Jump to content

Answers In Genesis -- Anti-science Or The Truth?


Recommended Posts

Hello Everyone,

 

I have been reading this site for a month now. This is my first post. I have not made a deconversion story yet, but this group, AiG, was the last contact with the Church and official Christianity and all that. I was an athiest long before that, about a year, but one day at college I saw this commercial that says "ABORTION, DINOSAURS, GOD, SEX, SECULAR CULTURE, AMERICA, VIRGIN BIRTH make it all make sense and come get Answers!" I thought, "Holy Shit, dinosaurs and abortion in the same sentence, I must investigate!" So I went to thier website

 

 

www.answersingenesis.org

 

Sense it was my Spring Break I decided to attend thier sermon, with my best friend from college and his girlfriend too.

 

They said the earth is 6,000 years old,

 

Having just taken a geology class I knew all the evidence that debunked thousands of years to billions of years, which took hundreds of years of obeservations to come to.

 

They said dinosaurs existed in the Garden of Eden and went extinct (maybe) after the Noah Flood and they were testimonts to sin and death, "Preaching Lizards" because the fossil record was created in the Noahic Flood. I tried to be serious but all I could think was "ZOMG RAPTOR JESUS HE WENT EXTINCT FOR YOUR SINS!!!!111!!!!1111!!!"

 

 

Anyways, it's really late and I wanted to post this and see what you guys think, browse around on thier website. You basically come to "Who are you going to trust or beileve? Mans opinions or Gods words and Truth." Damn those Men, when can't trust them with thier crazy science that says we came from living creatures instead of piles of dirt. Don't listen to Man, he only increased your standard of living thousands of time with his scientific advancements...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"ZOMG RAPTOR JESUS HE WENT EXTINCT FOR YOUR SINS!!!!111!!!!1111!!!"

:lmao: I must say I loved that comment. "Jesus went extinct..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"ZOMG RAPTOR JESUS HE WENT EXTINCT FOR YOUR SINS!!!!111!!!!1111!!!"

:lmao: I must say I loved that comment. "Jesus went extinct..."

 

 

http://raptorj.ytmnd.com/

 

http://extinctionofjesus.ytmnd.com/

 

 

Before Jesus Christ there was.... Raptor Jesus. AiG conferms this scientific fact!

 

"ZOMG RAPTOR JESUS HE WENT EXTINCT FOR YOUR SINS!!!!111!!!!1111!!!"

:lmao: I must say I loved that comment. "Jesus went extinct..."

 

 

http://raptorj.ytmnd.com/

 

http://extinctionofjesus.ytmnd.com/

 

 

Before Jesus Christ there was.... Raptor Jesus. AiG conferms this scientific fact!

 

 

Yeah I read on another forum that the "dinosaur" bones thier palentologist claimed to find in an earlier part of the fossil record where in fact... mammoth bones! Right where they were supposed to be. Except they never mentioned that.

 

I want to join the Church of Latter Day Dinosaurs!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They said the earth is 6,000 years old

 

 

if this is correct, then all science is garbage. i am very much a literalist, and even i don't buy into that, they must be basing it on the many family lineages in the bible. i thought most believed is was estimated to be around 10,000 years. even so its not correct. I am currently working on a write up in about the same manner, but it will make a lot more sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might want to check out No Answers In Genesis - a fine site somewhat dedicated to aig specifically :fdevil:

 

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/cre_is_..._alt_to_evo.htm

 

I'm reading this right now in the feedback section. It's funny how people equate evolution with fantasy,myths, religions, "SUTFF D'ONT COME FORM NOT0ITNG!", evolution is a religion that denies truth, logic, and science.

 

Read the Bible, it says Man was created from dust, women was created with a rib-bone from a man, with dust. And all of this with the Breath of Life. So for someone, primodial soup, and life from non-living minerals is just crazy psuedo-science, life from dust is perfectlly real science. Life from life is psuedo-science. Life from dust is real science. :eek:

 

Creationist say "repeat evolution in a laboratory, because that's real science" I say "take out my rib and make me a wife, according to the Bible it can be done and if it can be done in this world and in this universe and in this existence, it can be repeated."

 

I can't make this make sense without my head spotaneously compusting. I can't believe people are still arguing about this.

 

Theory of evolution has holes in it... sure, but that's why scientists perform experiments and make observations to find the truth. At least they will until burned at the stake for being a witch/warlock.

