How much do people really know about Creationism other than the fact we take the Genesis account literaly?

Question

From all the questions I see about this issue, know one presents any of the facts Creationists use, both Atheists and Christians alike. All I see is slander and people who just love to argue. Does anyone actually know what it all consists of or just rely on here-say? I never even heard of it growing up granted I didn't go to church that much either and only knew of evolution. Does anyone actually give it an honest review or just knock it just because of it's association with Christianity right away. I know I don't like being lied to. That is why I am posting this question both the Christians and Atheists. I know I am never going to solve this debate, I just want people to be better educated and do critical thinking for themselves rather than follow the crowd on both sides.

I read Evolutionist articles just as much as I do of Creationist ones. So take this as a challenge.

www.answersingenesis.org

Answer 1

Look at the passage that says all things seen are made of things unseen. Nobody even knew what that meant until recently, yet it has been written on blind faith. If you look what humans are made of, and plants and animals and wood, we are all made of things unseen, you can't see them with the naked eye. Proof. Tuh-Duh!!

Answer 2

A common misconception is that the bible has evidence the earth is only 6000 - 10000 years old...this my narrow-minded atheist friends...is not the case.

1. Back in the days when the bible was written the term days was not used as we use it today. They didn't even have set days in that time. Days could have been an unlimited amount of time. So the "6 days" the earth was created in could have been any amount of time.

2. Then people will go on to say they didn't know as much as we did back in those days? Ok, so in the bible there is a verse which refers to the earth as a circle. Circle being sphere. Our great scientists didn't even know the earth was round until years after that...all they had to do was read the bible.

3. During World War 2...I believe it was. When aircraft was shot down above the ocean and hte pilots were able to reach an island until they were found. They would have to find food etc..they would eat crabs...shrimp blah blah...what the army found was that the soldiers were getting sick from eating these foods. They then gave each pilot a guide as to which foods were safe to eat. All they had to do was read the bible. Things like shrimp...etc...are scavengers of the ocean...they are like a garbage disposal...this was the reason the soldiers would get sick.

4. Evolution is a theory with MANY holes in it. I don't see why to believe that any more than creation.

Answer 3

Creationism is a form of religion replacing the scientific method. As it is not a science, I have no reason to consider it in relation to Evolution.

Creationism = Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old (belief varies)
Source = The bible lists the ages of men and when tallied, they amount to less than ten thousand years, so the Garden of Eden claimed in Genesis must have been started then, along with the six day creation of Earth. All contradicting evidence is wrong.

Science = Earth is 4.5 billion years old (empirically verified by geology, astronomy, fossil layer, change in species)

See why I can't take Creationism seriously?

You could also use Genesis to say that "god" caused the black plague with sin, or any natural phenomenon, but it doesn't explain a thing. Why are creationists opposed to the notion of a god that created a trillion galaxies in a universe that is more ancient than our ancestors suspected? Does your religion always have to shove this existence into a tiny box based on the literal interpretation of an ancient book less than 2,000 years old? The evidence is in every star and organism and planet. Science is a lesson in humility because it seeks truths without preconceived biases.

Notice that you really aren't open to changing your mind. Every Creationist is a Christian, but not every scientist is a Christian. That should say something about bias.

"How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed!"? Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way."

-Carl Sagan, astronomer

Answer 4

Many creationists fairly have no concept approximately what evolution is and what it relatively is no longer; yet they think of they be attentive to. So while they unfold the lies decrease and pasted from their creationist web pages, they have self belief what all of it says, they only have no concept what any of it potential - they don't comprehend the technology and relatively think of it relatively is a few fantastical, caricature concept of monkeys popping into human form like plenty popcorn. If i presumed quite a few the **** evolutionists come off with it relatively is supposedly approximately evolution, i would not have self belief in it the two. regardless of the undeniable fact that it relatively is instructive to make certain purely what number people could be herded like this, with sufficient prodding, right into a fantastically radical yet an extremely moldable, political worldview. The darkest sessions of our collective historic previous have been constantly while the church walked, lock-step with a political device... could this be a flavor of our destiny?

Answer 5

"Creation science" isn't really science.

One of the defining properties of a scientific theory is that it be "falsifiable". In other words, one must be able to specify observations or experiments that, if they came out a certain way, would cause the theory to be abandoned as false. This does not seem to apply to "creation science". In other words, there is no observation, or experiment, that anyone could do even in principle, that would cause the advocates of "creation science" and "intelligent design" to abandon their theory. So it's not science, and not of interest to scientists.

It is always possible to claim that an omnipotent god made the Universe exactly as we see it, with everything in place, 6000 years ago, or even 5 minutes ago, and it is not possible to falsify this idea---the claimant can simply say that all evidence and observations to the contrary where simply manufactured along with the Universe. This is not, however, a very satisfactory or useful explanation. In particular, any such creation points to a "trickster" Deity, who has made a Universe full of evidence intended to mislead.

