Homework Help

How does creationism scientifically support their claim that the earth is only 10,000...

user profile pic

jillyfish | Student, Undergraduate | Valedictorian

Posted April 30, 2009 at 6:59 AM via web

dislike 1 like
How does creationism scientifically support their claim that the earth is only 10,000 years old?

What genuine scientific evidence can creationists provide to support their Young Earth Creation theory?

How do they disprove all the contradicting theories created by generations of scientists studying physics and chemistry (especially dating methods), geology, astronomy, cosmology, molecular biology, oceanography, genomics, linguistics, anthropology, archaeology and any other fields of science that have developed theories or made claims incompatible with the Young Earth version of world history.

Is it right that science should disregard their claims as dishonest pseudoscience?

 

23 Answers | Add Yours

user profile pic

Noelle Thompson | High School Teacher | eNotes Employee

Posted April 30, 2009 at 6:59 PM (Answer #2)

dislike 0 like

Quite honestly, until recently, I had never really heard of any scientific evidence supporting creationism.  (Not that I'm a fanatic about either theory.  I am more of the bent of mind that there are simply things on this earth we are not meant to understand until we leave it.)  A few months ago, though, I heard the first bit of evidence for creationism and, for what it's worth, it was VERY interesting to me. 

The story is kind of a funny one.  I heard Kirk Cameron interviewed on a television show and I thought it would be fun, just for kicks, to go to the website he mentioned.  (I did this knowing I was a Roman Catholic and knowing that I haven never been nor ever will be persuaded from my faith.)  Heck, I had a crush on Kirk in high school and watched Growing Pains religiously, . . . what would this hurt, eh?  Anyway, their little video had something very interesting to say (amid the pleading calls to join their church, that is).  Kirk & Friends basically said that we are always shown the typical evolution of man as evolving from almost all-fours to an upright homo sapien on two legs (the man of today).  It is usually shown as a series of seven or eight figures, each evolving to a more upright position.  Most everyone has seen this.  Well, their point was that, if evolution were true, there would be thousands, . . . even millions of fossilized specimens of every single point in the process.  But THERE ISN'T EVEN ONE.  The only one ever discovered was used to create that series of pictures, . . . and was later shown to be a hoax (so they said).  Anyway, as a basically objective observer with ties to both sides, I just thought that was VERY interesting.  The lack of ANY great numbers of fossils recording human evolution.  Interesting!!!  You can read it for yourself on http://www.wayofthemaster.com/, for what it's worth.  It would be interesting to hear your reply.

user profile pic

timbrady | College Teacher | (Level 1) Educator

Posted April 30, 2009 at 9:33 PM (Answer #3)

dislike 0 like

Believers in creationism are not interested in scientific facts, or have their own sets of facts.  I spoke with one who believed that the Grand Canyon was not formed over time, but all at once by an earthquake or some other phenomenon that made more sense to him than it did to me.  The point is that their faith based knowledge is more important to them than scientific based evidence, and no amount of discussion will change that.  As long as they live according to their beliefs, I imagine that it's fine.

user profile pic

elfgirl | Student, Undergraduate | Salutatorian

Posted May 1, 2009 at 1:16 AM (Answer #4)

dislike 0 like

A few months ago, I heard the first bit of evidence for creationism... their little video had something very interesting to say (amid the pleading calls to join their church)...   Well, their point was that, if evolution were true, there would be thousands, even millions of fossilized specimens of every single point in the process [of human evolution].  But THERE ISN'T EVEN ONE. by ms-charleston-yawp

*sigh*

Ms Yawp? Would you go to a priest for root canal surgery? No, you wouldn't. So why go to a priest for anthropology? Especially on a questionable website. Come on!

Your experience is tragically common. You have been the victim of a lie. Their claim is a lie. Of course there are fossils showing human development. What your charlatan website was banking on is that you wouldn't bother to check their claims. And they were right.

The link below is a list of the fossils those snake oil salesmen told you didn't exist.  Hundreds of beautiful fossils from the last 4,000,000,000 years showing the various stages of evolution of Homo Sapiens. And they all have links to very reputable research projects...