 

 

 

They said the earth is 6,000 years old

 

 

if this is correct, then all science is garbage. i am very much a literalist, and even i don't buy into that, they must be basing it on the many family lineages in the bible. i thought most believed is was estimated to be around 10,000 years. even so its not correct. I am currently working on a write up in about the same manner, but it will make a lot more sense.

 

 

Yeah I don't even see the point of science the way AiG presents it. It's kind of like, whats the point of even having science? God did it? You see birds? God made them. Trees? God made that too. Can we cure AIDS? God made it, or rather gave us the option to make it so what's the point of finding a cure?

 

Who? What? Where? How? When? Why? God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God! GOD!

 

Can I find happiness? Only when you die and go to heaven.

 

 

 

 

.... Then what is the point of living?

 

With God, Science has NO POINT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They said the earth is 6,000 years old

 

 

if this is correct, then all science is garbage. i am very much a literalist, and even i don't buy into that, they must be basing it on the many family lineages in the bible. i thought most believed is was estimated to be around 10,000 years. even so its not correct. I am currently working on a write up in about the same manner, but it will make a lot more sense.

Let's see, if I remember correctly there's 54% of Americans (or maybe it was even more) that strongly believe that Earth is 6000 years old. That is was created exactly 4004 years BCE (even if the year of Jesus' birth isn't exactly established.)

 

Freeday, you have already started your path on skepticism. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't make this make sense without my head spotaneously combusting.

 

Yeah, it's hard to believe it isn't a satire. But then, we've all seen much worse shit, haven't we?... only not (much) in such an endless concentrated row.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They said the earth is 6,000 years old

 

 

if this is correct, then all science is garbage. i am very much a literalist, and even i don't buy into that, they must be basing it on the many family lineages in the bible. i thought most believed is was estimated to be around 10,000 years. even so its not correct. I am currently working on a write up in about the same manner, but it will make a lot more sense.

Let's see, if I remember correctly there's 54% of Americans (or maybe it was even more) that strongly believe that Earth is 6000 years old. That is was created exactly 4004 years BCE (even if the year of Jesus' birth isn't exactly established.)

 

Freeday, you have already started your path on skepticism. ;)

I agree, the path to skepticism has begun! Now add to this, if evolution is false, then all science is also garbage considering how pervasive a theory it is in all of science. We're almost there.... one more step to go... just say it... "Theology isn't science. Theology shouldn't pretend to be science.".... :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've learned a new phrase regarding science the other day.

 

Science is by definition Ontological Naturalistic. Meaning, it should not have, and would not require (Occam's razor) a supernatural explanation to any of the phenomenon it tries to explain.

 

As soon as a supernatural explanation is entered into the concept, then it's faith and not science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly,

 

 

No one said you have to be an athiest in your personal life to be a scientist, but in research it is almost or is a requirement.

 

Creationism, especially AiG shows how people are so willingly able to bend reality to a means to thier end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LightBearerd, I'm going to disagree just a little slightly bit with what you said. :)

 

You don't have to be an Atheist to do research or do science, but you do have to be very skeptical to your own faith, or maybe to research within the realm or framework of things that you don't believe God is involved in.

 

Like meterology, or being deists doing astronomy or cosmology should be any problems either, or pagan and do medicine.

 

So faith can be a hinder, but doesn't have to be. It's a matter of how honest a person is and how much skepticism they can maintain.

 

There are also plenty of Christian scientists in the field of evolution and cosmology that don't see it as a problem, since they read the Bible Genesis as an allegory and not as a literal history. There's no need to demand that God could not have used Big Bang and Evolution to "create" the world (even if I don't think that happened).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've learned a new phrase regarding science the other day.

 

Science is by definition Ontological Naturalistic. Meaning, it should not have, and would not require (Occam's razor) a supernatural explanation to any of the phenomenon it tries to explain.

 

As soon as a supernatural explanation is entered into the concept, then it's faith and not science.

You see, I understand that, but a question comes to my mind...what if the supernatural is only the undiscovered natural? That question in itself connotes two meanings to me. It could mean that people just ascribed the natural to the supernatural until evidence presents itself to show it was natural, like volcanoes. Or, as is meant by me, that the supernatural is an integral part of the natural. There is only division in form not in fact. I don't know if that made sense or not. Maybe it's more like a necessary part of the form, but one that can never be discovered. :shrug: I don't think science will ever be able to prove this coexistence between form and non-form. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NBBTB, you mean like the "soul" for instance? If it's not natural, then it would be metaphysical, and above natural.

