Arikay

You should just ask them why many creationist groups have to lie to support their possition.

Conchobar

They must lie, because the truth demolishes the biblical genesis myths one and two for magical creation. That however is the first domino.

Evolution shows that humans evolved gradually over some 3 million years. There was no Adam and Eve. Without Adam and Eve there was no Original Sin, no fall of mankind. Without the fall of mankind there was no need for a redeemer. God had no need to father a human offspring to be a blood sacrifice for a sin that never occurred. It follows that there was no crucifixion of Jesus, and no resurrection. There would be no salvation or need for salvation. While I concede that evolution is compatible with theism in a very generic sense (a creator-designer god), it may be incompatible with traditional Christianity. To accept the mass of compelling evidence proving evolution may threaten traditional Christians by making their core belief system illogical and irrelevant. This is perhaps the real reason for their angry opposition to modern biological and geological discoveries, like evolution and continental drift.


Without the Bible Mythology of Genesis and Original Sin, no redeemer, no Jesus, no crucifixion, and no resurrection, one looses all foundation for belief in immortality. This is why American Fundamentalists fight Evolution in schools as they would Plate Tectonics and continental drift. Both facts debunk the bible and ultimate remove their excuse to believe in the delusion of immortality.

To accept the fact of Evolution (the real world) they must relinquish their delusional world of fantasy in which people live forever. It must be quite stressful.

Conchobar

GunnerJ

You know, I hate to do this, but...

Your logic doesn't flow quite nicely. All that acceptence would do is remove the doctrine of Original Sin. However, there is no theological reason why this rules out the need for redemption. All sin needs redemption, thus, wouldn't the sins that we actually do commit be just as needing of atoning for as the sins of a supposed Adam and Eve?

[/LiberalChristian]

openeyes

I think Conchobar in on to something with his reasoning. Many Christians do need a literal Adam and Eve and an original sin to make sense of the whole Jesus thing.

These people don't think Hovind is telling lies. They think evolutists are making it all up. They can't evaluate the slides that Hovind quickly slaps on and off the screen to discredit evolution. He had something to show why the Grand Canyon couldn't have been carved by the Colorado River (The Flood did it). It was all I could do not to stand up and shout "He's so wrong! Don't delude yourselves and your children!"

I think the complexity of the world has exceeded the capacity of our human brains to sort it out, so that for many, evidence and logic is just tossed out in favor of righteous comfort.

Conchobar

Originally posted by GunnerJ
[B]You know, I hate to do this, but...[b]

Your logic doesn't flow quite nicely. All that acceptence would do is remove the doctrine of Original Sin.

What you do not comprehend is the connections.

However, there is no theological reason why this rules out the need for redemption.

It doesn't rule out the need for redemption to the somewhat rational thinker. For Christians, this Original Sin is the EXCUSE to have a REDEEMER. Of course no redeemer is need but we are not dealing with reason here. The Christian needs the redeemer. Original Sin is a good excuse to have one. A super redeemer is one who is at least half-god, or one of God's three personalities (multiple personality disorder to a psychiatrist). The Christian needs to have this irrationally conceived redeemer to die, but then RESURRECT. It is not Original Sin that is the core of Christian Mythology. It is the resurrection. The resurrection in a rather loose connection supports the delusion of immortality.

All sin needs redemption, thus, wouldn't the sins that we actually do commit be just as needing of atoning for as the sins of a supposed Adam and Eve?

All sins need redemption but for the Fundy, the crucifixion and Jesus' trip to hell absolved all of their trivial sins. Original Sin was just a facier way to make Jesus come to earth and be sacrificed. Then he could resurrect to give symbolic backing to the delusion of immortality. All of this didn't fit together until the early Ebionite Jewish "Christians" (not called that), borrowed Mithraistic beliefs. Mithra was the god-human who died to redeem humanity, and who resurrected three days later.

Christian Theology after Constantine, Athanasius, and Augustus forged the connections to make it look like it made sense. Clever for its time. Original Sin > inherited guilt > redeemer need > god-human ideal redeemer sacrifice > crucifixion > resurrection > rationalises immortality.

Conchobar

GunnerJ

Of ncourse fundies, as they satnd now, require a belief in original sin as doctrine. What I'm saying is that this isn't a real need. Their belief system, in the need for a redeemer to forgive sins so people will not go to hell, can remain intact without belief in original sin.

Your chain:

Original Sin > inherited guilt > redeemer need > god-human ideal redeemer sacrifice > crucifixion > resurrection > rationalises immortality.

Would become:

Any sin > redeemer need > god-human ideal redeemer sacrifice > crucifixion > resurrection > rationalises immortality.

That they fail to realise this does not support your original contention that "To accept the fact of Evolution (the real world) they must relinquish their delusional world of fantasy in which people live forever." As I have shown, this is not the case.

cpickett

Everyone here has done a great job of debunking the actual content, so I have something different to say...

Those are not evidences for Creation, that is a form of the logical fallacy of Bifurcation. He is basically saying that this is evidence FOR creation because it is evidence against Evolution, which is a fallacy. Evidence against something isn't necissarily evidence for something.