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

Please check out this link to the adorable Lucy. She's an early hominid from 3.2 million years ago. She is famous because her skeleton is a textbook example of an early human ancestor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)

Creationist Science is based on lies.

user profile pic

elfgirl | Student, Undergraduate | Salutatorian

Posted May 1, 2009 at 1:57 AM (Answer #5)

dislike 0 like

Minor error correction. I appear to have written "4,000,000,000 years" in the post above.  Of course, as we are talking about the evolution of hominids, I should have written "4,000,000 years" . I may be a Homo Sapien, but sometimes I ain't so sapien, if you follow me. :-)

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted May 1, 2009 at 6:26 AM (Answer #6)

dislike 0 like

hmmm... that 'Lucy' link in Post No.4 is not working. The final bracket is not 'live'.. I'll try to set it up again below...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)

I would agree with Elfgirl anyone claiming there are no fossils which show pre-human hominids is simply lying. Most 'scientists' who 'teach' Creationism are deliberately misleading about their scientific distortions. What they parade as science is full of impossibilities that they gloss over. They have been caught out lying many times.

In 2005 the Supreme Court ruled on 'Intelligent Design' (ID), and said...

ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.

and...

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.

Creationist scientists NEVER publically debate with other scientists. Not Ever. Despite 100s of invitations. Ask yourself why. They know they would get massacred.

A very entertaining and educational book for lay people on the politics and scientific distortions of Creationism is 'Telling Lies For God' by the geologist Ian Plimer.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted May 1, 2009 at 8:31 AM (Answer #7)

dislike 0 like

I have just have a little thought that I'd like to share,

I think it would be more relevant to classify Creation Scientists as Politicians rather than Scientists. Their actions and objectives have much more in common with politics than science.

user profile pic

Noelle Thompson | High School Teacher | eNotes Employee

Posted May 1, 2009 at 9:31 AM (Answer #8)

dislike 0 like

Elfgirl, . . . a victim of a lie?!?  Hahahahaha!!!  At what point in my post, did you see that I actually "believed" what I heard on the website?!? 

All I said was that it was "interesting."  Period

In all of my years, I had NEVER heard anyone trying to prove creationism through science up until that point.  Relaying what I have heard doesn't mean that I subscribe to it.  As I said before, I am more of the bent of mind that there are simply things on this earth we are not meant to understand (until we leave it).  I absolutely refuse to pick sides. 

There is no need for abrasion, as the early years of college life tends to breed.  For the record, your answer is just as "interesting" to me. 

user profile pic

Noelle Thompson | High School Teacher | eNotes Employee

Posted May 1, 2009 at 10:04 AM (Answer #9)

dislike 0 like

And, frizzyperm, I absolutely agree with your post #7.  Christian or not, there is NO denying that!  Ha!

user profile pic

hi1954 | Teacher | (Level 1) Associate Educator

Posted May 1, 2009 at 12:11 PM (Answer #10)

dislike 0 like

Everything all of you have said is interesting and excellent.  Let's look a little more closely at some of it.

We don't know the age of the universe or our planet, but it seems obvious it's very ancient.  We don't know anything for sure prior to about 6500 BC, but we can make inferences based on geology, etc. and about the age of the universe through a variety of techniques developed by scientists.  But these do not nail down anything definitively- we just believe these are good estimates based on what we do know.

As far as hominid fossils go, if you look closely into this field you will find that about half of the scientists who have examined every fossil say it is a hominid.  About half say each is a fossil of ape bones.  Even "Lucy" is believed by about half the scientists who have examined it to be the remains of an extinct type of chimpanzee.  We still don't know FOR SURE, which is the eventual aim of all this research.  We should keep in mind Piltdown Man, considered absolute proof of evolution for over sixty years until one scientist noted the fossil was a pig's tooth.

As for geology, the "Geologic Column" is fascinating as a theory, but it does not actually exist anywhere in the world.  You can find sites where you can follow the Cambrian Period to the next, etc., but there is nowhere at which the entire Column is accurate.  There are sites everywhere in which these layers are in completely different order or many are nonexistent, and these cannot be accounted for by earth movement and other normal factors.  The fact that academic geologists usually say these are all "anomolies" and yet their Column does not actually exist seems to put theory above fact.  I encourage you to check out the geologic researches at Mt. St. Helens, which show enormous holes in many of geology's current theories, and which are carried out by mainstream scientists.

