Thread: How does a creationist resolve this discrepancy

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

No thanks, I'm quite full of your prancing and dancing around the point like this, couldn't take another bite.

And this my friend is called Hara hachi bu. You should practice this more often. Besides we've already discussed my position on evolution EXTENSIVELY in the other thread. You want to take a look at where I stand on evolution it's all there. Probably the reason why its seems I'm dancing around the your question, is because you all keep asking me the same question over and over and over again.

Ahh right, I see. I wondered why that was.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Come on Xei *sigh* are we really going to go there? You want to call yourself a primate that's cool with me. I'm not even going to argue against that. If thinking of yourself as a primate makes you feel good, I'm happy for you.

I was not made from dirt.

I respect the opinions of people who don't want renewable energy, even though I disagree. But as far as I can fathom, the only reason someone would not want renewable energy is because they are invested somehow in non-renewable energy and are therefore greedy. I don't know how much I can respect greed and intolerance. But opinions about what reality is or what music one likes, etc. are all individual things that are respectable. We can make hypothetical situations in order to use the word derp, or we can deal with real situations in which you are a part. Derp.

Herp herp.

My larger point was that it's all very well respecting people's opinions about 'inconsequential' things like music or metaphysics, but even you were drawing a line for more important things, so you were kind of defeating your own point. When it comes to people who believe that women are subversive and must be repressed, do you respect that? I know I wouldn't, and I'd try to talk some sense into that person, or at least try to get them to realise they are intellectually dishonest. What about the backward, superstitious thinking that leads many people to think the above? Which side of the line is this on? Can you see that many people would place this on the same side of the line that you place greed?

Originally Posted by sloth

I was not made from dirt.

I don't recall asking you what you were made from :p..lol

However, while we are here. You made a statement saying that the answer I gave regarding the threads question was the same thing you heard from other Christians before. I'm just curious to know something. Why would you expect a different answer?

But people argue about inconsequential things, and create ill feelings about it. Important things are human rights and environmental issues should also not be argued about. Yes, there are sexist and racist people, but you aren't going to change their minds by disrespecting them. People have reasons for being who they are. I see any harming anybody whether it is repressive to women, immigrants, or motivated by greed, or disrespecting someone on the basis of their harmless views on reality. I think disrespect of people is harmful. Intolerance is harmful. But I don't really like the word "tolerance". As if the best we can do is tolerate each other. I don't agree with Catholicism since it is backward in my opinion, it fosters guilt and shame, and makes pedophiles of priests, but I respect people who are Catholics. Yes, I try to point out the error of their thinking if they are full of shame, but who am I to disrespect their beliefs? Even Biblical creationsists, who I think have a very distorted idea of what is really going on, I can't disrespect them. I may be the one who has no idea of what is true or not. Let a few people believe the Earth is flat. It is their right. But they don't have the right to harm people who believe otherwise. And btw, most people on this planet believe that women should be repressed. Sad, but true. Most people think homosexuality is evil, most people don't like nomadic people, most people don't like this or that, people who are different than them. And most theists don't like atheists and most atheists don't respect theists.

Really, I don't see how it hurts to just let some people choose to believe that dinosaurs and humans coexisted in spite of evidence to the contrary. It is a harmless belief. And people should have the right to believe what they want to. I have conversations with my friend's granddaughter who is a "Jew for Christ". I ask her about her beliefs and how it all works, and I point out things that don't make sense to me and she explains it, not to my satisfaction. There comes a point where I have to say "Well, maybe you are right." and leave it at that. She says "I am right!" and I say "Maybe you are. Who knows?" She can't argue with that. But I can't tell her that I think it is all bullshit. I do tell her what I believe however.

Things like harming people, violating freewill, injustice, inequality, are important, and that is where I draw the line. Aquanina is right, bickering over creationism and dinosaurs on an online forum is very childish, and there are better ways to communicate. You say yourself that "it's all very well respecting people's opinions about 'inconsequential' things like music or metaphysics". I agree, it is all very well to do that, and that is my point. So can we have peace now so we can get back on topic. Actually, what I said before was the only thing I had to say about this topic, so I will just return to see what other people say. But this is an interesting idea for a new thread. "How far should tolerance go?"

So, do you have a problem with that? Or can we get back on topic?

Well, back on the topic. Which people clearly have been sidetracked from.

This topic reminds me, I know this may not be "right on topic" but I have always wondered if the world was how it was thousands, and millions of years ago on purpose because humans weren't supposed to know the science of the world, and people, and creatures. May it be flaws that this "God" made, or just simply another reason of why to live that way.

We have the tools now, computers, microscopes, the knowledge of our human mind to know what we are made of, cells, which for to make us, as an individual. Maybe the universe works that way as well, which leads into wouldn't whoever, or whatever created us know if they created a mind such as ours we would eventually figure things out. It really leaves me questioning like crazy, all of this, there are many theories but come on, we know not EVERYONE is going to agree on the most accurate "theory", mainly these beliefs which make up religion would block them from even giving into the theory, but science is real, accurate, even though we simply just don't know all of it.

I asked someone once, "why do you believe what the bible has to say?" They said, "well why do you believe the books at your school?" I then said "Because my math book says 2+2=4, which can easily be proved" Which is why I am agnostic. I believe religion has potential, but I really will never have 100% belief until I witness it.

But I must say, the Bible holds many correct, physiological explanations and morals of life, even today. Which is what the people of the world have fed off of.

But anyway, to the starter of this forum: I think people have answered your question, I'm a little late. I would say many of the same things these people have.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I don't recall asking you what you were made from :p..lol

However, while we are here. You made a statement saying that the answer I gave regarding the threads question was the same thing you heard from other Christians before. I'm just curious to know something. Why would you expect a different answer?