 

And like you say, if something is supernatural now, if explained and understood, then it tends to become natural.

 

Science doesn't deny the possibility of anything supernatural, it is just not a component of it. When science try to explain natural things with supernatural ideas, then it can't be tested, experiemented upon, formulated or given mathematical properties etc... It basically becomes useless.

 

If science starts using supernatural things to explain nature, then where does it stops? Why not go back to drilling holes in our head to relieve headache? That's how bad it used to be. A 100% natural only science, is the only way to keep science as science.

 

No one would consider introducing fishing theory into racing car driving. They are completely different schools of thought, and have to remain as such or they won't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science doesn't deny the possibility of anything supernatural, it is just not a component of it. When science try to explain natural things with supernatural ideas, then it can't be tested, experiemented upon, formulated or given mathematical properties etc... It basically becomes useless.

"It basically becomes useless"... it becomes religion? It becomes AiG? It becomes ID theory? It becomes Pat Robertson fires Stephen Hawking?

 

If there is a natural explanation, then it isn't supernatural. So far there has been no need to say anything is beyond the natural. Walking on water is supernatural. There can be no explanation for it. It doesn't happen. It is the language of myth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if I said "it becomes useless", it was in the context of scientific discovery. A supernatural explanation doesn't help to further the cause of science and hence it's useless for science. But I don't think "faith" or "religion" in general have to be useless. Literalism, extremism and sectarian cult minded groups are dangerous, but liberal and open minded spirituality is not (IMO).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as the "supernatural" to say something is supernatural means it transcends the natural... or reality... or existence. Existence exists. If it is "outside" existence and transcends it then it doesn't exist. It's a contradiction, and contradictions can't exist. If you find one, you have faulty premises that need to be looked at.

 

 

The problem with AiG starts and ends there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They said the earth is 6,000 years old

 

 

if this is correct, then all science is garbage. i am very much a literalist, and even i don't buy into that, they must be basing it on the many family lineages in the bible. i thought most believed is was estimated to be around 10,000 years. even so its not correct. I am currently working on a write up in about the same manner, but it will make a lot more sense.

Let's see, if I remember correctly there's 54% of Americans (or maybe it was even more) that strongly believe that Earth is 6000 years old. That is was created exactly 4004 years BCE (even if the year of Jesus' birth isn't exactly established.)

 

Freeday, you have already started your path on skepticism. ;)

I agree, the path to skepticism has begun! Now add to this, if evolution is false, then all science is also garbage considering how pervasive a theory it is in all of science. We're almost there.... one more step to go... just say it... "Theology isn't science. Theology shouldn't pretend to be science.".... :grin:

 

don't get your hopes up yet. :grin: i definitely think there is a difference between theology and science. but what is wrong with using science to confirm theology? science can not prove God obviously, but i think it can lend credit to him IMO. but in the end, faith should not be relied upon to be proven by science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember when they changed their name from "Creation Science Foundation" to Answers in Genesis." I was a creationist at the time. They said that they changed their name to more accurately reflect what they did, ie: NOT science!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

don't get your hopes up yet. :grin: i definitely think there is a difference between theology and science. but what is wrong with using science to confirm theology? science can not prove God obviously, but i think it can lend credit to him IMO. but in the end, faith should not be relied upon to be proven by science.

Sure you can use science to confirm some facts or statements in some religious books. But I find it fascinating that with all the evidence for the age of the universe and the age of Earth, still more than half of Americans don't believe scientific evidence, but instead they believe an allegorical story someone wrote down some thousands years ago. And that in one of the most technical advanced societies in the world. I'm just waiting for the few guys that still believe in the geocentric system to gain popularity again, and we can forget astronomy too. Next we'll go back to drilling holes in our heads for pain relief. ;)

 

The problem is that too many religious preachers are not "holy" men. They are lying and deceiving the followers. For instance I just heard on a pod cast about this preacher, or actually theologian, going round and "debunking" evolution. And here's two fabulous comments:

 

"Evolution is not science, because it is only a theory." :lmao:

 

"Carbon dating doesn't work, because one day it say 10 million years and the next 15 million years." (C14 only works back to around 50,000 years from present time, it's not used for dating millions of years.)

