Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8984 total)
39 online now:
nwr, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 36 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Post Volume: Total: 877,697 Year: 9,445/23,288 Month: 460/1,544 Week: 174/561 Day: 0/14 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Creationisim preclude faith?
Yaro
Member (Idle past 5047 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 1 of 44 (55257)
09-13-2003 3:27 PM


I have a question for creationists:

If it was ever proven to you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Creationisim is bunk. Would that be a serious blow to your religion?

Do you need creationisim to justify your faith?


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Yaro, posted 09-13-2003 6:49 PM Yaro has responded
 Message 17 by Shimbabwe, posted 09-17-2003 2:39 PM Yaro has not yet responded

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 5047 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 2 of 44 (55277)
09-13-2003 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Yaro
09-13-2003 3:27 PM


*bump*

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Yaro, posted 09-13-2003 3:27 PM Yaro has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Yaro, posted 09-13-2003 9:05 PM Yaro has not yet responded

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 5047 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 3 of 44 (55303)
09-13-2003 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Yaro
09-13-2003 6:49 PM


Im really curious about this. Are no creationists willing to respond?

It's a simple question, no biggie, Im not even lookin for an argument. I just want to know if you think that if Creationisim is proven false, would it change your point of view?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Yaro, posted 09-13-2003 6:49 PM Yaro has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by kevstersmith, posted 09-13-2003 10:36 PM Yaro has not yet responded

  
kevstersmith
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 44 (55317)
09-13-2003 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Yaro
09-13-2003 9:05 PM


Okay Yaro, I'll humor you. When I was a less mature Christian I used to feel threatened by those that said science refuted what the bible stated to be fact. This has changed for me over the years as I've matured in the faith. These days, while I still consider the bible to be the inerrant word of God, what appear to be compelling scientific arguments against creationism now drive me to question my current understanding of scripture. I can give you an example of where this has been the case.

For a period of time I was attending bible studies where the teachers were suggesting that the bible clearly illustrates the earth to be only 6k years old. They even offered some scientific reasoning supporting this conclusion. Some time later I was discussing this issue with a Christian friend of mine that has a PHD in Chemistry and veterinary medicine. He offered some of his understanding where the scientific arguments were concerned, but more importantly called into question biblical interpretations concerning the actual duration of the "6 days" of creation.

I've since done a bit of research on the topic and have concluded that the bible doesn't even try to tell us how old the earth is. So you see in this example scientific arguments of the earth being 2 to 5 billion years old really didn't do much to threaten my faith, rather they refined it as I think I now have a more accurate understanding of scripture.

Respectfully


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Yaro, posted 09-13-2003 9:05 PM Yaro has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Buzsaw, posted 09-13-2003 11:52 PM kevstersmith has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 44 (55326)
09-13-2003 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by kevstersmith
09-13-2003 10:36 PM


quote:
I've since done a bit of research on the topic and have concluded that the bible doesn't even try to tell us how old the earth is. So you see in this example scientific arguments of the earth being 2 to 5 billion years old really didn't do much to threaten my faith, rather they refined it as I think I now have a more accurate understanding of scripture.

The Bible gives us a chronological account of the generations of humans back through Adam which it claims to be the first human. He was created the sixth day of creation. The animals {land creatures}were also created that same day.

A careful reading of the text of day four reveals that the 24 hour day as we know it was established by the creation of the sun at some period of day four. So nobody knows by what measurement days were measured on days one, two, three and the part of day four before the sun actually was created. I've never encountered any of my fellow creationists who have ever taken this into account. My point is that this implies that there was a supernatural light from the Holy Spirit (who the text says was present in the creating process) being present.

But getting back to Yaro's question:

1. There were no eye witnesses of either ideologies.
2. To prove creationism a falacy one would have to prove the impossibility of the supernatural and prove that naturalism is all that exists in the universe. This is impossible for many reasons including the need to explain away each and every supernatural prophecy of the Bible.
3. The arguments of ones trying to extablish creationism to be fallacy would have to resort heavily to unproven scientific theory.

I've said all of the above to say that you're posing an impossibility and imo, not worth putting a lot of time, effort and threadband into discussing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by kevstersmith, posted 09-13-2003 10:36 PM kevstersmith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-14-2003 12:32 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 9 by kevstersmith, posted 09-15-2003 10:48 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3920
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 6 of 44 (55330)
09-14-2003 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Buzsaw
09-13-2003 11:52 PM


I don't know what Admin's opinion is, but I give my endorsement to Buzsaw's participation outside of the "Free For All" forum.