I don't. I expect Christians to give whatever answer satisfies both conditions, whether there is any evidence or not.
This is not the only answer I have received though. I have actually heard that Satan planted the dinosaur bones in order to instill doubt, that God planted them to test our faith (notice how the term changes there), and that there are dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible.

I am aware that you did not ask me what I was made of, but it sounded like you had implied that evolutionists were primates, which I feel is a much better alternative to being made from dirt. Primates can be pretty smart. Plus they aren't dirt.

Originally Posted by sloth

I have actually heard that Satan planted the dinosaur bones in order to instill doubt, that God planted them to test our faith (notice how the term changes there), and that there are dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible.

You forgot about the scientists. It's a pretty well accepted idea by some Creationists that scientists plant evidence for evolution and such.

Dirt is a metaphor for matter. They didn't have the word matter back then, they used the word "dirt". In another language of course. There is an understanding the uninitiated have and an understanding the initiated have. And the initiations and the understandings are only taught orally, verbally, not through scripture. This has always been the case, and always will be. People who read the scriptures and pass judgement either for or against will not understand what it is they are judging. It is like if someone read your dream-journal and asked you "You actually believe this stuff?!"

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Dirt is a metaphor for matter. They didn't have the word matter back then, they used the word "dirt". In another language of course. There is an understanding the uninitiated have and an understanding the initiated have. And the initiations and the understandings are only taught orally, verbally, not through scripture. This has always been the case, and always will be. People who read the scriptures and pass judgement either for or against will not understand what it is they are judging. It is like if someone read your dream-journal and asked you "You actually believe this stuff?!"

If you would like a further insight as to the mysteries of the Scripture, read my Language and Experience.

There is a whole new universe as to how to write something. Plato was adept at the method also.

Imagine using principles of reason to construct a piece--how would you do it? How would you use the fundamentals of, say for example, code to shape the code that you wrote. Instead of a single dimentional presention, you expand it beyond the words themselves to a multidimentional presentation to interact directly with the reader? How would you do it so that the presentation would make sense to various levels of intelligence?

Take Plato, for example, who was preserving the implications of the two element metaphsyics, who used form to create the outline, form which is truth, and the material difference for the substance, which is always changing? In order to comprehend the work, you would have to be able to see the form of the piece, you would have to see the idea in the abstract. Now, one psychological type would seek out truth in the individual passages, and pit one set of words against another, another psychological type would see the form, and how it workd through the various ideas. The form Plato used for each piece, he used recursively--multidimensionally. When you start to see it, and work at it until it becomes solid, you see what others cannot see at all.

Or take scripture, use fundamental principles of reason to tell the same story over and over, however, the reader, not seeing how the principles are used, because the principles are not part of his basic psychology, sees meaning contradicting meaning, never seening the reality beneath it. One time something looks good, another bad. They process appearance, but the truth is not in them.

When a thing is written, it is aimed at a specific audience. You have to learn to ignore those whom you can never really communicate with. It is just a fact of life. Try as you might, you cannot change the basic animal.

I will give you the official mainstream theological explanation of the original inquiry...

I have a few years of theological study within an institution and a lot more during my free time after leaving said institution.

Here is the explanation in point form:

1. The book of Genesis with the Biblical cosmological narrative included was developed as poetry, sung and recited which is known as oral tradition historically. The story itself was created before the "Hebrews" used any written form. That being said, the Genesis narrative is not to be taken literally.

2. Even without a literal interpretation of the Genesis narrative, a supernatural creator is still possible.

3. Finally, any scientific observations on the development of matter, life, and species can and will be co-opted as 'the creators' predetermined plan for life in the universe. For example: It is now a mainstream opinion that 'God' uses evolution to develop his creation.

To many, this may not seem like creationism and in its original form the many would be correct. However, if "creation" is seen simply as the action which made life possible and subsequently humans, then indeed any system widely accepted for the development of life could be precipitated from "Yahweh's divine hand".

Tell that to the idiots that run the creation museum.

lol random interjection

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Point 2, you insist on implying the theory of evolution is an "atheist thing", in spite of the fact that every scientist in the world accepts evolution regardless of their religion or lack of. And I know you probably are ready now to write a few names of so called scientists who reject evolution but - and this may come as shocker - when someone rejects the scientific method and it's collectively verified results, for no reason other than pure unadulterated bias, that person is not a scientist.

Now this, folks, is called bullshit. There are many people holding doctorates in Science who reject the theory of Evolution. Google is your friend -- look it up!

Originally Posted by Carera

Now this, folks, is called bullshit. There are many people holding doctorates in Science who reject the theory of Evolution. Google is your friend -- look it up!

I'm still not sure if you're just here to troll, but you seem to have missed the last part of what you quoted.

Originally Posted by Carera

Now this, folks, is called bullshit. There are many people holding doctorates in Science who reject the theory of Evolution. Google is your friend -- look it up!

I did google. 128 biologists signed something saying they had doubts in evolution. I also found out from Time, that not one of them have done research into evolution. Biology is a very wide field.

Anyone who rejects the scientific method, is by definition, not a scientist.

Google for doctors who say smoking doesn't cause cancer, you actually get significantly more results that googling for biologists who say evolution isn't real.

I like to think of creationists as the result of flawed nurturing, even scientists who disavow evolution validity are subject to the nature verses nurture argument, and I think it's especially apparent in this circumstance that their upbringing has caused serious bias in how they might objectively examine the world. They still may have the insight to further our understanding scientifically because of how they were trained, but removing or whitewashing something so primal and basic as the principles one is introduced to as a child is a scientific endeavor in itself that I think needs to be addressed also from a philosophical standpoint, because even science needs clear cut, reality based direction guiding the morals and ethical standard on which the field operates.