quote:
Originally posted by Robert:
Greetings:
For starters, Metalpunct, a Creationist is one who believes in the existence of God.
I would actually say that a Creationist is someone who believes that God created the universe.
Generally, though, the term "Creationist" in the US and in these debates usually refers to "Biblical Fundamentalist, usually Protestant Christian".
quote:
A person who does not believe in the existence of God cannot be a Creationist. This distinguishes itself from Evolution.
Creationism is a religious belief, while the Theory of Evolution is not. The ToE is an extremely well-supported scientific theory.
This is the main difference between them.
quote:
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.
Agreed, but only if you wish to remain a Creationist, and not call yourself a Creation "scientist".
quote:
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.
No Jews or Muslims can be Creationists?
quote:
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.
These 'explanations' of geologic features are not reliable, nor plausible. They were abandoned long ago in favor of copious and better evidence.
Creation science is not science, and does both religion and science a grave disservice.
quote:
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.
Are you "denigrating" the Bible if you accept that rabbits do not chew their cud, or by not classifying bats as birds?
quote:
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.
Hmm, perhaps the special kind of "science" that Creationists claim to do is at fault. Just because the Creationists call it "science" soesn't mean that Creation "science" fits the standards and tennets of real science. In fact, Creation "science" violates every one of the tennets of science, so it is most certainly named "science" to try to make it appear itellectual and educated. It is, in fact, religion dressed up in a lab coat, holding a beaker, doing it's best to appear scientific while preaching religion.
quote:
I certainly invite my brother Creationists to critique, add, or change anything I have said here.
I hope it suffices,
Robert
I hope you don't mind a "sister's" pro-science critique.
[Edited to fix quoted portions to be bold. --Percy]
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 04-16-2002]
™ Version 4.2
