Reasons for Creationist Persistence

I think that pride is a major factor in the case of many creationists. They're too proud to actually admit that they might not understand a subject that they haven't investigated in any serious way. To proud to admit that they could be wrong.

Imo, creationist persistence wouldn't be such a problem if the mainline proponents of it would let the Biblical record make more sense which it does when applied to the wholistic context as to the nature of God and as per basic scientific laws which are compatible with a correct rendering of the Genesis account.1. The Biblical god Jehovah is an eternal god and since the record says he exists in the heaven's in a specific place where there is a throne room, trees golden streets and pearly gates et al, Biblical creationists should understand that of necessity the universe has eternally existed.2. Creationists are told in the Biblical record that all things exist in and come forth from God. This includes all energy, clearly implying that no energy was ever created, having eternally existed in/trough and by God, as per 1LoT.3. Genesis 1:1 simply says whenever the heavens and the earth were created, God did it. Work on the earth's surface did not begin until the spirit of God began to move (work) on the surface of the earth.Imo, mainline evangelical ID creos need to rethink their science and their scripture before they will ever begin to have a credible argument. My BH (Buzsaw Hypothesis) may be offbeat to the tune of creos but imo it is more compatible to both the Biblical record and science than the majority onbeat hypothesis.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Buz, you use ID creo together a lot. This is another reminder that as the words are commonly used they are NOT the same thing.As a default the creos are young earth, no evolution biblical literalists who, among other things do not think we are evolved animals.As an official positions the ID movement does not argue with the age of the earth, agrees with most of evolution and that we are evolved animals.These are hardly compatible positions. You might want to stop trying to be wishy washy and trying to avoid appearing to disagree with any of them. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not sure that the implication is all that clear.Try substituting any other noun for "energy": e.g. "cucumber sandwiches".

No, not pride. Fear.If they are wrong, then the Bible is false and God doesn't exist. They cannot let anyone discover that they are wrong, most especially themselves.If they really investigated their own claims or learned enough to understand the subjects they're using, then they would discover that those claims are deceptively false and that the "evidences" they claim to have simply does not exist. They cannot allow themselves to make that discovery.I started investigating "creation science" in 1981 and discussing it online in the late 1980's. One of the worst things I could possibly do to a creationist, something that was virtually guaranteed to enrage him, was to take his claim seriously and try to examine and discuss it with him. They really hate that.I had a friend like that at church (he's still there; I'm the one who's inactive right now). He used to be a fundamentalist Christian and as one he had to turn a blind eye to the things all around him every day that contradicted his beliefs. Finally, he found that he didn't have the strength to maintain the growing burden of constant self-deception. So he critically examined Christianity and now he is, as he described himself, "a complete atheist and a total humanist". And very happy now.

Oh, I disagree Creationists tend to have undeservedly high opinions of themselves. And their method of reading the Bible is all too frequently to force the reading into what they want it to say. I think that self comes well ahead of God for many of them.

So in other words you are asking science to accept nonscience as science?
we might as well accept the earth was created by the FSM too
why should your myth get a free ride when the truth of it is no more evident than any other myth? let me fix this for you: which are compatible with a rendering i accept of the Genesis account.
there we go, you can't expect people to all agree that yours is right can you? where does it say this? not all creationists oh come on man, why are you arguing about how they setup the text? anyway it says: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
1:2 starts what he did, which is a detailed story, 1:1 would be like saying i created a work of art, 1:2 would be how i did it thats the problem you see, no matter what, no creationist hypotheosis will work, because the bible is not a detailed scientific book, how god did it is neither important or meaningful to anythingto me if you have to scientificly explain everything in in the bible, you have already lost the battle
the bible is full of different voices and meanings and are from different times