 

And the churches hear these lies and many more and should "hallelujah", "praise the Lord", and they get fooled by one of their own. Jesus warned about his, and said that it would be better that someone tied a stone to this preachers neck and dumped him in a lake than he keeps on misleading the Church. Don't you agree Freeday that ID and Creationism only can get respect if they start acting honest and truthful according to God's commands? How can Jesus be the "absolute" or "ultimate" truth for the world, when his followers are lying between their teeth and demand equal time in school to lie even more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AiG... they are crazy! When my husband and I were in the liberal Christian phase, we went to a AiG conference that a local church had. It was hilarious. The fallacies and scientific misinformation in the presentation were astounding.

 

They were selling children's books with Adam and Eve on dinosaurs. :lmao:

 

Of course, my husband had to argue with one of the speakers for two hours after the conference ended... I was proud of him (he did well because he was a bio major), but slightly embarrassed. :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

don't get your hopes up yet. :grin: i definitely think there is a difference between theology and science. but what is wrong with using science to confirm theology? science can not prove God obviously, but i think it can lend credit to him IMO. but in the end, faith should not be relied upon to be proven by science.

Because you are trying to confirm it? You start with a premise that the Bible is scientifically accurate, and use science to look for confirmation to support it. Science on the other hand starts with the data, then looks for a way to explain it; then looks for a way to disprove the explanation. If the explanation cannot be disproved, then it becomes useful.

 

In other words, if you look to science to confirm thought that began with a religious idea, then the chances are high that you will be anxious to make the findings fit that preconceived conclusion, and then you are motivated to reject those who conclude otherwise or challenge your interpretation. What I just said there explains why many times you think that science is nothing more than opinion of the scientist. It is a projection on your part. It is how you would use science. It is NOT how they use it. This is why there is the scientific method = to prevent what I just described. This is why science is more reliable for determining the accuracy of the results. This is why religion is less so.

 

If good scientific practices are employed, and the consensus is that it is good science, THEN if it happens to support your religious views, I am happy for you! Anything that falls short of that then you will get an argument about bastardizing science, like the AiG gang, and I will reject the conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

don't get your hopes up yet. :grin: i definitely think there is a difference between theology and science. but what is wrong with using science to confirm theology? science can not prove God obviously, but i think it can lend credit to him IMO. but in the end, faith should not be relied upon to be proven by science.

Sure you can use science to confirm some facts or statements in some religious books. But I find it fascinating that with all the evidence for the age of the universe and the age of Earth, still more than half of Americans don't believe scientific evidence, but instead they believe an allegorical story someone wrote down some thousands years ago. And that in one of the most technical advanced societies in the world. I'm just waiting for the few guys that still believe in the geocentric system to gain popularity again, and we can forget astronomy too. Next we'll go back to drilling holes in our heads for pain relief. ;)

 

The problem is that too many religious preachers are not "holy" men. They are lying and deceiving the followers. For instance I just heard on a pod cast about this preacher, or actually theologian, going round and "debunking" evolution. And here's two fabulous comments:

 

"Evolution is not science, because it is only a theory." :lmao:

 

"Carbon dating doesn't work, because one day it say 10 million years and the next 15 million years." (C14 only works back to around 50,000 years from present time, it's not used for dating millions of years.)

 

And the churches hear these lies and many more and should "hallelujah", "praise the Lord", and they get fooled by one of their own. Jesus warned about his, and said that it would be better that someone tied a stone to this preachers neck and dumped him in a lake than he keeps on misleading the Church. Don't you agree Freeday that ID and Creationism only can get respect if they start acting honest and truthful according to God's commands? How can Jesus be the "absolute" or "ultimate" truth for the world, when his followers are lying between their teeth and demand equal time in school to lie even more?

 

i understand that there are people of despiration, that are trying to disprove ToE, but if they did some research, they would know they use the rock beds and layers to date MYA. but although they are totally pervertinc science, are they perverting the Word of God. that is what i would form my opinion of them on. i have read Genisis twice, and nowhere in it did i find a date as to how old the earth is.

 

these are what i would consider extreme literalist, they think the earth was formed in exactly 6 days. they think that only 144,000 people are going to heaven and what not. i think the point of the bible is lost when you take it that far.

 

 

 

They were selling children's books with Adam and Eve on dinosaurs. :lmao:

 

 

now that is too funny, wouldn't we be extict too if that were the case.

