I have a few friends on FB who are creationists. One of them recently posted a picture from the Creation Museum and I corrected the science of it.
She said that whenever she posts something Christian she gets attacked. I replied that it wasn't the Christianity, it was the inaccuracy.
Still, that got me thinking. So I decided I'd drop this on my Facebook page.
QuoteI am growing increasingly concerned at how widely the Creationist Heresy has spread within mainstream Christianity. I used to think it harmless, comparable to St. Paul's vegetarians, but it now seems to be the biggest threat to orthodox Christian theology since the Arian heresy of the 4th and 16th centuries. Given the schismatic nature of Christianity today, with over 10,000 denominations, it seems unlikely that there could be an Ecumenical Council whereby Christians can confront Creationists on their heresy.
Yes, I am being deliberately provocative by saying Creationists are something different from Christians. Is there any way anyone can see that I can strengthen the language up a bit?
Can you call it heresy? Not being a creationist would be the heresy, would it not?
Quote from: "BlackL1ght"Can you call it heresy? Not being a creationist would be the heresy, would it not?
Thats my thinking, except the Pope a few years ago accepted the scientific model with the reservation that "gawd did it dat way" if I recall correctly.
Quote from: "BlackL1ght"Can you call it heresy? Not being a creationist would be the heresy, would it not?
No. Creationism is mostly a fundie thing. Some sects don't have a problem with the earth's age and evolution.
I would call it Christian fakery, or outright lies. Because that's what it amounts to: lying about science to impressionable children so that they grow up believing bullshit. Creationism results in kids with little or no understanding of science, and society suffers because of it.
I'm calling it a heresy based on one key salient point. There are other points as well.
Christian theology accepts a benevolent God. Creationist theology has a trickster god who gave the impression of age, what with false dating of fossils and light created in transit.
I'm doing this to provoke Creationists, not then on-Creationist Christians. I want to annoy the Creationists specifically with my post. So if you can think of ways to provoke the Creationists with this, I'm looking for suggestions on wording.
Interesting approach. Concern trolling christians eh? I like it. You might point out that the YEC's are damaging the reputation of christianity and are an embarrassment not unlike the suicide bombers of islam or the abortion clinic bombers.
Quote from: "BlackL1ght"Can you call it heresy? Not being a creationist would be the heresy, would it not?
My thoughts too. I think the provocative part is calling it heresy.
that'll make em squeek
I ask them what god says about evolution
Let us know what the response is.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"I have a few friends on FB who are creationists. One of them recently posted a picture from the Creation Museum and I corrected the science of it.
She said that whenever she posts something Christian she gets attacked. I replied that it wasn't the Christianity, it was the inaccuracy.
Still, that got me thinking. So I decided I'd drop this on my Facebook page.
QuoteI am growing increasingly concerned at how widely the Creationist Heresy has spread within mainstream Christianity. I used to think it harmless, comparable to St. Paul's vegetarians, but it now seems to be the biggest threat to orthodox Christian theology since the Arian heresy of the 4th and 16th centuries. Given the schismatic nature of Christianity today, with over 10,000 denominations, it seems unlikely that there could be an Ecumenical Council whereby Christians can confront Creationists on their heresy.
Yes, I am being deliberately provocative by saying Creationists are something different from Christians. Is there any way anyone can see that I can strengthen the language up a bit?
I wouldn't do this at all. This allows other Christians to wallow in their superstitions as well, "I agree those creationists look silly". Allows them to cling to virgin births and zombie gods themselves which is just as silly as creationism.
Instead of that when other Christians go "I agree that is silly", tell them that is like a Star Trek fan looking at a Star Wars fan and saying "Yea the force is silly".
Everyone is the outsider and everyone looks silly to the insider except the insider. The key is to break the entire cycle, not allow it to fester.
Quote from: "billhilly"Interesting approach. Concern trolling christians eh? I like it. You might point out that the YEC's are damaging the reputation of christianity and are an embarrassment not unlike the suicide bombers of islam or the abortion clinic bombers.
I think of it as concern trolling creationists. But that's a good idea.
QuoteI am growing increasingly concerned at how widely the Creationist Heresy has spread within mainstream Christianity. I used to think it harmless, comparable to St. Paul's vegetarians, but it now seems to be the biggest threat to orthodox Christian theology since the Arian heresy of the 4th and 16th centuries, and an embarrassment to mainstream Christianity. Given the schismatic nature of Christianity today, with over 10,000 denominations, it seems unlikely that there could be an Ecumenical Council whereby Christians can confront Creationists on their heresy.
Thanks for the input.