Adminnemooseus

------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Buzsaw, posted 09-13-2003 11:52 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 316 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 7 of 44 (55338)
09-14-2003 1:20 AM


I must say I don't think in the time Humans will be around in the universe we could ever Prove the universe wasn't created...... thats why I don't like the name of this board..... it should really be Evolution versus Religion not creation. so impossible to disprove creation. But it is possible to disprove the religion. so I think I will re do your question.

If it was 100% proven Evolution happened and is happening (time will tell with this) Macro and micro how would this effect your faith?

[This message has been edited by DC85, 09-14-2003]


Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by kevstersmith, posted 09-15-2003 11:09 PM DC85 has not yet responded

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 316 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 8 of 44 (55466)
09-14-2003 9:32 PM


if you guys don't mind I am bumping this topic.. I would like to know

  
kevstersmith
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 44 (55653)
09-15-2003 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Buzsaw
09-13-2003 11:52 PM


Buzsaw writes:

The Bible gives us a chronological account of the generations of humans back through Adam which it claims to be the first human. He was created the sixth day of creation. The animals {land creatures}were also created that same day.


Buzsaw, thanks for your response. Just curious, are you familiar with interpretations that hold biblical geneologies to be open, rather than closed? With respect to these interpretations mankind may be older than the 6K years. Any thoughts?

Buzsaw writes:

A careful reading of the text of day four reveals that the 24 hour day as we know it was established by the creation of the sun at some period of day four. So nobody knows by what measurement days were measured on days one, two, three and the part of day four before the sun actually was created. I've never encountered any of my fellow creationists who have ever taken this into account. My point is that this implies that there was a supernatural light from the Holy Spirit (who the text says was present in the creating process) being present.

There are some additional clues elswhere in the bible that suggest the days of creation weren't necessarily 24 hour days.

Consider the words of Jesus in Mark 2:20: "But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day."

In the beginning of the passage we see "days" being plural, but at the end we see a singular construction of the same period of time indicating "era".

In the 4th chapter of Hebrews we see a potential application to the Genesis creation account. Verse 4:4 indicates that God rested on the Sabbath day, while verse 5 indicates that rest is still ongoing by way of the stating that some will not enter God's rest. If this is an accurate interpretation of this passage we're led to believe that the 7th day has exceeded a 24 hour period by far. Therefore, why can't one or more of the first 6 days also be more than a 24 hour period?

Respectfully


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Buzsaw, posted 09-13-2003 11:52 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
kevstersmith
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 44 (55657)
09-15-2003 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by DC85
09-14-2003 1:20 AM


DC85 writes:

If it was 100% proven Evolution happened and is happening (time will tell with this) Macro and micro how would this effect your faith?

I don't think it would affect my faith negatively as my faith has endured far more difficult and painful challenges than the theory of evolution poses. Like I alluded to in my initial response, if macro and micro evolution had been proven to me it would first lead me to question whether my understanding of the biblical account of creation was correct. If brought to a point where I couldn't reconcile the biblical account with a scientific explanation that appeared to be a fact, I would still side with the biblical explanation of the issue. I realize this appears to be rather foolish, but I would suggest this faith is evidence that God indeed exists. I can also appreciate that if there isn't a God my faith is evidence for insanity if not something worse. So be it.

Also keep in mind that my faith is predicated on an active and ongoing relationship with God. From my perspective, arguments that suggest there is no God are akin to telling a married man that he has no wife. Now, I understand the difficulty here because you can't see my God like you could a married man's wife. Indeed, if I had not seen and experienced what I have over the last 12 years I wouldn't believe in God either.

Respectfully


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by DC85, posted 09-14-2003 1:20 AM DC85 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 09-16-2003 12:55 AM kevstersmith has responded

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 11 of 44 (55667)
09-16-2003 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by kevstersmith
09-15-2003 11:09 PM


Indeed, if I had not seen and experienced what I have over the last 12 years I wouldn't believe in God either.

See, the point of science is to take personal experience out of the picture. That's the essence of "objectivity" and "repeatability".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by kevstersmith, posted 09-15-2003 11:09 PM kevstersmith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by kevstersmith, posted 09-16-2003 3:28 PM crashfrog has responded

  
kevstersmith
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 44 (55803)
09-16-2003 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by crashfrog
09-16-2003 12:55 AM


Crashfrog writes:

See, the point of science is to take personal experience out of the picture. That's the essence of "objectivity" and "repeatability".