P.S. I've looked at the links provided by "Exodus...". I must say, these are science of a sort. What the folks on those websites are trying to do is produce a observation that will stand as a falsification of, e.g. the Big Bang theory. So they've come up with a few thing like a hammer embedded in limestone, and the Polonium halos in granitic rocks, that are difficult to explain under the current scientific paradigm. They then (somewhat irritatingly) argue that these things cannot possibly be explained under the current scientific paradigm, and so the current scientific paradigm must be changed.

There are two problems with this. First, they are unwilling to consider the enormous web of interconnected observations and explanations that support the current paradigm---the vast number of things that are expained and predicted by that paradigm. It is this unwillingness to deal with current scientific understanding that makes them "kooks". If the current standard theory is abandoned, all those interlocking explanations are left in chaos. That's fine with them, because they have a ready explanation: "God did it". But a goal of tearing down the entire edifice of scientific explanation is essentially anti-scientific. Second, they are unwilling to entertain alternate explanations for their observations within the current paradigm. Another desideratum of scientific theories is that they be "parsimonious". In other words, an explanation within the current paradigm is favored, because there are good reasons for the acceptance of the current paradigm, and any new observation should change theory as little as possible. The hammer was, e.g. left on a stalagmite a hundred years ago, and limestone did indeed form around it during that time. Maybe the "Polonium Halos" were caused by incursions of Uranium-rich veins after the formation of the granite, but still hundreds of millions of years ago. The arguments against the "Big Bang" really result from a lack of understanding of General Relativity and modern physics, an insistence in applying "common sense" to large-scale physics. The creationists refuse to consider these alternate explanations, and when this causes their scientific articles to be rejected from publications, they cry censorship.

I'd like to point out that "conventional science" is full of problems. Working on the problems is how scientists make their living. For example, for several decades it was the case that the astronomers who studied globular clusters of stars dated their age at around 12 Billion years, at a time when cosmologists were calculating that the Universe itself was about 10 billion years old. This is clearly discrepant, and both sets of scientists continued to work on the problems. It turned out that additional data now indicate the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, plus or minus a hundred million or so, and the problem has "gone away". But scientists were willing to live with the cognative dissonance between the two ages---it was a "problem", something "interesting", something to be resolved by further work, but not a reason to abandon the (pretty good) theories of cosmology and of globular clusters. The Polonium halo folks would ask them to abandon both the method of dating globular clusters and the (numerous) methods used to determine the age of the Universe. We "conventional scientists" ask them to take a closer look at the Polonium halos, and see whether or not there is an explanation of that anomily that is consistent with the rest of scientific understanding.

So the "creation scientists" are doing science of a sort---a kind of advocacy science, that is trying to debunk the current paradigm without an effective replacement ("God did it" is not falsifiable). They are not seeking scientific truth in a neutral way, the are using scientific methods in a biased way to try to push forward their religious aganda.

Answer 6

In the days when the bible was written, the authors, along with the general population, knew very little about our planet. Before the discovery that the universe was billions of years old, before we figured out weather patterns, before we know what caused disease, man sought the answers to these questions.

What religion has done is that it has made the ancient answers to these questions (that it was all performed by a magic deity who, incidentally, looks just like us) the only answers forever, making the Genesis account of creation no longer a point to be argued.

Science, on the other hand makes everything a point to be argued. While man still longs for the answers as to exactly how we got here, religion tells us to stop asking questions.

Kind of like the Bush administration.

Answer 7

The teaching of creationism in the public schools has been an issue since the 1920's and the infamous "Scopes Monkey Trial."

I know that current flavor of presenting creationism in the public schools is called "intelligent design." I know that the main "scientist" behind the movement are not biologist. I know that no article by a "creation" scientist has ever been published in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal. I know that creationism is more about public opinion and PR then science. They are succeeding only in convincing gullible average joes into believing there is real science to creationism when there is not. I know that there isn't one shred of credible evidence to support any claims by creationist or intelligent design.

Answer 8

What research has creationism produced so far to support its hypothesis, other than criticism of evolution? What positive contribution have creationists made to the field of science?


A sampling of how a creationist (Ken Ham) lies and misrepresents scientific evidence, is in the video referenced by the link in my Source(s).

Answer 9

The universe revolves around the earth. Right. You get some education you don't even know what you are writing about.
You rant like any other psychotic religionist. If you don't get the answer you want then it isn't right, the truth. Get psychiatric help you need it. Oh stop lying to your self. You are not very smart or knowledgeable. but you are grandiose!

Answer 10

i dont take it literally at all. i dont believe God's 6 days are the same as ours. heck people prob think im an idiot but i like to throw around the idea that the 6 days couldve been billions of years. he couldve started us from a strand of light because when he said he created us in his image i believe he meant our souls not our physical image. we couldve evolved over time or the day he created us in his image couldve come after billions of years to us and just mere days to God. who cares really? whats so hard about trying to be a good person?