Why do Creationists always ignore all the other Creation Myths?
Every couture has there own Creation Stories.
[PIE]The Navajo story about the creation of their world.
The Insect People passed through four separate worlds, but in each world they displeased the gods and were forced to flee through a hole in the sky into the next world. In the Fourth World they met up with the Kisani people (the Pueblo Indians) and the Insect People created the first man & fists woman of the Dine. (Navajo people).[/PIE]
[PIE]Australian Aborigine Creation Story
Baiame and the First Man and Woman
Baiame walked on the earth ahe had made, among the plants and animals, and created man and woman to rule over them. He fashioned them from the dust of the ridges, and said.
"These are the plants you shall eat--these and these, but not the animals I have created.[/PIE]
Why are these any less creditable that the Adam & Eve myth?
Why do Creationists always ignore all the other Creation Myths?
Well you shouldn't judge all theories as the same just because they share a name.
My believe in creationism has nothing to do with an aboriginal believes in creationism. they are both called creationism because both include some form of creation, but that's where the analogy ends. Just because one is false doesn't mean the other is and vice versa. what you are doing here makes just as much sense as me arguing against you:
Why do neo-evolutionists always ignore the flaws in classical darwinistic evolution? Well the answer is very simple, because neo-evolutionists don't believe in classical Darwinism. Just as I as a creationist don't believe in every single creation story.
I'm not sure wilberhum is making quite the point you're thinking of. There are lots of creation stories, just as there are lots and lots of different gods. The point is, it seems to me, there is just as much evidence for one of them as there is for any of them. Why do you assume that you have chosen the right god and the right creation story, given that there are hundreds (possibly thousands) of each?
When it comes to evolution, the evidence has changed people's views. What has directed your view to the beliefs you've chosen over others?
[I have to say, the FSM is pretty suave and debonair as most gods go...]
Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, "I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school".'
Dr Colin Patterson (Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London). Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November 1981.
Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical theory. I suppose that no one will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what happens in biology:... I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: "How did this ever happen?"
Dr Stephen J Gould, evolutionary palaeontologist from Harvard.
I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book (Evolution). if I knew of any, fossil or living, I would have certainly have included them... yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils... I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.
Dr Michael Denton. (14)
Supposing the first cell originated by chance is like believing a tornado could sweep through a junkyard filled with airplane parts and form a Boeing 747
Dr Pierre-Paul Grosse. (30).
.... the whole vast structure of modern naturalism [seems to] depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice [and is] devised not to get in facts but to keep out God.
I'm not sure wilberhum is making quite the point you're thinking of. There are lots of creation stories, just as there are lots and lots of different gods. The point is, it seems to me, there is just as much evidence for one of them as there is for any of them. Why do you assume that you have chosen the right god and the right creation story, given that there are hundreds (possibly thousands) of each?
When it comes to evolution, the evidence has changed people's views. What has directed your view to the beliefs you've chosen over others?
[I have to say, the FSM is pretty suave and debonair as most gods go...]
Peace
well hold your horses, I didn't reject common descend because I became religious. In fact, it happened the other way around. I rejected common descent because it has to many flaws in theory. After a while I became muslim (not only due to this, there were other factors. Now, whether or not I picked the right creation story is irrelevant, my case here is that there's flaws in the theory.
As for FSM, I won't indulge into arguments ad absurdum, all that FSM shows is that creationism is not falsifiable. So what? I never claimed it is!
There are lots of creation stories, just as there are lots and lots of different gods. The point is, it seems to me, there is just as much evidence for one of them as there is for any of them. Why do you assume that you have chosen the right god and the right creation story, given that there are hundreds (possibly thousands) of each?
True, but does it really matter? I think the essential point is that a creation 'story' is accepted. Precisely which one seems a fairly petty difference in terms of the overall debate, although I appreciate far smaller differences have caused a far more trouble between those of different religious persuasions!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Array
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks