Are young earth creationists self-aware?

[Crump]

The very curious thing here is that the World doesn't need to be 6000 years old for the Genesis story to be true, in an allegorical sense. Science and faith are only in conflict if the faithful insist on denying the evidence of scientific knowledge.

The opposition to science is understandable. From their point of view, if the story of Adam and Eve is false, no paradise lost, then there is no justification for the coming of Jesus. So their position against science is consistent with their faith. The people who are inconsistent are those who believe in the bible and science, when science demonstrably shows that the bible is way off. Cognitive dissonance becomes a vital part of their lives.

The Bible, in particular the Genesis story, is merely a reflection of the way people of the past understood the World. That we now understand the World differently does not mean that the Bible is 'way off', it simply means that we have the difficult task of seeing the Bible through the minds of those who wrote it. But that is no different from any ancient text.

Read here.  viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2525&p=962789#p962789

[Bobbotov]

The Old Testament is providing a bit of back story done in the same manner as many other creation myths. They (Jews) needed to show that their God (Yahweh) was the prime mover. But the interesting thing is that Yahweh did not really come into existence until several hundred years BCE in Jewish literature which was several thousands of years after the supposed creation. Prior to that the Jews were polytheists and owed a lot to the Babylonians. Genesis 1 was written some time after Genesis 2. Genesis 2 is kind of sketchy on creation whereas Genesis 1 goes into more detail. And the whole bit about God resting on the seventh day is so anthropomorphic. I mean an entity that is eternal gets tired after only seven days work? And it is not like he was digging ditches or anything. Let's face it, God has a cushy desk job with some major perks.

What is really kind of funny is that God created everything but left the naming of things to Adam. I guess Adam's job of naming millions of species was a tad more difficult and probably took more than seven days. All done without writing any of it down.

God: Adam, what do you call that four legged creature?
Adam: Uh, hmm, hold on, I remember - a horse....no, no, a donkey? No this one has black and white stripes. I have it, a zebra. Yes, it's a zebra.

Another weird thing I have come across with fundamentalists is the belief that since God made two lights (one for day and one for night) that they believe the moon is self illuminating and actually try to argue the point. I mean, this is major face-palm stuff.

[josephpalazzo]

The very curious thing here is that the World doesn't need to be 6000 years old for the Genesis story to be true, in an allegorical sense. Science and faith are only in conflict if the faithful insist on denying the evidence of scientific knowledge.

The opposition to science is understandable. From their point of view, if the story of Adam and Eve is false, no paradise lost, then there is no justification for the coming of Jesus. So their position against science is consistent with their faith. The people who are inconsistent are those who believe in the bible and science, when science demonstrably shows that the bible is way off. Cognitive dissonance becomes a vital part of their lives.

The Bible, in particular the Genesis story, is merely a reflection of the way people of the past understood the World. That we now understand the World differently does not mean that the Bible is 'way off', it simply means that we have the difficult task of seeing the Bible through the minds of those who wrote it. But that is no different from any ancient text.

Read here.  viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2525&p=962789#p962789

Yes, but there are other arguments. For many fundamentalists, God is perfect, and if the bible is the word of God, then it must be as it is written. Any other suggestions, that it is allegorical/metaphorical/figurative, etc, doesn't cut muster with these people. Their beliefs leave no room but for what is written. And if science points in a different direction than their sacred text, it becomes the enemy of truth.

[Colanth]

The very curious thing here is that the World doesn't need to be 6000 years old for the Genesis story to be true, in an allegorical sense. Science and faith are only in conflict if the faithful insist on denying the evidence of scientific knowledge.

The opposition to science is understandable. From their point of view, if the story of Adam and Eve is false, no paradise lost, then there is no justification for the coming of Jesus. So their position against science is consistent with their faith. The people who are inconsistent are those who believe in the bible and science, when science demonstrably shows that the bible is way off. Cognitive dissonance becomes a vital part of their lives.

The Bible, in particular the Genesis story, is merely a reflection of the way people of the past understood the World. That we now understand the World differently does not mean that the Bible is 'way off', it simply means that we have the difficult task of seeing the Bible through the minds of those who wrote it. But that is no different from any ancient text.

Read what Joseph wrote again.  If Genesis isn't literally true (at least the part of the fall from grace), there's no need for salvation, therefore no need for Jesus, therefore no need for Christianity.  So it's either literally true (which science has shown it's not), there's no need for Christianity (which Christians won't accept) or there's a problem for Christians (which is the case).

Any other claims are just rationalizations to skirt the problem.

[Poison Tree]

O Necessary Sin of Adam (Does Christian Theology Need Adam & Eve?)
[youtube:2n41r6ii]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXOvYn1OAL0[/youtube:2n41r6ii]

[ApostateLois]

Yes, but there are other arguments. For many fundamentalists, God is perfect, and if the bible is the word of God, then it must be as it is written. Any other suggestions, that it is allegorical/metaphorical/figurative, etc, doesn't cut muster with these people. Their beliefs leave no room but for what is written. And if science points in a different direction than their sacred text, it becomes the enemy of truth.

Yet, if you point out any contradictions in the Bible, they will sometimes say that it is meant to be symbolic, allegorical, etc. I have asked them to describe the step-by-step procedure for determining if a passage is meant to be taken literally or figuratively, and never receive an answer. The best they can do is to insist that you must have the Holy Spook to make that determination.

[josephpalazzo]

Yes, but there are other arguments. For many fundamentalists, God is perfect, and if the bible is the word of God, then it must be as it is written. Any other suggestions, that it is allegorical/metaphorical/figurative, etc, doesn't cut muster with these people. Their beliefs leave no room but for what is written. And if science points in a different direction than their sacred text, it becomes the enemy of truth.

Yet, if you point out any contradictions in the Bible, they will sometimes say that it is meant to be symbolic, allegorical, etc. I have asked them to describe the step-by-step procedure for determining if a passage is meant to be taken literally or figuratively, and never receive an answer. The best they can do is to insist that you must have the Holy Spook to make that determination.

Holy Spook = spooky action at a distance, therefore QM proves God exists...

[MrsSassyPants]

No they don't know reality. They have been taught a lie. And therefore don't know any better.  I remember those days. I just got out of my fog 2 years ago at 28 years old. My mom still tries to teach me the God crap. And I have to pretend I buy it.

[ApostateLois]

Is that because you haven't worked up the nerve yet to tell her, or some other reason?