Why do those who mock creationism not even bother to find out what creationists believe, and why they believe?

Their minds are made up and cannot be confused with facts. The main criticism of creation that I read consists of namecalling, which is on about a sixth grade level of debate.

Who in their right mind can logically prove that science existed before the world began? What scientist has disproved one word of scripture?

The FACT is that science can be defined as man's discovery of God's wonders, and neither Stephen Hawking nor Richard Dawkins can answer the questions God asked of Job in Job chapter 38; here's a FEW:

Job 38:31 Can you arrange stars in groups such as Orion and the Pleiades?

Job 38:32 Do you control the stars or set in place the Big Dipper and the Little Dipper?

Job 38:33 Do you know the laws that govern the heavens, and can you make them rule the earth?

In Christ,

John the Baptist

Flaws in “Scientific Creationism”

From the testimony given in the trial, it is manifest that the scientific evidence for creation was not really presented in clear confrontation with evolution. Instead, it was lost to sight in clashes over side issues, particularly two tenets of creationism that had been written into the law:

1. That creation took place only a few thousand years ago.

2. That all geologic strata were formed by the Biblical Deluge.

Neither of these dogmas is really crucial to the central question of whether living things were created or not. They are merely doctrines held by the members of a few churches, notably the Seventh-Day Adventists, who form the core of the group that sponsored the law. When these sectarian beliefs were written into the law as something that must be taught in public schools, that law was foredoomed to be declared unconstitutional.

Creationist Doctrines Not Biblical

But does the legal defeat of scientific creationism, as this movement is known, reflect unfavorably on the Bible? Are the doctrines of recent creation and a diluvial origin of geologic strata found in God’s Word?

An informed Bible student would answer, No. While the Bible clearly states that the heavens and the earth and everything in them were created by God, it does not say when those things were created. Most of the defense witnesses were shackled by the religious dogma that the six creative days in Genesis were all encompassed in a period of 144 hours. This harks back to an erroneous fundamentalist teaching that was not challenged by the science of the 17th century, but that is no longer tenable in the light of present knowledge. The Bible itself does not set any such time limit on the days of creation.

The first verse of Genesis simply says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” If we take this to mean the creation of the starry heavens, the galaxies, and the solar system of which the earth is a part, we are talking about events that preceded the first creative day. The description of the earth’s condition in verse 2 also precedes the first day. Not until verses 3 to 5 do we enter upon the activity of the first day of creation.

So no matter how long the days might prove to be, verses 1 and 2 describe things already accomplished, and they fall outside any time frame encompassing the creative days. If geologists want to say that the earth is 4 billion years old, or astronomers want to make the universe 20 billion years old, the Bible student has no quarrel with them. The Bible simply does not indicate the time of those events.

The next point to note is that the word “day” is used in many different senses in the Bible. It does not always mean a 24-hour period. Sometimes it means only the hours of sunlight, that is, 12, more or less. Sometimes it stands for a year. Sometimes it means the years during a certain generation. In several references a day is 1,000 years, and in some even longer. No doubt the days in Genesis chapter 1 were very much longer. But the Bible does not there say how long they were.

So all the argument in the Little Rock trial about the recency of creation and the attention it received in the news media were entirely extraneous to the question of whether man was created or evolved. The time of creation is not the same as the fact of creation. The two should not have been confused.

With the basic point established that the Bible text does not conflict with scientific theories about the age of the universe, we may also leave open the question of the age and origin of geologic strata. The Bible says nothing at all about the formation of sedimentary layers, whether at the time of the Flood or earlier. All the voluminous writings of creationists on this subject, which came under critical examination in the trial, have been motivated by the desire to reconcile the existence of the geologic column and its fossils, dinosaurs and all, with their claim for a 6- to 10-thousand-year age of the earth. If this claim is invalid, all the rest of the argument is beside the point.

Science Supports Creation

As readers of Awake! know, there is a wealth of scientific evidence for creation. The weight of such evidence has moved many leading scientists of the 20th century to speak publicly of creation and a Creator. Among these have been William T. Kelvin, Dmitri Mendeleev, Robert A. Millikan, Arthur H. Compton, Paul Dirac, George Gamov, Warren Weaver and Wernher von Braun, to name some.

