what do creationists believe? (robert true creation)

Robert writes:

---

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.

---

God's word is written in the earth and stars as well as in the Bible. Fallible men interpret the mysteries of both the universe and the Bible. When interpretations conflict, who can say which is in error?

---

To teach Darwinism in schools and not Creationism is to lead people astray from the truth.

---

You've just conceded, nay, insisted, that Creationism is a sectarian religious belief, and now you assert the right to teach it in public schools? What planet are you from?The only good thing about your position is that it hasn't got a prayer, so to speak. --Percy

Sounds like robert is losing,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Metalpunk37:
Sounds like robert is losing,

---

I don't think you quite understand the perniciousness and pervasiveness of Robert's position. Both you and Percy are, IMO, underestimating the threat this attitude represents. A mere glance at your daily newspaper will show how often science education in the US is being assaulted by the often thinly-disguised attitude portrayed here. From Kansas to Colorado to Ohio, whether you call it creationism or Intelligent Design, the fundamentalists are attacking the foundations of empirical science. At long last some groups of scientists are realizing that they are going to have to counter this effort with similar efforts to make science more accessible to the average person. (See for ex, the article "Evolution's Struggle for Existence in America's Public Schools", Evolution, vol 55, #12, Dec 2001 - available on-line, but I don't have a link).I know we should be tolerant of other's beliefs. Sorry, Percy, but when I read something like this coupled with Robert's other posts, I don't hear the gentle church bells of a benevolent Christianity. I hear instead the echo of the muezzin and the roar of the mujaheddin.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
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 ...

---

And how do you know they are wrong? Do you have evidence you can present - or do you just "know" it in your bones? [b] [QUOTE]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.[/b][/QUOTE]You yourself base your views on your interpretation of the world around you. Your very belief that there is such a book as the Bible, your belief that it represents anything at all, your belief that it is not merely a pointless mish-mash of history and law and poetry is nothing more than interpretation and inference. Your very belief that there ever walked a man named Jesus on earth is an interpretation and inference of that which you can not directly observe. Your decision to believe in the teaching of one as opposed to another is an interpretation.[b] [QUOTE]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?[/b][/QUOTE]And how do you know that you are not deluded in thinking that your god says what you think she says?You cannot accuse others of misintepretation if you have nothing to offer but interpretation yourself.

quote:

---

Robert: 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.

---

[Fixed attribution to refer to Robert. --Percy]Ahh, the arrogant Fundamentalist Christian mentality rears it's ugly head once again.We teach science in science classrooms. Teaching Creationism isn't science as science is defined. Not even close. It is religion, and teaching religion in public schools is a violation of the establishment clause of the US Constitution.Please tell me why it is that you think that our country should be in the business of promoting your particular sect of Christianity? Be careful. Do you really want the govenment messing about with teaching your, or any, religion? Perhaps the Muslim, Native American, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, and Athiest, etc. families who send their children to puplic school don't want your version of the Christian Creation story taught as fact to their children.How would you feel if the Hindu creation story was taught to your children in public school in science classrooms?Please show how Creationism has contributed to a greater understanding of nature. Please show examples of new technologies developed by Creationists. Please show how a SINGLE ONE of the many technological, medical, or intellectual breakthroughs in the last two centuries has been produced by Creation "science". Even a little tiny contribution would be something.Creation "science" doesn't PRODUCE anything, unlike real science.If Humans and Chimps are not very closely related, then why do we use Chimps for medical studies relating to human diseases? Why do you think that such results are so accurate?

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 04-18-2002]

This is going nowhere, Pro-evolutionists will never convert to the blind belief in creationism and Robert will never change his mind no matter the evidence against his belief, or the lack of evidence promoting his.

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

quote:

---

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.

---

It is, of course, a matter of interpretation that this is the infallible rule of interpretation! It is a matter of interpretation as to whether another passage speaks more clearly to the sense of another passage. It is a matter of interpretation whether the Westminster Confession represents a valid Christian Confession of Faith.It seems, Robert, that all you have to offer is bigotry: reason and logic appear to have abandoned you in the last week or so.Remember your Confession - it is quite clear that while the confession does say the internal evidence of the Bible is abundant evidence that it is the Word of God, it goes on to say "our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts."This was drummed into me effectively as a child - one can provide as much evidence as you want that the Bible is true, but to really know it is true requires the touch of the Holy Spirit. SO don't be too hard on people here when they attack the evidence - they don't have your advantages!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Robert:
[B]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. [/QUOTE]JM: I've asked if you would accept vertebrate to eukaryote?

quote:

---

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.

---

JM: I think we all agree with you! The problem is that we want to know why Robert thinks he has not distorted the bible's true meaning!

quote:

---

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.

---

JM: Babble (love to use that word!)! You've said nothing substantive in your completely circular logic. One can insert the word "Robert" quite easily in your statement. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is Robert's interpretation; and therefore, when there is a question (if it is infallible, there should be no questions!) about the true and full sense of the scipture, one should ask Robert. Your logic escapes me here.

quote:

---

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.

---

JM: Robert is another character. Ross, also understands that science gives evidence that the days are long. Robert claims his view of scripture is correct. As a scientist, I go with the evidence. As someone who claims to know what the bible meant, Robert trusts only Robert and those who agree with Robert. Can you imagine why I'd rather look at Ross' evidence?CheersJoe Meert

Robert writes:

---

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.

