Christians on /pol/: Are you creationists? If so, why?
>>69404228
Brits on pol:
>why are you autistic?
>2016
>christianity
I'm a Christian but only ironically, though I would never go so far as to pretend to be a creationist.
of course i'm not a creationist, i'm catholic not southern baptist
>>69404228
Duh, how the fuck else did things happen if god didn't do it?
Dumbass
>>69404228
ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE OK?
PRAISE KEK
Creationism is a great intelligence check. If someone says they believe it literally, you know to discount them out of hand.
>>69405620
assuming creationism means that one thinks the world was created in 7 days, and evolution isn't real
i believe that God may have caused the universe to be and decided the laws of the universe, but I don't think he interfered past that point.
Yes I am a Christian Creationist.
>>69406770
Kek! Looks like you missed the redpill and took the stupid pill instead.
>>69405471
yeah, this as well.
>>69404228
Creationism, even slightly literal, is a clear sign of spiritual retardation. Not even the Vatican pushes the idea. They have their own science division, which is surprisingly progressive.
>>69405620
This
>>69404228
Micro-evolution is natural selection, with genetic adaptation over time.
Macro-evolution is when a fish turns into a monkey over time.
I believe in creation and micro-evolution
>>69404228
Can you follow Christian philosophy and still call yourself a Christian if you don't believe in God. I can't insult my own intelligence and believe in something human beings have been doing since the dawn of time; creating gods to explain the unexplainable.
I don't know if some "being" created the universe or not, but I'm not going to be a complete fucking retard and believe some charlatans from 2000 years ago. Just not gonna happen.
Can I vote for none of the above? I don't know how we came to be and I don't think anyone else does either.
>>69404228
I'm am christian but not a creationist. Because the earth was made in 7 days but those were days to God. It's doesn't say how long a day is to him.
>>69404228
I'm Catholic, so I believe that both my faith and science can be together in harmony, at least until the niggernation attacks. But yea, I see most of the Bible, especially Genesis, as metaphorical.
>>69404228
God created the universe. Just not 6000 years ago.
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
-St Thomas Aquinas
I'm a Protestant so I'm not a creationist, I do believe in intelligent design though but doesn't have to be mutually exclusive with evolution
>>69404228
No physical entity is its own cause because all of empirical reality has a causal base. The universe is a physical entity. Ergo it could not have caused itself.
Nor is it infinitely old, because if it were infinitely old, it would be in a state of entropic heat death. It is not, so it must be finitely old. If it is finitely old, it must have had a point of beginning. If it had a point of beginning, then something must have caused it to be. However, nothing within the physical universe could have caused it to come to be, because nothing in the physical universe existed yet. So it must have had a creator. A being which is not entirely physical or contingent must be extremely powerful and extremely knowledgeable. Nothing unconscious acts except according to physical laws; therefore, the universe must have come into existence according to a conscious act.
What do you call a willful, omnipotent, omniscient being that exists metaphysically outside of time?
What do you call the act which produces the universe except an act of creation?
>>69404228
No. The majority of Genesis is religious folklore, not a historical record.
>>69406962
>le atheism
praise dawkins
>>69404228
Question for fucktards saying "I'm Christian but not creationist": why do you accept some impossible bullshit(the Resurrection, the afterlife) but some is just too far for you? I figure, fuck, if you'll go in for some of it why not all of it?
>>69408417
not being a christian creationist = atheist??
discounting thousands of other theistic religions or non creationist christian positions
>>69404228
I guess I just think of it as God being behind whatever secular theory of creation there is.
>>69404228
Yes, because in my world view the universe is a thought in the mind of God, to use an analogy. You could also say everything we are/experience is a "program". Science only takes us to the point of representing/modelling the efficiency of the "program" used to create/run the reality we experience. It does not and cannot answer why something exists in the first place, the origin/cause of our existence, the purpose we have in existing, or certain key events which are seemly outside the scope of how this program normally runs. I would consider when animals were created, each to their own "kind", and certain biblical "miracles" as events outside the program which are merely a reflection of the true nature of reality, i.e. God intervening in the nature order. We need philosophy and by extension theology to drive us in a correct understanding of who/what we are.
Creationism is the alternative to abiogenisis. There is also "intelligent design", where intelligent design could be due to explicit alien design or "seeding" live across the galaxy/universe. Intelligent design without God being the designer just pushes this explanation back another step, not that it is necessarily wrong. Abiogenisis is nonsense though and is not "scientific". There is no model or theory for how Abiogenisis could work and it is merely a hypothesis at this point, not to mention the "first cause" argument and origin of the universe itself.