 

 

don't get your hopes up yet. :grin: i definitely think there is a difference between theology and science. but what is wrong with using science to confirm theology? science can not prove God obviously, but i think it can lend credit to him IMO. but in the end, faith should not be relied upon to be proven by science.

Because you are trying to confirm it? You start with a premise that the Bible is scientifically accurate, and use science to look for confirmation to support it. Science on the other hand starts with the data, then looks for a way to explain it; then looks for a way to disprove the explanation. If the explanation cannot be disproved, then it becomes useful.

 

In other words, if you look to science to confirm thought that began with a religious idea, then the chances are high that you will be anxious to make the findings fit that preconceived conclusion, and then you are motivated to reject those who conclude otherwise or challenge your interpretation. What I just said there explains why many times you think that science is nothing more than opinion of the scientist. It is a projection on your part. It is how you would use science. It is NOT how they use it. This is why there is the scientific method = to prevent what I just described. This is why science is more reliable for determining the accuracy of the results. This is why religion is less so.

 

If good scientific practices are employed, and the consensus is that it is good science, THEN if it happens to support your religious views, I am happy for you! Anything that falls short of that then you will get an argument about bastardizing science, like the AiG gang, and I will reject the conclusions.

 

i understand where you are coming from, if you start with the preconceived notion that Religion is correct, than it will skew you data; but when you look for a way to explain something and just use the explanation that cannot be disproven, doesn't that create the possibility for inaccuracies. don't get me wrong, i trust in modern day science, just not for my origins here on earth. My reasoning is based soley on my Faith, and i understand that it may differ from the next person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i understand that there are people of despiration, that are trying to disprove ToE, but if they did some research, they would know they use the rock beds and layers to date MYA. but although they are totally pervertinc science, are they perverting the Word of God. that is what i would form my opinion of them on.

So true. They pervert science and the Bible at the same time, to combine them into a twisted view.

 

You now that Young Earth followers declined for a while, and the current form started in the early 19th century by a Seventh-day Adventist, by the name George McCready Price.

 

i have read Genisis twice, and nowhere in it did i find a date as to how old the earth is.

Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland James Ussher (1581-1656) date the creation to 4004 BC based on the genalogies in the Bible.

 

 

these are what i would consider extreme literalist, they think the earth was formed in exactly 6 days. they think that only 144,000 people are going to heaven and what not. i think the point of the bible is lost when you take it that far.

What I always come back to, Philo and most likely the early Christians did NOT believe in literal 6 days creation. How can there be a "day" without the sun marking the beginning and the end of a day? And even more, how can there be a morning and an evening on a globe? Did God set a meridian rose line or something where the Genesis was measured against? How else could there be "morning" and "evening"? There's always morning and evening and day and night all the time, 24 hours a "day" on our globe. The concept in Genesis screams FLAT EARTH. (Sorry. :) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NBBTB, you mean like the "soul" for instance? If it's not natural, then it would be metaphysical, and above natural.

 

And like you say, if something is supernatural now, if explained and understood, then it tends to become natural.

 

Science doesn't deny the possibility of anything supernatural, it is just not a component of it. When science try to explain natural things with supernatural ideas, then it can't be tested, experiemented upon, formulated or given mathematical properties etc... It basically becomes useless.

 

If science starts using supernatural things to explain nature, then where does it stops? Why not go back to drilling holes in our head to relieve headache? That's how bad it used to be. A 100% natural only science, is the only way to keep science as science.

 

No one would consider introducing fishing theory into racing car driving. They are completely different schools of thought, and have to remain as such or they won't work.

OMG! No way can science study the supernatural as a separate realm. That is for the philosophers and wondererererers. :HaHa: I do think it is intertwined with what they are studying though. I think it is insane to even claim that science can do that when they base their understandings on tenative means. It would no longer be science, but unmoving faith.

 

There is nothing above natural, IMO. There is only both polarities intertwined to become the natural.

 

Back to the topic...there is supposedly a great amount of science in Genesis if the myth can be put aside.

 

Oh...I just wanted to add that what if someday scientists are able to invent an instrument that can detect the presents of ghosts? They would no longer belong to the realm of the supernatural at that time. Walking on water breaks a known law of the universe (or several known laws...unless you have floaties on your feet or you're a magician). Do spirits break any known laws or is it possible that there are laws we don't know about yet? The distinction is with what is known and what is not known. Where would that lead us if we were to 'know' that ghosts exists? What would be the ramification of that knowledge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.