what do creationists believe? (robert true creation)

Greetings:For starters, Metalpunct, a Creationist is one who believes in the existence of God. A person who does not believe in the existence of God cannot be a Creationist. This distinguishes itself from Evolution. It is possible for an Evolutionist to believe or not to believe in the existence of God. The existence of God is a "given" among Creationists, and it need not be proved.Secondly, a Creationist is one who believes in the infallible nature of the Christian Holy Bible. When you read the Bible it is God talking to you. The words written on the pages of the Bible were written by men who were inspired by God - Prophets and Apostles. God used these men to communicate His will for our lives. The Creationist, then can only be a Christian.The Bible, therefore, is considered the ultimate guide in all things concerning faith and life. When it comes to science a Creationist will seek to show how scientific fact (not theory) is consistent with the teachings of the Bible - that is - when the two can and should interract. The Bible does not give exact details about what God did and how he did it when He created the universe, but there are some, and, it is those details that Creationists use to reconcile science with Creation.To give you an example: One of these facts is the existence of the fossils. Fossils can be found just about everywhere on the planet. Fish fossils, for example, have been found on the highest mountains and the lowest valleys. A Creationist would argue that this is evidence of a universal flood. That is, if the highest mountains were once underwater (as evidenced by fish fossils) then what can one surmise about the valleys? Rapid flooding and burial would also account for the existence of the fossils themselves. When an animal dies it usually decomposes too fast for it to be perfectly fossilized in the way we see fossils today. Rapid death and burial is a very plausible explanation for how we have fossils. This is not the ONLY explanation for the existence of fossils, but it is reliable and plausible. Other explanations seem a bit far-fetched.Since the Creationist is committed to the Bible as the Word of God he believes that God created the universe in six literal twenty-four hour earth days. Theistic Evolutionists, like Hugh Ross, try to explain away the "days" of creation by claiming that the Bible is just being figurative and not literal. But such a proposition does not fit the grammatical structure of Genesis 1 - especially when one considers the phrase "evening and morning" which in all its other references means only a 24 hour earth day. From a Christian perspective Hugh Ross has to denigrate the Bible in order to introduce his theories.In talking with skeptics, atheists, and even theistic evolutionists the Creationist has much to account for before he even starts talking science. For skeptics and atheists he has to 1) Prove the existence of God, then, 2) Prove the Bible is the Word of God. For theistic evolutionists he has to show them why they are misinterpreting the Bible. In short, in discussing science with anyone "outside" he has an uphill battle to climb.This is a brief outline and is not intended to be a defense for the Creationist position. I have not "proved" anything but have simply described what it means to be a Creationist. A definition, by definition, is not a proof but a clarification. I certainly invite my brother Creationists to critique, add, or change anything I have said here.I hope it suffices,Robert

Greetings:Yes, I am absolutely sure that only Christians can be Creationists. The "god" of the muslims is not Jesus Christ, so when a muslim says, "In the beginning God (Allah)..." he does not mean the same thing as a Christian. This goes for all other religions as well: Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, or whathaveyou.JM correctly points out that the phrase "evening and morning" is a reference to the rotation of the earth. Since the earth rotates in 24hr periods a "literal" interpretation of the first several days of Genesis would be "literal" days and not "figurative" days. When God created light on the first day it had to come from somwhere and shine on the earth (or what would be the earth) in 24hr periods.I honestly do not know what is the age of the universe or that the age of the earth can be calculated. I am skeptical about the dating of fossils for various reasons. It is very possible that God could create a semblance of age. Adam, for example, was created on the 6th day. Did God create an embryo, a child, an adolescent, or a fully grown man when He created Adam? We know that Adam and Eve were sexually active because when they were tossed out of the Garden of Eden they started conceiving children. Such a supposition would put Adam and Eve at about 12 years old (minimum) even though they were only created 24hrs ago. There are other examples in the Bible of God putting age in things when we know they cannot be old at all. I do not think that the fossils are as old as Darwinists say they are, but I am willing to discuss it.You must chew on this for now because I have no time to continue answering.Robert

Greetings:Peter: Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh. I am not sure if any of you are familiar with the doctrine of the Trinity so I will quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith:There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundent in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him: and withal most just and terrible in his judgments ... In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son..."From Chapter II: Of God, and the Holy TrinityIn 1 John 5:7 the Trinity is clearly taught:For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.That is just one passage of many that shows that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost can be considered God Himself: Three separate unique persons One God.Jesus is often referred to as the Word of God, and, in context, God Himself.John 1:1-5 reads:In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.These quotations, by the way, are coming from the New King James Version of the Bible.Yes, Peter, muslims do believe that Mohammed was the "seal of the prophets" but they are wrong. since they "revere" the Christian Holy bible as God's Word they should read it more closely, because after the Bible was completed it forbids anyone from adding to it:Revelation 22:18-19 reads:For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.Since muslims claim that the Quran is an additional revelation of god's word they are violating the Christian Holy Bible which they claim is also a revelation of God's Word. The muslim religion is full of contradictions as such it a false religion that Paul warns about:"But even if we, or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received let him be accursed." Galatians 1:9The muslims teach that Salvation is not through the Grace of God in Jesus Christ, but in doing good works. It is a works-oriented religion not a grace-oriented religion. As such it is a false religion according to the standards that they believe is the Word of God, i.e. the Christian Holy Bible.Insofar as the accusation that God is a "trickster" such is not the case. Darwinists are basing their views of the universe on their interpretations of the world around them. If you deceive yourselves into thinking that the world is something that God specifically says it is not, then how can you blame God for your delusions?JM: Everywhere in the Bible the phrase "evening and morning" is used to define a 24hr day: that, for example, is how Moses understood it, Ex. 27:21; Lev. 24:3. In Daniel 8:26 when more than one 24hr day is referred to it is used in the plural, "evenings and mornings". The use of the phrase "evening and morning" to mean somthing figurative is not how God wrote the Bible, therefore it is a false interpretation of what God has said. You must allow the Author to define His terms and not somebody else - like Hugh Ross.Percy: If your "science" contradicts the clear teachings of the Bible then you are leading yourself and others into ignorance and darkness rather than the truth. The Bible is not a textbook of science, but when it makes statements about the Creation of the universe and man those statements are true despite your interpretations of nature. To teach Darwinism in schools and not Creationism is to lead people astray from the truth.Jesus says that I should not throw my pearls before swine. I hope that I did not do such a thing.Robert