The theory of evolution does not state simply that species change, change form, that genetics and mutation are involved, and that the process is driven by natural selection.  All those things are proven and quite true, but the theory of evolution does not stop there.  Evolution is a complete theory of change, and states that all things in the universe (everything, no exceptions, stars, planets, species, human languages, literally EVERYTHING) change in three ways:

1. from more random to less random;

2) from less integrated to more;

3) from less complex to more complex.

Now, we know that species change, and we know a great deal about how and why.  But everything we know about biology, genetics, somatic mutation, aging, and all the physical processes of the universe tells us that everything changes in the opposite manner from the theory.  Perhaps it's time to adjust the theory, or come up with a new term?  We could just use the term "evolution" in its popular sense, synonymous with the word "change."  Then the theory of evolution would be correct.  As it stands now, it is seriously flawed.

I won't even start on the theory of biogenesis, which is central to the current theory of evolution.  I'll just say that everything we know tells us it is impossible for something alive to "evolve" from something not alive, and that no theory ever expounded for biogenesis has any support.  We've been reduced to imagining that "life" came to earth from somewhere else, on a comet or something, with no proof.  There are, if you look, hundreds of books out there by scientists (many not Christian, some are atheists) who use nothing but hard science to disprove the theories of evolution and biogenesis.  You're all intelligent people, you can find these.

We must find an alternative theory if we want to keep on the track of the truth.  Either we need to, as above, restate the theories or come up with something new.  That's science-  theories come and go as we learn more.  It is unscientific to be emotionally attached to Creationism; it is as unscientific to be emotionally attached  (and poltically and financially) to evolutionary theory as it now exists.  We need to remove politics from both religion and science, but given human nature that's not going to happen.

user profile pic

marilynn07 | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Associate Educator

Posted May 1, 2009 at 4:41 PM (Answer #11)

dislike 0 like

Believers in creationism are not interested in scientific facts, or have their own sets of facts.  I spoke with one who believed that the Grand Canyon was not formed over time, but all at once by an earthquake or some other phenomenon that made more sense to him than it did to me.  The point is that their faith based knowledge is more important to them than scientific based evidence, and no amount of discussion will change that.  As long as they live according to their beliefs, I imagine that it's fine.

  There is evidence that the Grand Canyon formed relatively quickly in either an Ice Dam failure or a Lava Dam failure. Some sections of the Grand Canyon may not be more than 700,000 years old.

There is a great deal of speculation regarding the formation of the Grand Canyon.  There is evidence of  "scouring"  on the walls of the canyon which typically occurs during "great floods". (http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/scabland.html)

As an interesting aside, the fossilized trees found in the Painted Desert and Petrified Forest National Park do not have roots that are part of that "flora" system.  The trees were washed into that area from somewhere else. All of the tree roots were broken off.  I learned this on a visit to the location from one of the park rangers. (http://www.petrified.forest.national-park.com/info.htm)

Another interesting aside is the recent eruption of Mt. St. Helens and the immediate flooding of Spirit Lake. One can see from the way the logs have begun to fall apart and drop down into the bottom of the lake that it is quickly possible that coal and other fossil fuels were buried rather quickly in the aftermath of the cataclysmic events post-eruption.   This might account for the problems found by geologists in the geologic layers of the earth.  Creationists say that the layers formed in Spirit Lake after the eruption of Mt. St. Helens occurred over days rather than over years.  They claim that Mt. St. Helens would serve as a model for "the Great Flood" of Noah's time. (http://www.olywa.net/radu/valerie/mshduring.html)

The point is that if we weren't there at the time, we can't prove how a thing was made unless we can create a model or a similar cataclysmic event that mimics something from the past.

user profile pic

jillyfish | Student, Undergraduate | Valedictorian

Posted May 7, 2009 at 8:06 AM (Answer #12)

dislike 0 like

We don't know anything for sure prior to about 6500 BC, but we can make inferences based on geology, etc. and about the age of the universe through a variety of techniques developed by scientists.  But these do not nail down anything definitively- we just believe these are good estimates based on what we do know. Hi1954

oh what's life for if not for enjoying yourself? Come on then Hi1954, why can't we be sure about anything before 6,500 years? Why are all the dozens of different methods and indicators of an ancient universe unreliable?

the "Geologic Column" is fascinating as a theory, but it does not actually exist anywhere in the world. 

Would you care to back up your fascinating claim that modern geology doesn't exist? 