Well, of course they believe that they are absolutely right and the Apple in God's Eye. And with all the adoring fans that the creationist leader have, all of them heaping praise on them, their egos are going to kick in. It would take an exceptional person to remain humble when given such star treatment and we all know that they are far from exceptional.But still, a strong motivator for keeping themselves and their followers ignorant of the truth is that they have a very strong vested interest in maintaining that ignorance.For example, Hovind has made claims that at the rate that the sun is losing mass (5 million tons each second) as it "burns its fuel", then 5 billion years ago it would have been so massive that it would have "suck[ed] the earth in". He also tied this in with the standard "shrinking sun" claim, giving this as one of the things causing that shrinkage.Sounds impressive and I'm sure that all his followers are very impressed. But if we do the math then we find that at that rate (which is essentially correct; a tiny bit high, but not unreasonably so) then in 5 billion years the sun would have only lost a few thousandths of one percent of its original mass. Negligible mass loss resulting in neglibible change in the sun's gravity which would have changed the earth's orbit by less than 100,000 mile. By comparison, the eccentricity of the earth's orbit causes our distance from the sun to change by 3 million miles within each year; we are closest to the sun a couple days after New Year's, during the height of winter.I emailed Hovind several times asking him about this claim and asking for the mass that he had calculated for the ancient sun and how he had arrived at those figures. He did everything he could to avoid the question, even to the point of twice trying to pick a fight with me over my AOL screenname, DWise1.The only conclusion I could make was that he was already aware that his claim was bogus, but he wanted to protect it for further use on his victims.

Or he's too proud to admit that it's BS. This is the guy who threatened the judge trying him on a prison telephone. This is the guy who can't even admit that the plannng laws apply to him.And even ordinary creationists are often full of pride. There's a fine example posting here.

I find it necessary to designate ID creo from creo. Everyone from Percy and Jar to YECs have referred to themselves as creationists in that they believe in a supreme god who somehow have been involved in the process of creation. At least that's how I have understood them. That term creationist is just too broad a term to designate one's ideology, imo. No that's just not correct. Jehovah is an intelligent designer who intelligently designed everyting in the universe as per my hypothesis and as well as per all YECs. How can you say intelligent design had anything to do with the early stages of NS and RM? It appears that you the one who's wishy washy and trying to have things both ways.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Colossians 1:15-20 is where I got this from. Read it and you will have to conclude that it includes all energy, imo. It's referring to Jesus, God's son who came forth from the Holy Spirit implying that before birth he was somehow one and the same with God's spirit by who God appears to do work in the universe. This is implied in Genesis 1:1,2.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Intelligent Design (ID) Creationist(s) - (Michael Behe , the prime example).Maybe I shouldn't have put the "(Michael Behe , the prime example)" part in the topic title, but to me, Behe is the guy.Buz, I invite you to take part in the above cited. You can copy your above message there, if you wish.Moose

I see that I misunderstood your use of ID Creo -- You mean a creationist IDer. Not ID / Creo including the two together.You are right that you can define creationist very broadly (as Jar does) but that only muddies the waters. The term has a commonly understood usage. At least some of the IDers (and it appears their official) position do not disagree with the age of the earth (or at least keep very quiet about it). That means they are NOT in agreement with YECs. They also do NOT claim that all of evolution is untrue -- just selected "IC" bits. I have not seen them say that the evolution of humans is incorrect either. They do not agree with YECs.You can not be both an IDer and a YEC. You can also not be an IDer and the more common types of OEC. At least as far as the public front of ID is concerned. It has been contrived that way as a trick to get past the constitution of course. Many of the ID community agree with you and YEC and most OECers but that is not the "official" position that they can put forward. So ID (as a 'movement') has to be in conflict with YEC and much of OEC too or it fails in what it is trying to do. {Please see message 147. The above would be better there (?). - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

How did you come to that? I thought I made it clear that I was suggesting that mainline Id creos get more Biblically literate since to do so would make them more compatible with basic laws of science as does my hypothesis which complies with both the Genesis account and thermodynamic laws. Where did you get that I expected all to agree? I'm simply asking them to take a look at some points I make and go figure. Psalms 103:19. "Jehovah has established his throne in the heavens; And his kingdom rules over all." his is what I said, "Creationists are told in the Biblical record that....." So yes, imo what the record literally says it says to all." So whether they care to accept it at face value or not, it still says what it says to all.Dwise, I'm not able to make sense out of the rest of what you were trying to convey. You'll need to clarify if you want a reponse to that.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Message copied into new topic. Thanks Moose. I agree.