---

Except that Moses didn't write Genesis, or any part of the Pentateuch. The actual identities of the authors of the Pentateuch are lost in the mists of time, but we know it couldn't have been authored by Moses since his own death is described:

Deu 34:5 And Moses the servant of the Lord died there in Moab, as the Lord had said.

That the Pentateuch was written by Moses is an interpretation you have made, one not supported by any evidence.--Percy

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

I don't think I know where to start. I've never encountered such boundless naivet before. It feels like trying to explain to a four year old that her Daddy isn't the most powerful man in the world.--Percy

quote:

---

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.

---

JM: Sure, he did. But he is also arguing in a circle since his premise is that the bible is true. I've read McDowell's book.

quote:

---

If the Bible is the Word of God, then Darwinism is not true since Darwinism contradicts the teachings of the Bible.

---

JM: No it doesn't. It contradicts Robert's narrow interpretation of Genesis. Robert is now dictating what his God can and cannot do. This is the result of your poor apologetics!

quote:

---

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.

---

JM: Umm, I don't know why pointing out a circular argument is bizarre except to say that it must have hit home.

quote:

---

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).

---

JM: YOU ARE making an argument by claiming the bible is infallible and that Robert's interpretation is the correct one. That alone is faulty logic on your part. HeLa.

quote:

---

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"?

---

JM: HeLa

quote:

---

The Bible provides an abundance of observational evidence to prove its trustworthiness as the Word of God.

---

JM: If that's what you believe it is, then the statement is true. It is not scientifically testable however. It is my opinion that those who force the bible to conform to their own interpretation of it have lost the meaning of the word faith.

quote:

---

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.

---

JM: Are you positive about that? EVER? How about that fact that science has shown the earth is not flat? Trust me, you don't want to pursue this line of argument. It will lead you to establish a new belief system called Robertism.

quote:

---

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.

---

JM: Evolution has been extremely accurate in its predictions and retrodictions. In fact, if you hold the Bible forth as a science text, it will lose hands down. Then again, the bible is only scientific in Roberts version of Christianity.

quote:

---

I feel for you all because you have been brainwashed into Darwinism since Junior High school.

---

JM: Are you sure about that? I was once a creationist! I changed my views when I saw the evidence against young earth creationism.

quote:

---

You have been told over and over that "darwinism is science ... darwinism is science" that you cannot conceive of anything different.

---

JM: I can honestly say that I NEVER EVER heard such a statement. Anyone else heard that "Darwinism is science"? I bet you can't find someone who was told that.

quote:

---

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.

---

JM: Irrelevant side issue.

quote:

---

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.

---

JM: I thought he was the guy who hosts "Crossing Over".

quote:

---

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.

---

JM: Wrong, the reason for all that was the fact that teflon began to be sold in the US in 1960. It is teflon that has led to all those problems!

quote:

---

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".

---

JM: Wrong again (and very scary). The truth is that if teflon is removed from frying pans and such and we get back to iron skillets, then the world will be right. I'm telling you, in 1960's teflon was introduced. Three years later Kennedy was assassinated and it is teflon that has caused the world's ills. You cannot dismiss this correlation. It's too strong.CheersJoe Meert

Hi there Metalpunk, these are my views on things you may come accross encompassing the debate:--1. There was a Global Flood, or their should be evidence of such happening. Personally Pangea is to agree with. magnetic polarity capitulates position and seafloor spreading. Most fossils are Flood deposited. Various geolgic features should have the ability to be shown compatable with this model.--2. The bible should not be used to prove science, but science to prove the bible (though 'proof' would be an improper word here).--3. Evolutionary phylogenetic processes have continued throughout history, all biological observations contribute to this process. Speciation and the various population genetic attributions should have no discression, it happens. Speciation continues throughout history, present, and future through various mechenisms such as isolating population, muations, transposon activation, retroviruses, and natural selection controls the selectability of continued life.--4. Creation science, and Creationism are different concepts, well missunderstood when interpereting my posts and debating with me.

quote:

---

Creation Science and Faith are intertwined to form Creationism. Thus Creationism has included faith and science, and is unscientific in its whole, contrary to creation science.

---

quote:

---

Creation science is simply 'science' that is given the name creation science by the perspective of the higher classified 'creationism' in the hierarchy. Creation science and faith form creationism. Creation science for instance, is science, and looked upon as 'creation science' for its interperetation for a young earth, which is fully evidence/science based. When looked upon by Creationism, creationism uses creation science to then apply it to the biblical doctrine, which is why it is intertwined with faith. Thus Creation science is not based on the validity of the bible or faith in it to substantiate it as scientific, it simply is.

---

--There may be many other aspects I could cover, though can't think of others that would need to be addressed.------------------

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:JM: Pangea is absolutely irrelevant in demonstrating a global flood. Magnetic reversals correlating on land and marine sections absolutely destroys the notion of a young earth and a global flood. Most fossils are dead animals and they completely and utterly falsify the global flood (Christian scholars noted this 150+ years ago!). Geology is incompatible with a global flood. Stop talking nonsense and post some meat!CheersJoe Meert