Recommended Posts

It seems to me, from this post, that you think there is only one train of thought in Creationism. Sorry, not so. You see there are many different types of creationists. There are the young Earth creationists, old Earth creationists, gap theory, day age, progressive creationism, intelligent design. We are not all of one mind.

The only time I take issue with the train of Creationism, is when it uses a science classroom as a station. People are entitled to their religion and philosophy -- in all it's many forms and tracks. It's not Science.

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl
Link to comment

There is no such thing as nothing as applied to matter. All the Universe is made of matter. Some is just less dense that others.

Maybe. There is the question of "dark matter" which seems to have gravity -- and mass -- but nobody knows what it is. At least, not yet.

I'm not disagreeing. I do urge caution in stating what is known.

Back to the thread:

In order for Creationism to be a valid theory -- do we not need proof that God exists?

Before we can prove God's existence -- do we not need a working definition of God?

If we say that neither faith nor scripture is proof; we don't have much to work with. IMO Creationism still works as philosophy. Just not as Science.

I suggest that there are other reasons to cling to Creationism. We might as well state the obvious.

If Genesis is not literal history; it follows that there was no literal Adam and Eve.

If there was no original Adam and Eve, there was no eating of the forbidden fruit. Sin did not enter the world and we are not born to Original Sin.

It follows that we have nothing to be saved from and no need for the sacrifice of the Christ.

This is what the Creationists are really afraid of. That their whole religion will fall apart. There are varieties of Christianity that don't depend on Genesis being literal history. These Christians tend not to be Creationists. Since the real motivation for Creationism is fear that the religion will fall apart -- we should not pretend that it is a scientific theory that is at stake. This is dishonest and foolish on the face of it.

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl
Link to comment
  • Amulet locked this topic
This topic is now closed to further replies.