Creationism Propaganda for Children
- Thread starter s_lone
- Start date
I was bowled over when a good friend of mine, one of the sharpest minds I know, stated to me that evolution is bull **** and the earth was created in 7 days. I laughed, thinking he was joking. Yeah, no, totally serious. He is the one and only creationist I've ever met. he's also from the US though, where they really seem to draw some pretty hard lines in regard to religion.
ok, the guy in the green shirt and the guy with the guitar might be able to brainwash these children who are innocent and don't know anything else, but he sure can't make any headway with me. he's full of it and the scientific methods that they use to prove these things are much more realistic.
if anyone out there actually thinks that it only takes 6,000 years for a dinosaur bone to fossilize, you're really out to lunch.
Oil didn't take 6,000 years to be created.
Mountains did not take 6,000 years to just suddenly pop up into the view.
considering that they have scientific tests and machines that can measure how fast a Mountain grows.. (about 1/2 to 1/4 inch a year) can you imagine in 6,000 years how fast those mountains would have to grow in order to get to their height?
Creationist wackos would have nothing to argue with.
if anyone out there actually thinks that it only takes 6,000 years for a dinosaur bone to fossilize, you're really out to lunch.
Oil didn't take 6,000 years to be created.
Mountains did not take 6,000 years to just suddenly pop up into the view.
considering that they have scientific tests and machines that can measure how fast a Mountain grows.. (about 1/2 to 1/4 inch a year) can you imagine in 6,000 years how fast those mountains would have to grow in order to get to their height?
Creationist wackos would have nothing to argue with.
Ok,meby I'm just thick,or meby it's because I'm an existential anachronism,but why do these loonies try to jam their beliefs down everyone elses throat,their preaching peace and love,along with the real weird stuff,but they get huffy when you chace them out of your yard.
You are barking up the wrong tree, the 'day equals 1,000 years and a 1,000 years equals a day is referencing the 1,000 year period and the event called Judgment Day which follows that.
Your clinging to a falsehood that the Bible does not promote as on the morning of 'day 1' nothing had been created and by the end of that day the heavens existed and the earth had form.
The Church is responsible for teaching that error, what is wrong with your brain that assumes they have the right answer. After all they don't even follow the two Laws and that should be easier to figure out that dating a 'creation day' with the version of 'a day' that was not given until the 4th day. Day 1 ended once the earth had some rotation (doesn't have to be the same as it is today) and the sun was producing 'light'. That is what was created by the end of day which was about 4,005,000,000 years ago. A cre4ation day takes as long as it takes to progress from one stage of development to the next. Day one would have been 10 billions years long if you use the dates 14B for the start of our Heavens being what they are today and it ended about 4B yeras ago. The next 'stage' of development ended when the earth has water in two forms, vapor and liquid, Day two ended about 400M years ago and so on.
If the 'Church leaders' can't figure it out why is that holding you back? lol
The corrupt Church preaches they are to be treated that way, they don't promote that sort of responsibility for themselves, Christian Nations are the most heavily armed in the world, or hadn't you noticed, that would seem to make the a 'false Christian Nation'.
Do you have a problem calling a spade a spade?
Hmmm... the word 'computer' does not apper in the Bible. Therefore, computers don't exist, but are a figment of your imagination. 
Seriously though, whether one believes the Bible to be the word of God or not, one would think that at the very least, a believer in God would also believe He gave us minds with which to think, and created the physical world too. If so, then certainly any interpretation of the Bible which contradicted science would have to be an erroneous interpretation, otherwise the Bible would be wrong, which would mean God were wrong, and since by definition God can't be wrong, it would thus mean at the very least that the Bible is not the word of God.
I wouldn't be surprised if the kids attending that church will grow up as one of three kinds of persons:
1. Those who accept the literal translation of the Bible, and thus reject the Bible completely in favour of science,
2. Those who accept the literal interpretation of the Bible but reject science, or
3. Those who accept the Bible but reject what that church taught them about it, deciding insted on a deeper symbolic understanding of the Bible in accordance with science.
Ironically enough, tht church is likely pushing some of those children away from the Christian Faith since by insisting on a literal interpretation, it's essentially giving the children an ultimatum, and some are likely to just reject it out of hand.
Seriously though, whether one believes the Bible to be the word of God or not, one would think that at the very least, a believer in God would also believe He gave us minds with which to think, and created the physical world too. If so, then certainly any interpretation of the Bible which contradicted science would have to be an erroneous interpretation, otherwise the Bible would be wrong, which would mean God were wrong, and since by definition God can't be wrong, it would thus mean at the very least that the Bible is not the word of God.
I wouldn't be surprised if the kids attending that church will grow up as one of three kinds of persons:
1. Those who accept the literal translation of the Bible, and thus reject the Bible completely in favour of science,
2. Those who accept the literal interpretation of the Bible but reject science, or
3. Those who accept the Bible but reject what that church taught them about it, deciding insted on a deeper symbolic understanding of the Bible in accordance with science.
Ironically enough, tht church is likely pushing some of those children away from the Christian Faith since by insisting on a literal interpretation, it's essentially giving the children an ultimatum, and some are likely to just reject it out of hand.
There is nothing wrong with the literal interpretation of Scripture. Killing millions when you claim to be under the commandment of 'do unto others as you would have them do to you' is what will drive people away from the Churches of today.
I'll agree that hypocricy and double standards are even more harmful to the Christian Church, since then it's about ethics too. As for literal interpretation, that itself does not hurt anyone yet does harm people's faith in their own rational minds and science.
There is no denying that a literal interpretation of the Bible is totally counter to science and logic. To insist on a literal interpretation really does impost an ultimatum on those children: you have to accept either the Bible or science, but not both. With such a choice before them, any child with half a brain will turn to science, unless he can somehow rise above the propaganda and accept the Bible while rejecting any imposed inerpretation thereof from others.
they always find a way to skirt around the question.. with these answers that leave you just wanting more while getting nothing at the same time.
it's like trying to talk to a squirrel.
it's like trying to talk to a squirrel.
Is this friend still one of the sharpest minds you know?
Why did you post this?
oddly enough, when it comes to math, science, law, and a wide variety of social issues, yes, he is. This is the one area where he has truly perplexed me.
ya you could never have a true debate about this on tv cause too many religious facists would go nuts displaying their outrage
I find it incredible that folks will quickly believe what men say, men who lie, steal and cheat. Men who fart and burp like you who couldn't possibly know all because you are not all knowing...
BUT you will not believe the Creator? You will not believe The One Who was THERE, AT CREATION? How stupid is that? You will take a man's word about creation, over the word of the Creator Himself? Geezalu!
BUT you will not believe the Creator? You will not believe The One Who was THERE, AT CREATION? How stupid is that? You will take a man's word about creation, over the word of the Creator Himself? Geezalu!
And where exactly would one find this word of the creator, in books written by men? Or do you have a direct line to the Creator? Do you use a cell phone, iPhone, CB radio?