There are, if you look, hundreds of books out there by scientists (many not Christian, some are atheists) who use nothing but hard science to disprove the theories of evolution and biogenesis. You're all intelligent people, you can find these. Hi1954

Sorry, but I'm not intelligent, I need assistance, would you care to name them please? Either that or explain this 'hard science' that disproves evolution.

user profile pic

enotechris | College Teacher | (Level 2) Senior Educator

Posted May 7, 2009 at 10:02 AM (Answer #13)

dislike 0 like

Politics has sadly always been influencing both science and religion.  Perhaps the most commonly recognized controversy was with Galileo and the Church.  Facts may change; Truths do not.  We live in an expanding Universe (anyone debating that?) and that implies certain physical laws.  In whatever system of facts we observe and choose to define our sense of existence,  and the more consistent those facts are with each other, the clearer our understanding and knowledge.  These may shift, but no new system can be valid if it does not consistently incorporate the old system, either by extending it or explaining its anomalies.  Physics has undergone 2 revolutions in 400 years -- Newton was right, until Einstein proved him wrong.  But Newton is still right at "normal" speeds.

If there are religious objections to science, so be it.  But those religious objections cannot dismiss science without proof.  Claiming faith is not evidence in a scientific model.

The further we wander from being objective, the more we attempt to camouflage and pass off political agendas as verifiable scientific fact, masquerading as intelligent thought, the more impassioned we insist "facts" be accepted alongside their proven brethren without critical analysis and consistent proof, the quicker we run down the road to the Dark Ages.

How many angels dance on the head of a pin?

Whatever the answer, it's not science.

user profile pic

hi1954 | Teacher | (Level 1) Associate Educator

Posted May 7, 2009 at 10:44 PM (Answer #14)

dislike 0 like

Well, about 6500 years ago is as far as we have human observations recorded.  Before that we may make good guesses, but... Look at neolithic cave paintings. We don't really know for certain why they were done or what they were for. Art, amusement, magic, religion? But we can extrapolate from what we know of primitive cultures discovered during the historic period. Likewise we can use what we know of gamma radiation, x-rays, various light spectra, etc. to study things we don't know about the universe. I never said they were unreliable. We're pretty sure about the Big Bang. We can even estimate (!) when, although our estimate changes as we learn more. The how exactly this came about and the why we have no clue.  But that is what science is about- to try to find out everything.

I did not say modern geology doesn't exist, I studied it in college, I have three friends who are geologists. But the idealized Geo. Column as it exists in textbooks, with each layer in its exact order and every layer from bottom to top in a complete order as in the book, simply has never been found.  One of my friends is a professor, one works for Union Carbide and one for Royal Dutch Shell.  They've all told me that- so did my professor back in the Jurassic when I was a sophomore.

And please don't try to convince me you're not smart, I've been around highly intelligent people my whole life. I know the warning signs! Here's a few books to start with. Some are pro-evolution; they still haven't convinced me but I appreciate their clarity about the general problems and their forthrightness in addressing them. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to find plenty more on your own. If you don't read the languages they are available in translations (or they were).

Collin Patterson, the Listener ;

Salet, Hasard et al, Certitude: le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle;

Stephen Jay Gould, the Panda's Thumb;

H. Nielson, Synthetische Artbilding.



user profile pic

jillyfish | Student, Undergraduate | Valedictorian

Posted May 8, 2009 at 1:18 AM (Answer #15)

dislike 0 like

Before [6500 y.o.] we may make good guesses. Hi1954

guesses, shmesses 

Radio

Metric

Dating

You mentioned books by, "scientists who use nothing but hard science to disprove the theories of evolution". I asked for names, you gave... 

  1. Colin Patterson, the Listener
  2. Salet, Hasard et al, Certitude: le Transformisme...
  3. Stephen Jay Gould, the Panda's Thumb;
  4. H. Nielson, Synthetische...
  5. Luther Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma.

1. CP supports evolution

2. In French...

3. S J Gould supports evolution

4. In German...

So we are left with

5. Luther Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma.

Now, dear old LS is a creationist snake-oil merchant. He deliberately twists non-creationist scientist's work to pretend they are creationists, including Colin Patterson. CP gave a talk where he posed some "just suppose" rhetorical questions. LS grabbed them out of context, then lied that CP had smashed evolution...