Cosmological arguments for creation have been mustered by Robert Jastrow in his book God and the Astronomers. Speaking of the big bang theory of the origin of the universe, many scientists have freely used the word “creation.” Even scientists whose personal predilections are against the idea of creation reluctantly confess that the convincing nature of the evidence leaves them wondering.

The Bible Versus Evolution

To get the issue between creation and evolution in clear focus, we must strip away the fuzzy shroud of dogma carried over from 17th-century religion. Then let us compare, point by point, what the Bible says with what evolutionists teach and see which agrees with established facts.

First, the Bible says that God is the source of life. (Ps. 36:9) Life did not arise and cannot arise spontaneously from lifeless material. This is in complete agreement with scientific laws and experimental tests. The laws of statistics, the law of entropy, calculations from thermodynamics and kinetics all converge on the conclusion that spontaneous generation of life cannot occur. Older reports of spontaneous generation are given no credence since the experiments of Pasteur. In controlled experiments, it just does not happen. Examination of soil from the moon and chemical tests on the surface of Mars verify that life has not arisen on those planets.

Secondly, the Bible says that every living thing brings forth its own kind of offspring. (Genesis 1:11, 21, 24) Neither the evidence from paleontology nor experiments in breeding or mutation have ever been shown to refute this principle. Fossil remains from ancient geologic strata of species that are still alive are identical with present-day forms. Wide diversity within a given kind may appear both in nature and in breeding experiments, but in no case does it ever pass beyond the limits to produce a new kind.

Thirdly, with respect to man the Bible discloses the time of his beginning, about 6,000 years ago. (Plants and animals have been here much longer.) With this date history and archaeology are in close agreement. Claims for older human fossils by evolutionists are subject to dispute and do not disprove the Bible record.

Hi,

I believe that we are looked down upon for the simple fact that we put our faith in God.

What they (secular humanistic thinkers) fail to realize, is that some of us have deep backgrounds in science, and we see no reason to doubt that we (all life) are created beings, and this includes the most complex all the way down to the lowest. I too have argued for years that only so much information is contained in an organisms genes, and it can only function within the framwork of it's coding. I don't debate that there are changes, but these changes are dictated by the limits of the genetic code available. Output can never exceed the input of data available.

Seems that around 90% of "No God" attacks fail to initiate genuine exchange of thoughts and beliefs because they cannot recognise the prime rule of debate,if that is what they call it.That is to agree terms of reference. They invariably approach with insulting put-downs in the preamble to their question.

Result alienation from the word "GO" with the old "Mexican Standoff".

Even the literary grandees use abuse,slanging matches and denigration( ad homini) to try and intimidate their perceived adversary.The oldest ploy in debate even in Parliament.

It simply alienates and entrenches both sides as it fails to respect the one they would seek to learn from.It is important therefore to accept terms of reference and use a level playing field in terms of what they call Logic or science. Both these terms are highly subjective , no matter how objective

are the short term goals.

The most glaring mistake is to limit science .

One side claims science or scientists are the final or most reliable arbiter.The other says there is no limit to science as determined by materialist concepts.

We simply believe some things are "miraculous"..inexplicable from our level of knowledge.

If one side says miracles are unprovable they may be right or wrong.However to extend science beyond our limited material level opens the possibilities infinitely.

So if materialists argue against spiritual realities then there is bound to be deadlock.End of discussion.

What you will find is that those believing science goes beyond our material level into the spiritual will quite readily believe in miracles.

So again human conversation is stunted if the acceptance of spiritual nature is denied till proved by lab tests or academic papers.

As far as believing people are concerned you will find there is no limit to Science if such is manifest from the very Author of Science and Nature.That means no Author, no discussion .

Both sides then move on. Which is where we learn to bridge gaps not drive wedges day in and day out boring everyone rigid.

They mock creationism because they are very worried about creation science, which has amassed overwhelming evidence that progressive evolution is a fraud and a disgrace to the genuine scientific method. The tactic of mocking and ridicule is simply a device to divert attention from their own faulty science. They think that all they have to do is disparage any opposition and repeat often enough and loudly enough that evolution is a scientific fact and the gullible people will not challenge it. The problem they have is that we are not all as gullible as they would wish. Their dreaded bete noir is the increasing number of highly qualified creation scientists who are systematically exposing the evolution fraud. They may find it difficult to be heard through the cochophony of secularist establishment ridicule and media bias, but with patient and sustained effort they are slowly but surely exposing the unscientific nature of the evolution story.

