amused by how the same people that are confident of evolution steadily (on average) progressing over millions of years are now frantic that the ice caps are going to melt in our lifetime.

Actually, from what I've seen in my few years of living, those towns tend to be the most conservative towns with the people being far more fundamentalistic than in other areas... such as my town. Evolution is still not widely accepted... so I don't see your point.J0N

Do you really? Well, it would be miraculous all right, I'll grant you that. But basically, there is no 'system of evolution', just the assertion that more and more complex life forms will tend to survive.

If you pull my topic off into Global Warming, I'll tan your ass so fast you'll be lucky YOU don't melt! Now, why don't you tell all of us how it is that Creationism is in fact a scientifiic thought, as opposed to a cultural movement that uses "strength in numbers" as its driving force. If you have nothing to say to that fact, then why don't you just leave and stop tainting our good time!J0N

I am not talking about global warming per se, hot shot (I note your caps - Global Warming).Secondly, I'll summarize once more: I'm not interested in arguing whether creationism (note my lack of caps) is scientific thought (note my lack of caps) because it's a pointless exercise in semantics. I am always glad to discuss with open minded people whether life might have been created or not. See, this thread started off talking about whether creationism was a cult or not. I bit as a representative creationist because I knew that you folks would demonstrate in your own words that you are the insular ones. Not that I didn't think it possible that I might meet a thinking person on the other side, I have before, with whom we might mutually clarify our thinking on these matters. But it ain't you, dude!

I cannot elaborate any better than Neil deGrasse Tyson. See Message 13. Using your message as an example, I was speaking generally of conservation Christianity and creationism, but you raise an important point. In the west, are there other broad avenues to ignorance, skepticism and rejection of modern science besides conservative Christianity?--Percy

You have got to be kidding! It's at a point like this that I consider going over and hitting my head on a wall. You're the moderator, right? If this kind of pig headed arrogance is at the top I guess there's not much hope for the rest of the forum, is there? You, at least, have obviously not given any thought to a word I said. That's your prerogative of course, but I think it pretty disingenuous to call EvC a forum if it's just a place for evolutionists to masturbate together.

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. I thought we'd already accepted as a baseline in this thread that in the aggregate conservative Christianity is ignorant, skeptical and resistant to the views of modern science. This was the premise of the OP where, for example, Jon mentions the moondust argument that AIG urges creationists to abandon. The reason AIG said this is because many creationists continue to use the argument as an expression of their skepticism and rejection of the views of modern science (certainly you don't disagree with that), and they could only do so out of ignorance, unless you want to consider the more sinister scenario where they know the argument is false but use it anyway because of its effectiveness when used on those unfamiliar with science.As I said, I was speaking generally, but if you're wondering if I think you yourself lack knowledge of and are skeptical and resistant to the views of modern science, then the answer is yes, I do. These qualities were made very clear in Message 85 where you accused scientists of making up family tree charts, claimed the theories had never been tested, claimed they violated the laws of statistics, called evolution a quaint idea, called acceptance of evolution bizarre, and equated it to perpetual motion machines.So I'm really sorry that you're having such a negative reaction to my characterization of your views, but it's hard to avoid the conclusion that you reject evolution not out of detailed study of it but out of lack of knowledge of much of anything about it.--Percy