Creationism does not necessitate a denial of evolution. Micro-evolution is process of genetic drift, organisms selectively moving within pre-established limits of their genetic structure over generations. Creation does not deny macro-evolution in its entirety either, it just denies it as the primary means by which the current complexity we see in life came about.
>>69408543
divinity of Jesus is far more important to most Christians than the narrative and laws of the Old Testament
not that I really believe in the resurrection or an afterlife either, but I believe in them more than atheistic ideas like integration lol
>>69408543
Prove that raising the dead is impossible
>>69408417
>Calling creationists stupid (which they are) = atheism???
Piss off!
>>69404228
Reformed Theology Southern Baptist here, I am not a creationist. The basis of the 6,000-10,000 year age of the earth is based on an early modern era attempt to approximate the age of the earth via genealogy generation counting. Creation science has tried to shoehorn their findings in that light.
I reject it as the original assumption that resulted in the number is unbiblical.
>>69407550
I find that your non standard definition of macro begs the question.
>>69406908
>>69406908
Get in here faggots, we're thwarting Soros
>>69407550
>I'm a retard who can't comprehend universally-accepted scientific theories
That's you, that is!
>>69408277
Your reasoning is good. Up till where you start wildly assigning personality and unjustified attributes like will and omniscience.
You don't have any reason to think a being exists.
Show me a 'being that is not entirely physical'
This is copypasta.tier.
if something requires another thing to act upon it for it to move or for something to happen then what ever caused the big bang would be god/creator. Thats what i think.
>>69408999
Why would we do that Italy?
No one has proven that its genuinely possible, ESPECIALLY with special saint-genie powers.
I CAN prove that its possible to fake raising the dead, especially under tribal conditions in the bronze age.
You don't think I can fool a bunch of hicks with a magic show?
>>69409524
When you factor in a "global flood" actually taking place and the effect it would have on carbon dating you can begin to see how a "young Earth" could play out. I tie together Small Earth Theory -> global flood.
"Young Earth" is by no means a necessity when interpreting the creation story. The term for "day" in the original language it was written in can also mean "age". Prior to the Sun/Moon being created (day 3 I believe), there is especially good reason to believe the "days" were not 24 hour periods.
>>69409977
>universally-accepted scientific theories
It clearly isn't universally-accepted or are you saying he isn't disagreeing with it?
>appeal to authority
>appeal to consensus
>ad hominem
>>69410856
You're either another retard or the same retard using a VPN. Either way you're still a retard. Science doesn't owe an explanation to retards like you. Just you stick to what you're good at: licking the windows at the back of the special school bus with the space for wheelchairs.
>>69412079
Nice ad homs.
>>69410014
>wildly
>unjustified
You want to be an atheist, fine, I get it. But if you accept my reasoning up to that point, then you must accept what follows or tell me why:
1) Any physical i.e., contingent entity could have caused itself to come into existence
2) Any entity which is capable of creation ex nihilo is not presumably extemely powerful
3) Any entity which is capable of creation ex nihilo is not presumably extremely knowledgeable
4) Said entity would not have needed to possess some sort of consciousness or will in order to engage in the act of creation ex nihilo
This is a contemporary cosmological argument rooted in the latest science.
Metaphysical ordering principles like thermodynamics, logic, causality have a kind of existence in reality. But I cannot "show" you thermodynamics in-itself. I cannot "show" you reason in-itself. Only its expression.
The human mind can manipulate objects of consciousness freely in defiance of physical laws. Objects of consciousness are not strictly physical. Therefore the human being is a being that is not entirely physical, although it is contingent on empirical reality for its existence and consciousness.
This is freshman-tier philosophy. Don't tell me it's over your head. That would be disingenuous and deliberately obtuse.
>>69404228
if adam and ever first man and woman, then why the belly button?
>>69412723
Ad-hominem is completely justified when dealing with literal spastics.
friendly reminder, if you are not a creationist then you are not a true Christian
>>69413239
>DURRRRRR I BELIEV ERF WAZ CRETED IN SEBBEN DAYZ BY DA WITCH DOCTER OOGGA BOOGA
Sorry, I don't speak retarded baboon.
>>69404228
God created the Heaven and the Earth.
>>69410370
Just saying.
It's called "faith" after all, so it requires a little of blind following.
Also while we can prove without dobut that Earth is older than 6000 years the same can't be said about some other miracles. Not saying that I believe it just pointing that unless something is 100% proven false there is still space for believing in it.
>>69404228
OP evolved from apes.
I think God created everything and stuff like evolution and the big bang are how our human minds perceive His work.