Ultimately the truth about the evolution scam will triumph, and this is what terrifies the secularists, social engineers and those who have spent a lifetime and staked their reputation on promoting this pseudo science.

Don't forget these so-called evolution experts who poke fun at creation science are exactly the same ilk as those who told us that the fraudulent and erroneous evidence of Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Southwest Colorado Man, Orce Man, embryonic recapitulation, Archeoraptor etc. were incontravertable evidence of progressive evolution.

We are still awaiting apologies from them for misleading the world with fraudulent and faulty science presented as scientific fact. Please don't hold your breath. What is even worse, is that they are still at it, they continue to regularly present unproven speculation and pseudo-science as fact.

http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

http://www.christianpilgrimages.co.uk/creation

http://www.sedimentology.fr/

http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode.htm

http://www.allaboutscience.org/origin-of-life-2.ht...

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates...

http://trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp

The Piltdown chicken

http://www.omniology.com/PiltdownChicken.html

The late, great Malcolm Muggeridge on evolution........

"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has. I think I spoke to you before about this age as one of the most credulous in history, and I would include evolution as an example"

I have. I've read many creationist articles, books, and websites. I've seen some of Hovind's videos. I'm absolutely appalled at how bad the science is, how freely the authors lie, and how they seem to be assuming that their intended audience is too ignorant to see the giant holes in what they're saying.

I used to think that Christians were generally honest people. That was before I started reading creationist materials. I couldn't get through a single paragraph without running into a lie.

The arguments are sometimes very clever. The author will go through a series of steps which seem to lead inevitably to the conclusion; however, one of the steps is just wrong enough or misleading enough that the result is turned backwards from what it should be. You have to be pretty well-versed in science to see the mistakes, though, and the intended audience isn't, which they know perfectly well. They're making loads of money from telling gullible people what they want to hear.

No, it's not just alternate interpretations of the same evidence. That's another lie.

I have made a systematic review of the first few chapters of Genesis and found it full of the most childishly stupid rubbish, it doesn't even stand up as a credible myth.

I have listened to what the Creationist believe and it is rubbish from beginning to end. It is not even a good fairy tale, they at least have to have some credibility to fool children.

All that Creationism is - is the attempt to cling to a (only one) translation of a work of mythology.

By the way have you bothered to read the other 60 creation myths? I think not! Here is a reference to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

For the record, I don't mock young-earth creationism because most people who believe in it are well-meaning Christians like me.

I have read tons of articles and other media from creationist ministries. They appeal to laypeople (like myself) who don't do science. The issue for us Christians is, "Who should I put my trust in?"

We should trust the scientific consensus from various fields of study to inform us about the data. We (even Christians) should not place our trust in a few scientists who are bent on a certain interpretation of scripture. Furthermore, sound exegesis of Genesis no longer supports a young-earth interpretation. In fact, our whole cosmogony being fleshed out by modern science is aligning to scripture quite nicely.

You might think that a different set of assumptions (or interpreting the facts differently) is legitimate, but sometimes the scientific facts speak for themselves. Let me illustrate:

I like to compare origins to a crime scene investigation (because scientists are investigating clues to gather evidence to form a theory). If John Doe's fingerprints are found on a murder weapon, that is a fact. Regardless of your assumptions, that fact is evidence that John Doe committed the crime. You can't simply interpret that fact differently, because you are more likely to arrive at a faulty conclusion.

That is what creation scientists do. They attempt to interpret facts differently, but the facts themselves speak volumes of evidence for evolutionary theory.

The direct answer to your question is this: Since creationism is irrelevant to scientific pursuit, it is unnecessary to find out what creationists believe. For example, why should I find out what Scientologists believe? They're beliefs are so ridiculous that mocking is understood without learning about them.

The site you mention is full of rhetoric and absolutely no evidence to support the biblical myth of creationism ............... and no evidence whatsoever to disprove any of the observed facts of evolution.