"I was naive and foolish: the talk was taped by a creationist who passed the tape to Luther Sunderland...  I asked Sunderland to stop circulating the transcipt, but of course to no effect... I was putting a case for discussion, off the record, and was speaking only about systematics... In short his [Sunderland's] article does not fairly represent my views."  Letter from CP to Steven W. Binkley, June 17, 1982

LS is a cheat and a liar, I hope you weren't duped by his vile behaviour? So, sadly, your list is light on 'hard science which disproves evolution'.

user profile pic

hi1954 | Teacher | (Level 1) Associate Educator

Posted May 8, 2009 at 4:18 AM (Answer #16)

dislike 0 like

I didn't put Sunderland on the list of books for you, look at the post. Yeah, you have to be careful with him, and I didn't think you were qualified to tiptoe through that minefield.  The German and French books are available in translation.

I didn't give you an extensive list. Do you really want to jump right into the really hardcore science stuff? You don't really seem ready for it. You seem to be ignoring everything I actually say and responding to something in your own head. Good luck with that.

user profile pic

dancer7 | Student, Undergraduate | Honors

Posted May 11, 2009 at 7:51 AM (Answer #18)

dislike 0 like

To highlight the lengths creationists will go to fool you, look at this site,

http://creationwiki.org/DNA

This site is step up to look ALMOST EXACTLY LIKE WIKIPEDIA. If you are not paying close attention, you think you are reading a normal wiki page. But it is not wiki. It is a huge dummy site only pushing creation 'science'. And there is one major difference... you are not allowed to contribute. If you sign up and add anything that questions their theories, they remove it and ban you instantly.

Creationwiki, like all creation portals, is not interested in discussion. Creationists do not like discussion with scientists. They only want to confuse unscientific people with pseudo-science.

It is an interesting question why people who claim to be Christians seem more than happy to lie, cheat and mislead, but that is what they do. Their only aim is to convince non-scientists that there is 'doubt' and 'controversy' within science regarding evolution (and other science that contradicts The Bible). But within the scientific community and academia the level of support for evolution is essentially universal, whereas support for biblically-literal accounts or other creationist alternatives is very small among scientists, and virtually nonexistent among those in the relevant fields.

There is no controversy within Science. The only controversy is the immoral behaviour of creationist politicians. Don't be fooled.

user profile pic

branbran | Student, College Freshman | eNotes Newbie

Posted May 18, 2009 at 1:02 PM (Answer #19)

dislike 0 like
How does creationism scientifically support their claim that the earth is only 10,000 years old?

What genuine scientific evidence can creationists provide to support their Young Earth Creation theory?

How do they disprove all the contradicting theories created by generations of scientists studying physics and chemistry (especially dating methods), geology, astronomy, cosmology, molecular biology, oceanography, genomics, linguistics, anthropology, archaeology and any other fields of science that have developed theories or made claims incompatible with the Young Earth version of world history.

Is it right that science should disregard their claims as dishonest pseudoscience?

 

Read the Bible. thats enough evidence.

user profile pic

dancer7 | Student, Undergraduate | Honors

Posted May 19, 2009 at 7:34 AM (Answer #20)

dislike 0 like

"Read the Bible. thats enough evidence." Posted by branbran on May 18, 2009.

What a brilliant circular false argument: The Bible's the truth because it is.

Is it any wonder that people find it hard to discuss religion with fundamentalists when they have such intractable, illogical determination to not even begin to consider the possibility that it's just an old book of stories!

you need the Bible to survive in the world we live in today. Posted by branbran

65% of the world's population aren't Christians, they seem to survive perfectly well.

Non-believer should at least give christianity a chance because i promise you, you wont regret it. Posted by branbran

I have tried it, for three years when I was younger, and with a turly sincere heart. I do regret it a little. I was living a delusion and all my love for Jesus was unrequited. So your promise is a very bold and rather empty one.

 

user profile pic

branbran | Student, College Freshman | eNotes Newbie

Posted May 19, 2009 at 8:48 AM (Answer #21)

dislike 0 like

"Read the Bible. thats enough evidence." Posted by branbran on May 18, 2009.

What a brilliant circular false argument: The Bible's the truth because it is.

