A honest question to all creationists

by bohm 71 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • bohm


    I have a question regarding creation thats burning me. I dont have any clever arguments depending on what is answered, i am just curious.

    First off i want to say that i think people are free to believe whatever they want. So if somone says: "well, i dont give a rats ass about what people dig up from the ground, i have by other types of evidence come to believe 100% that the bible is true, and the bible says man was created, so thats how it is" - that would actually not be a position i would not argue with, because everyone is free to believe that. When i get into arguments, its allways when science is portrayed wrongly.

    That being said, i have often been puzzled at how evolution is argued against by some members in this forum. Arguments that i feel are very wrong are being thrown around like facts. Often when i go into details with what i feel is faulty science, I have often had insulting comments thrown my way and then the poster leves the thread (there are notable exceptions. BTS is one of them). I dont understand that position. Arent we all interested in finding the truths, and at least make sure we dont advance a line of argument that is wrong? Thats why i have desided to step back a bit and ask these questions to all creationists:

    Assuming the bible never talked about evolution or creation. It was completely neutral on the issue. Yet you knew all the arguments you do now both for and against evolution and creation. Would you then believe that the species on earth came about by an evolutionary process, or by creation?

    Second question:

    Assuming the bible never mentioned Noahs ark and the global deluge. It was completely neutral on the issue. Yet you knew all the arguments you do now both for and against a global deluge. Would you then believe that there had been a global deluge a couple of thousand years ago?

  • The Berean
    The Berean

    Everything is "evolutionary" in my vew. By that, I mean a "survival of the fittest." Jehovah's Witnesses are a prime example of a group claiming they will adapt and rise above their environment in order to live on while predicting that the majority of mankind will suffer an ignominious death ...

    As to the ark ... I think they can find it at the North Pole with Santa Claus ...

  • bohm

    hmm. that didnt generate a lot of traffic :-).

  • besty

    sometimes it happens bohm - a thread that actually makes people consider their position is not that interesting to the majority.

    i think its a great question you ask - maybe including the C word in your title doesn't help - its kinda like calling your thread "an open question for all Nazis..."

    not may people like to self-identify as creationists these days for fear of being assumed to be irrational anti-science merchants.....

    yes I know.. a bit early in the thread for a Nazi analogy - but hey....

  • villabolo

    Besty: "not may people like to self-identify as creationists these days for fear of being assumed to be irrational anti-science merchants....."

    Bohm, they refer to their belief, nowadays, as 'Intelligent Disign". So in the future you may want to address that audience as "Intelligent Designers/Creationists or refer to them as people who believe in "The Bible's account of creation".


  • bohm

    besty, villabolo: thanks for the replies!. Okay talk about a cultural gap!. I thought creationist was the POLITE way to refer to the belief man and animals were created! this is pretty embarasing, i have been saying creationist all the time i have been here without implying any insult :-(.

    So if anyone is reading this - substitute 'intelligent design believer' for creationist and have a

  • TD

    LOL. "Creationist" is perfectly fair as long as proponents of ID continue to refer to those who accept the overwhelming concensus of scientific opinion as "Evolutionists."

  • agonus

    How about "Darwinism-agnostic?"

  • HappyGuy

    I am not a Christian so I am not going to answer your questions directly since they assume a belief in the Bible, a belief that I do not have.

    I am not a creationist in the sense that most people understand that word. I don't believe the "god created the earth in 6 days" religious doctrine that some Christians have.

    I do believe, however, that there is a First Cause. The material universe came into existence at a fixed point, I think this cannot be debated, prior to the material universe, existence was pure energy, we get that from E=MC2 and solving for mass (M) we get M=E/C2. I think that this energy is sentient somehow, probably not in a way we can understand, and the material universe, its laws, the way things work, is according to some sort of design. No, I don't believe that the First Cause is "God" as depicted by the Bible and other "holy" books and religionists. I frankly don't know what the First Cause is, no one else does either.

    I do have a problem with the way most people who believe evolution talk to those of us who don't believe it. You act as if evolution is an established fact in the same way that gravity is an established fact. It is not. Evolution is a theory, an unproven theory. Yet, you speak from the assumption that evolution has been proven beyond any doubt, it has not. You assume that anyone who does not believe in evolution is somehow anti-science or anti-thinking, I am not.

    I do not believe evolution to be more than a hypothesis for a very simple reason. While there is evidence of adaptation within species, there is zero evidence of a crossing of species boundaries. There is zero evidence that members of species A mutated to the point that now we have species B. Zero. I don't care how much modification you have within species, that is not evolution, that proves nothing.

    You also have a bigger problem. Complex biological components, such as the human eye, cannot have evolved from primitive cells. Without all the sub-components, horribly complex sub-components, the eye is useless, so the eye cannot have evolved. Complex biological components, composed of complex sub-components which work together in very sophisticated ways cannot have evolved, they need all the components with all the functions the components provide or they cannot work. There is no way that these evolved.

    The blind belief in evolution has retarded our understanding of the human being, our history, our archeology, astronomy, cosmology, and a host of other subjects. The reason for this retardation is this, if one has a blind acceptance of evolution and agrees with the tenet that human beings started out as primitives and then progressed in technology, social behavior, skills, mental capacities, etc, so that "civilization" became progressively "better", then it is impossible to understand things like maps which depict Antarctica as it was before it was covered with ice, cities built in unreachable places where the stone used to build the cities was transported from quarries hundreds of miles away over impassable gorges, ravines, and peaks. Some of these cities can only be reached by expert mountain climbers or helicopter. Structures which are advanced astrological observatories, other structures which accurately depict cosmology that "modern" humans only discovered in the last 100 years, this list can go on and on. Yet, evolutionists would have us believe that the humans who lived during the time that these maps were created, and these cities and other structures were built were "primitives". I could fill up many pages with examples like this, all of these examples have been called "mysteries" by "scientists" who think they are mysteries because they accept the evolution theory as fact. If you are not biased by evolution then these things are not mysteries at all. They were built by advanced humans who knew far more about a great many things than we do.

    I don't believe evolution because I see strong evidence that humans were far more advanced in ancient times than we are today and I see no evidence that there has ever been a crossing of the species boundary by any species.

    Show me such evidence and I will consider it.

  • bohm

    TD: Hey, i allways refer to myself as an evolutionist, and a proud one is that!.

    Its a bit like when you have to address a homosexual. no matter what word you use, it allways feel slightly odd.

Share this