Honestly, YEC's are so delusional that saying anything to them, 99.99% of the time is a complete waste of time. I confess, on occassion, I will try, but, invariably disappointed.
Jason have you had a change of heart?
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"I have a few friends on FB who are creationists. One of them recently posted a picture from the Creation Museum and I corrected the science of it.
She said that whenever she posts something Christian she gets attacked. I replied that it wasn't the Christianity, it was the inaccuracy.
Still, that got me thinking. So I decided I'd drop this on my Facebook page.
QuoteI am growing increasingly concerned at how widely the Creationist Heresy has spread within mainstream Christianity. I used to think it harmless, comparable to St. Paul's vegetarians, but it now seems to be the biggest threat to orthodox Christian theology since the Arian heresy of the 4th and 16th centuries. Given the schismatic nature of Christianity today, with over 10,000 denominations, it seems unlikely that there could be an Ecumenical Council whereby Christians can confront Creationists on their heresy.
Yes, I am being deliberately provocative by saying Creationists are something different from Christians. Is there any way anyone can see that I can strengthen the language up a bit?
That is a very interesting argument. If you wanted to, you could even trace it back to the belief in absolute biblical inerrancy, which I've been told by others wasn't a widely held belief until the bible hit the printing press.
I'll have to think about this for a while, but so far I think that argument has some serious potential.
Quote from: "_Xenu_"Jason have you had a change of heart?
No, I'm just trying to get the wording right for maximum impact. I want to shock my creationist friends as hard as I can with this one post. I'll let the comments handle the long arguments.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"No, I'm just trying to get the wording right for maximum impact. I want to shock my creationist friends as hard as I can with this one post. I'll let the comments handle the long arguments.
I don't know your Creationist friends, but, just going by Creationists in general, my expectation would be that anything you say will be in one ear and out the other, you aren't one of them, thus you don't count, thus anything you say is to be ignored.
Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"No, I'm just trying to get the wording right for maximum impact. I want to shock my creationist friends as hard as I can with this one post. I'll let the comments handle the long arguments.
I don't know your Creationist friends, but, just going by Creationists in general, my expectation would be that anything you say will be in one ear and out the other, you aren't one of them, thus you don't count, thus anything you say is to be ignored.
I'd say not so much as 'ignored' as distrusted. Jason, that's the biggest stumbling block IMHO to Creationist thinking. They find anything counter to their own opinion dis trustworthy. It's a natural response, I suppose, for them however reminding them of *where* they've put their trust will cause a debate. I often think the subject of
trust doesn't come up enough.
I went and posted it now with the addition that it is embarrassing to Christians in general.
It's (I think) an interesting factoid that the percentage of Christian denominations in America that are okay with at least theistic evolution is far higher than the ones that are strictly creationist, but the percentage of pastors who are strict creationists is around 50%.
I might post something like that on my FB page, just because of all the Christians who post bullshit all the time. It really concerns me that they are raising kids who mistrust science even in the face of endless evidence that it has done more good for the world than most religion. This is especially true of medical science, which relies upon an understanding of evolution to create vaccines, antibiotics, and many other treatments for diseases.
In my experience they will argue for a bit, not listen, lie about it some more even when you give them proof, and then delete posts to save face. Don't even trip about it.
Jason, if any of them start foaming at the mouth you can post this:
(usually shuts them up And makes them laugh)
(//http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h321/SabrinaTheInkWitch/0e2afc08.jpg)
Ask your creationist buddies to explain the phenomenon of magnetic pole reversal. This has occurred ~300x in the last 100 million years. We know this to be true based on observed latent magnetism in lava flows and deep sea cores..
If the Earth is only 10000 years old, these reversals would have occurred, on average, every 300-400 years or so. So, we would have observed it multiple times in recorded history. But we haven't. Hmmmm
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"I went and posted it now with the addition that it is embarrassing to Christians in general.
Can/will you share some feedback/backlash? You can change the names to protect the ignorant.
Quote from: "Seabear"Ask your creationist buddies to explain the phenomenon of magnetic pole reversal. This has occurred ~300x in the last 100 million years. We know this to be true based on observed latent magnetism in lava flows and deep sea cores..
If the Earth is only 10000 years old, these reversals would have occurred, on average, every 300-400 years or so. So, we would have observed it multiple times in recorded history. But we haven't. Hmmmm
Its easy to think (or, rather, not think) like a cretinist. Omnibenevolent never-lying God created the planet with hundreds of reversals recorded in the rocks just to trick us.
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "Seabear"Ask your creationist buddies to explain the phenomenon of magnetic pole reversal. This has occurred ~300x in the last 100 million years. We know this to be true based on observed latent magnetism in lava flows and deep sea cores..