Greetings:JM: Can you show me such proof for evolution - specifically fish to lizard to dinosaur to bird transition? I have asked you all many times for such proof and I am still waiting for it. Trusting in "millions of years" and the fossil record is not proof.Gene and JM: It is not what a person believes that counts. A person can believe whatever they want - it is what the Bible says that counts. You will probably say that the Bible is subject to interpretation, and, it is true that people have distorted phrases in the Bible in order to prove some arcane point. However, and I will quote the Westminister Confession of Faith again:The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not many but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.Our "morning and evening" discussion is an excellent example. Moses understood the phrase to be a 24hr day that is the specific reason why he used the phrase, because he meant a literal 24hr earth day. If he did not mean a literal 24hr earth day, than he would not have used the phrase. The phrase is "interpreted" correctly when you look at other passages in the Bible to see how it was used. The errors of interpreting the Bible that you point out are found when one takes his own philospphy/preconceptions and twists the Scriptures to their own fancy. Hugh Ross is just such a character.Robert

Greetings:JM: There is an abundance of proof that the Bible is the Word of God. If you are truly interested (which I doubt) then I refer you all to a book entitled, Evidence That Demands A Verdict, by Josh McDowell. There is so much evidence that he wrote a second book, More Evidence That Demands A Verdict. If you all are going to continue to ignore this, then there is no real reason to continue this conversation, and here is the reason why:If the Bible is the Word of God, then Darwinism is not true since Darwinism contradicts the teachings of the Bible. JM tries to distort my point about the infallible interpretation of the Bible but his attempt is bizarre to say the least, and I don't feel inclined to answer bizarre statements. However, with the hope that JM can exceed his prejudices I will give an answer. Such is not circular logic because I am not making an argument. It is according to common curtesy and all acceptable theories of interpretation that an Author should be allowed to define His own terms. If JM does not want to extend this curtesy to God - that is not my problem. (By the way I would like to see your argument for vertebrate to eukaryote before commenting on it).Percy: The theory that Moses did not write the Pentateuch has been defunct for quite a long time now among Christians. The epitaph at the end of Deuteronomy could have been a prophecy written by Moses or it could have been added by Joshua. It is clearly not logical to say that all 5 books were not writen by Moses simply because there is a short 2 sentence epitaph at the end of the books. I know there are other reasons like the JEPD theory and its offshoots, but such theories do not follow common sense. Besides Jesus says that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, Mt 8:4; Mrk. 12:26 to name a few.In answer to your statement about the Book of Revelation - according to the most liberal of scholars the book was the last one written among the "book of books" (the Bible). As such God is saying that there will be no longer be any more revelation of his will. To say that the apostle John is talking about his own book is nonsensical. To assume that such may be the case any futher (that is, in the future)book claiming revelation from God would be considered "adding" to the book of revelation, and that is exactly what Mohammed claims.Someone here mentions "empirical science" I am still waiting for an answer to my question on another thread about how Darwinism has been observed in creating a new class of organism (fish to lizard not fish to fish). Where is the observational evidence that would make Darwinism "empirical science"?The Bible provides an abundance of observational evidence to prove its trustworthiness as the Word of God. The evidence is both internal and external evidence that actually prove the statements of the Bible. Archaeology has proven over and over again that the Bible is hyper-accurate in its historical references. No archaeological dig has ever disproven a Biblical statement. And, archaeologists actually use the Bible to find lost civilizations that are mentioned in the Bible - like the Hittite Empire. Darwinism cannot claim such accuracy.I feel for you all because you have been brainwashed into Darwinism since Junior High school. You have been told over and over that "darwinism is science ... darwinism is science" that you cannot conceive of anything different. For over 200 years the history of American education has included the Bible as a necessary textbook. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and others were all educated in the Bible (wether they believed it or not is not relevant) they were taught it in grammar school. Harvard University, Princeton, William and Mary, and Yale all started as Seminaries teaching the Bible as the Word of God. The greatest mind America ever produced was a Pastor of a Christian Church - Jonathan Edwards. Such is the legacy of a Bible-centered education.What do we have now that the Bible has been effectively separated from education? SAT scores have dropped - causing the "dumbing down" of the SAT in order to keep the scores up. Drugs and violence in our high schools (which was unheard of even 40 years ago) and teenage pregnancies - all of which have become the rule now instead of the exception.If the Bible were taught as the Word of God and not simply as "history", then we would see a dramatic decrease in all of these problems, and, maybe we would also see some "George Washington's" appear instead of "Bill Clinton's".Robert