Is it any wonder that people find it hard to discuss religion with fundamentalists when they have such intractable, illogical determination to not even begin to consider the possibility that it's just an old book of stories!

you need the Bible to survive in the world we live in today. Posted by branbran

65% of the world's population aren't Christians, they seem to survive perfectly well.

Non-believer should at least give christianity a chance because i promise you, you wont regret it. Posted by branbran

I have tried it, for three years when I was younger, and with a turly sincere heart. I do regret it a little. I was living a delusion and all my love for Jesus was unrequited. So your promise is a very bold and rather empty one.

 

Actually we do need the Bible. It was made for a purpose. It gives us directions and rules.

65% of the world's population aren't Christians, they seem to survive perfectly well. posted by dancer7.

What does it mean by perfectly well? Like killing people, raping woman, selling drugs,commiting adultery . O yeah society is surving real well.

all my love for Jesus was unrequited. posted by dancer7

thats whats wrong with people today. They want instant gratification. Well im sorry people, you have to be patient. God doesnt always answer your prayers right away for certain reasons. And it sounds to me that you were not truly sincere. I think that you didnt want to fully surrender yourself to God. and make such a big decision because its not the easiest thing to do and people these days are lazy. They dont want to abide by rules. Thaey want to do their own thing. They dont want to give up watching their precious tv shows like desperate house wives or their music which half of it today is about sex, drugs, and violence.

user profile pic

dancer7 | Student, Undergraduate | Honors

Posted May 19, 2009 at 11:26 AM (Answer #22)

dislike 0 like

"65% of the world's population aren't Christians, they seem to survive perfectly well." Dancer7 

"What does it mean by perfectly well? Like killing people, raping woman, selling drugs,commiting adultery . O yeah society is surving real well." Bran bran

You've implied that non-christians kill, rape, sell drugs etc and from that, implied that Christians don't. I could now have a LOT of fun highlighting the error in your argument, but I'll go easy on you, cos you're young.

Being Christian gives you absolutely no right to claim moral superiority over the rest of the world. You remember that nice Mr. George W Bush? He's a committed Christian, isn't he? And American Christians voted him into the Whitehouse. He lied to the world so he could start a war that didn't need to happen and resulted in the illegal deaths of possibly half a million people. And then, afterwards, American Christians voted him into the Whitehouse for a second time. So, it seems, American Christians are no better than the other people in the world.

Where was Jesus's love when that war started?

ps Your guess at why I quit the chruch is very judgemental (and wrong). Love of God is different from Church Rules. You are too young to be angry about other people's 'sin' and the evils of the world. Go out and enjoy the beauty of life and the joy of love. Be happy and stop judging. Be good, not angry. Religious anger is a terrible and dangerous thing, avoid it.

user profile pic

branbran | Student, College Freshman | eNotes Newbie

Posted May 19, 2009 at 11:46 AM (Answer #23)

dislike 0 like

"65% of the world's population aren't Christians, they seem to survive perfectly well." Dancer7 

"What does it mean by perfectly well? Like killing people, raping woman, selling drugs,commiting adultery . O yeah society is surving real well." Bran bran

You've implied that non-christians kill, rape, sell drugs etc and from that, implied that Christians don't. I could now have a LOT of fun highlighting the error in your argument, but I'll go easy on you, cos you're young.

Being Christian gives you absolutely no right to claim moral superiority over the rest of the world. You remember that nice Mr. George W Bush? He's a committed Christian, isn't he? And American Christians voted him into the Whitehouse. He lied to the world so he could start a war that didn't need to happen and resulted in the illegal deaths of possibly half a million people. And then, afterwards, American Christians voted him into the Whitehouse for a second time. So, it seems, American Christians are no better than the other people in the world.

Where was Jesus's love when that war started?

ps Your guess at why I quit the chruch is very judgemental (and wrong). Love of God is different from Church Rules. You are too young to be angry about other people's 'sin' and the evils of the world. Go out and enjoy the beauty of life and the joy of love. Be happy and stop judging. Be good, not angry. Religious anger is a terrible and dangerous thing, avoid it.