Okay, how else am I to objectively reconcile the repeated changes I've seen in my own life and that of countless others in my church and elsewhere that compliment what I see in the bible. I know some are inclined to dismiss personal testimonies by saying "well, I know of people that left Christianity and are now much happier." But this does nothing offer an objective explanation for the radical personal testimonies some churches are littered with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 09-16-2003 12:55 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 09-16-2003 3:48 PM kevstersmith has responded

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 13 of 44 (55806)
09-16-2003 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by kevstersmith
09-16-2003 3:28 PM


Okay, how else am I to objectively reconcile the repeated changes I've seen in my own life and that of countless others in my church and elsewhere that compliment what I see in the bible.

With statistics and basic sociology. It's pretty simple, really - the idea is to keep accurate records and interpret them in such a way as your own personal experience doesn't enter into it. After all I can't reproduce your personal experience. I can reproduce your statistics, if I know your methodology.

I know some are inclined to dismiss personal testimonies by saying "well, I know of people that left Christianity and are now much happier." But this does nothing offer an objective explanation for the radical personal testimonies some churches are littered with.

Sure it does. It suggests that different people are happiest in different communities. That, in fact, they may not feel part of a community at all in the wrong community, and that discovering the community that's right for them has a profound effect on their behavior and outlook on the world. No need for untestable divine entities with that explanation, either. And it explains all the data, not just the experience of believers or atheists. It explains them both.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by kevstersmith, posted 09-16-2003 3:28 PM kevstersmith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by kevstersmith, posted 09-17-2003 12:57 AM crashfrog has responded

  
kevstersmith
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 44 (55925)
09-17-2003 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by crashfrog
09-16-2003 3:48 PM


Crashfrog writes:

With statistics and basic sociology. It's pretty simple, really - the idea is to keep accurate records and interpret them in such a way as your own personal experience doesn't enter into it.

Notwithstanding the fact I don't need any external validation or approval from non-Christian sources, I'm not so sure that statistics, sociology or psychology can offer a suitable explanation for the benefits I and many others enjoy within the Christian faith in light of how we view ourselves. Any thoughts on the sociological or psychological take on the fact not only do I have a low self-esteem, but in and of myself I consider myself fallen and depraved, yet I seem to enjoy and thrive in life anyway? How is this rationalized? To me it is clearly evidence that the unseen Christian God is real.

Even if I exclude my own personal experience I'm not so sure I could reconcile what I see in my Christian friends without suspecting there may be something to this supernatural God they keep talking about.

Crashfrog writes:

Sure it does. It suggests that different people are happiest in different communities. That, in fact, they may not feel part of a community at all in the wrong community, and that discovering the community that's right for them has a profound effect on their behavior and outlook on the world.

In other threads I've gone to great lengths trying to explain that I don't think Christianity is for everyone, only those specifically chosen (through no merit of their own) by God. Therefore, I'm in agreement that most people are better off doing something else as they weren't called to the Christian faith by God. Christianity can only be beneficial for those that have been called. Statistics illustrating this don't surprise me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 09-16-2003 3:48 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Rrhain, posted 09-17-2003 4:22 AM kevstersmith has responded
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 09-17-2003 9:39 AM kevstersmith has responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 15 of 44 (55940)
09-17-2003 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by kevstersmith
09-17-2003 12:57 AM


kevstersmith responds to crashfrog:

quote:
Any thoughts on the sociological or psychological take on the fact not only do I have a low self-esteem, but in and of myself I consider myself fallen and depraved, yet I seem to enjoy and thrive in life anyway?

You are living in a community that fosters this attitude within you. When everybody around you tells a person the same thing, he'll come to believe it.

quote:
How is this rationalized?

Essentially, it's peer pressure. You believe it because all of the people around you tell you to.

quote:
To me it is clearly evidence that the unseen Christian God is real.

Oh really? Do you seriously expect us to believe that if you had been born in, say, Syria you'd be such a fervent Christian? Or would you be certain that it was Allah who was real?

Why is it you never hear of people making claims about Jesus Christ who have never been introduced to the concept of Jesus Christ by somebody else?

quote:
Even if I exclude my own personal experience I'm not so sure I could reconcile what I see in my Christian friends without suspecting there may be something to this supernatural God they keep talking about.

But that's where the sociology comes in. You see the same effects in those who don't share your Christianity. So if they have the same results though they have a different theology, how can there honestly be a claim that it is god that is doing it and not some sort of social action?

------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by kevstersmith, posted 09-17-2003 12:57 AM kevstersmith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by kevstersmith, posted 09-19-2003 12:34 AM Rrhain has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020