If the Earth is only 10000 years old, these reversals would have occurred, on average, every 300-400 years or so. So, we would have observed it multiple times in recorded history. But we haven't. Hmmmm
Its easy to think (or, rather, not think) like a cretinist. Omnibenevolent never-lying God created the planet with hundreds of reversals recorded in the rocks just to trick us.
yeah.......... can I get a ruling on that one, please? Where exactly does it say in the bible that god gets a pass on lying?
wait...
doesn't matter since he set us up for failure in the first place. Did anyone expect him to tell the truth about that?
derrr
(//http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h321/SabrinaTheInkWitch/ad5a215f.jpg)
The only thing this will do is piss people off. Happens to me every day when people post shit on Facebook that opposes my general principles--about how evil our president is and how anyone who doesn't pray to God is basically stupid. It only insults me and does not change anything. I would never do it although several friends often do.
Here (//http://www.facebook.com/jason.gonella/posts/4734117026620) is the discussion thread.
The main Creationist in the thread is trying hard to divert the conversation and refuse to confront the three specific criticisms I'm making of creationism.
1. The Creationist God is a deceiver.
2. Creationists are supposed to remain willfully ignorant.
3. Those that fail to remain willfully ignorant are supposed to lie about what they know.
He's trying desperately to point out the inconsistencies of science, because those dastardly scientists change their mind every time new data comes up. I'm not allowing this to turn into a Creation v. Evolution thread. I'm staying on the attack, saying only that for all of his questions about the science if he were willing to learn Google will provide him with more information than he could handle. I respond to his challenges to science by saying "the science is settled, if you are willing to look."
I'm remaining on the attack, and point 2 is working rather well to his "repeated objections" response.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Here (//http://www.facebook.com/jason.gonella/posts/4734117026620) is the discussion thread.
The main Creationist in the thread is trying hard to divert the conversation and refuse to confront the three specific criticisms I'm making of creationism.
1. The Creationist God is a deceiver.
2. Creationists are supposed to remain willfully ignorant.
3. Those that fail to remain willfully ignorant are supposed to lie about what they know.
He's trying desperately to point out the inconsistencies of science, because those dastardly scientists change their mind every time new data comes up. I'm not allowing this to turn into a Creation v. Evolution thread. I'm staying on the attack, saying only that for all of his questions about the science if he were willing to learn Google will provide him with more information than he could handle. I respond to his challenges to science by saying "the science is settled, if you are willing to look."
I'm remaining on the attack, and point 2 is working rather well to his "repeated objections" response.
Christians in facebook are funny with their bullshit .
One of the flaws with this approach is that the target audience more than likely has zero familiarity with the history of Christian thought nor respect for any of the councils by which major disagreements were settled. It's too bad, because I'd love to see this argued out with representatives of the whole of Christendom.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"He's trying desperately to point out the inconsistencies of science, because those dastardly scientists change their mind every time new data comes up.
And that's one of the strengths of science: when new data comes to light, scientists refine their models, and the resulting models come ever closer to the mark. (I like using the word "refine" because it's more accurate than "change"; it's also more persuasive to fence-sitters.)
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"yeah.......... can I get a ruling on that one, please? Where exactly does it say in the bible that god gets a pass on lying?
Yes indeed. It cracks me up that Christians carve out special pleadings for their god's sins, and at the same time denounce moral relativism.
Quote from: "Him"I deny the conclusions because i see the errors in the methodology. so would you like to know be intellectually honest and discuss those errors? or do you still desire not to have your views challenged in a logical and thoughtful discussion? or do you not allow that in on your wall?
Quote from: "Me"Ok, I'll break it down into simpler steps.
1. An omni-benevolent and orderly God creates an orderly and observable universe.
2. An orderly and observable universe is understandable.
3. An understandable universe is one where people can learn more about the universe.
4. A universe where people can learn more about the universe is one where the conclusions of research are trustworthy.
One leads to two, two leads to three, three leads to four. If four is false, then so is three. If three is false than so is two. If two is false than so is one.
You say you agree with one and disagree with four.
It's not that I won't "allow my views to be challenged." There simply is no debate within scientific circle about the topics you say are so hotly contested. There is simply no point in debating the tangent you so desperately want to discuss instead. There is no point. The science on this is settled and not contested. But if you really feel you've found serious and gross errors in methodology, what you should do is write an article to submit to peer review. You could get a Nobel Prize for Science.
I'm not allowing debate on irrelevant tangents on settled issues. Sorry, I know you'd rather debate irrelevant tangents on settled issues.