i am not implying that Christians are perfect. The George W. Bush thing is a whole other argument. And i think we needed the war to try to restore order over there, but i do agree he was wrong if he was trying to make this world a peaceful place because there is no way that is going to happen. It even says that in the Bible. Im sorry i judged you, it was wrong of me .I would like to say though as a  Christian it is my job to be a follower of Christ and teach people about the word. I dont think that you are ever too young to be angry about other people's 'sin' and the evils of the world. and its not that im angry, its that i know the consequences of sin. and even if people dont believe in it im 100% sure thatwhat i believe in is right, so im trying to help others out who are not familiar with this kind of stuff. and if im not 100% sure about something i ask my pastor and read the Bible for answers. i know that not everyone is going to make that commitment to the Lord, but im going to try my hardest to let as many people as i can know about Christ and hear His Word.

user profile pic

sagesource | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Associate Educator

Posted May 24, 2009 at 10:38 AM (Answer #24)

dislike 0 like
How does creationism scientifically support their claim that the earth is only 10,000 years old?

What genuine scientific evidence can creationists provide to support their Young Earth Creation theory?

How do they disprove all the contradicting theories created by generations of scientists studying physics and chemistry (especially dating methods), geology, astronomy, cosmology, molecular biology, oceanography, genomics, linguistics, anthropology, archaeology and any other fields of science that have developed theories or made claims incompatible with the Young Earth version of world history.

Is it right that science should disregard their claims as dishonest pseudoscience?

 

Read the Bible. thats enough evidence.

With all due respect, I have a rather large collection of books as old as, or older than, the Bible. I have, for example, several excellent Chinese texts of the Canon of Changes, (Yijing), perhaps the oldest book in Chinese culture and one of the oldest in the world. Its contents are not consistent with the Bible. Why should I believe one old book instead of another?

Because Christians have a record of worldly success? Well, so does China -- it's the oldest continuous civilization in the history of the world, and the source of a multitude of discoveries and inventions that have enriched human culture. It certainly doesn't look like a place that's been deprived of something essential, even though the "good word" didn't reach it for nearly a thousand years after the times of Jesus, and remains a minority and eccentric taste there.

This leads to another point. I read Classical Chinese, and have had to grapple with translation problems many times. It is impossible to completely express the meanings given in one language with the words of another, no matter how hard one tries. And yet, of all the Christians who have told me how important the Bible is, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number who have bothered to learn Hebrew and Greek to read their "sacred" texts in the original languages. I really have to doubt the sincerity of any Christian who can't be bothered to make a relatively modest effort to understand his or her "word of God" better. There are a multitude of excellent resources for anyone who wishes to learn Hebrew and New Testament Greek -- and after all, you only have to learn to read them, not to write or to speak. Why are Christians so reluctant to make this effort if the Bible is so important?

I have been told that Muslims do not really approve of the translation of the Quran into any other language than the Arabic it was written in, since that was the way Allah delivered it to humankind. If that is true, I at least have to give them points for consistency.

user profile pic

narcisus7 | Student, Undergraduate | eNotes Newbie

Posted January 22, 2010 at 8:29 AM (Answer #25)

dislike 0 like

We don't know anything for sure prior to about 6500 BC, but we can make inferences based on geology, etc. and about the age of the universe through a variety of techniques developed by scientists.  But these do not nail down anything definitively- we just believe these are good estimates based on what we do know. Hi1954

oh what's life for if not for enjoying yourself? Come on then Hi1954, why can't we be sure about anything before 6,500 years? Why are all the dozens of different methods and indicators of an ancient universe unreliable?

the "Geologic Column" is fascinating as a theory, but it does not actually exist anywhere in the world. 

Would you care to back up your fascinating claim that modern geology doesn't exist? 

There are, if you look, hundreds of books out there by scientists (many not Christian, some are atheists) who use nothing but hard science to disprove the theories of evolution and biogenesis. You're all intelligent people, you can find these. Hi1954

Sorry, but I'm not intelligent, I need assistance, would you care to name them please? Either that or explain this 'hard science' that disproves evolution.

If your looking for hard science to disprove evolution your assuming evolution is hard science. However modern investigations of natural selection tend to indicate that "evolution" happens much more quickly than previous estimates indicate. There is a species of moth's that have two particular color variations one is dark and one is light. Of the same species the dark colored moth was almost completely eradicated in Aspen forests (light colored trees), and the light colored moth has been almost completely eradicated in dark colored forests. This same instance of natural selection has been documented in other species as well. These investigations tend to favor a theory of natural selection over evolution.

Join to answer this question

Join a community of thousands of dedicated teachers and students.

Join eNotes