Why Creationists don't realize the biblical Creation is just jewish mythology?

[GrandizerII]

[quote='android17ak47' pid='1920533' dateline='1563615771']
Sixth and I'll stop here because I need you to explain to not just me but everyone here this little statement from the Bible. God told Abraham that his descendants would be as innumerable as the stars in the heaven. Now how is it that a man of that time could have written such a statement when there are only around 6000 stars visible to the naked eye in the darkest of night skies. Don't try and argue there are more visible stars than that, it is established fact and do not try and say that it's metaphorical because that is a literal statement from the scriptures, so tell me how the writer could have ever know that the stars are innumerable?

The ancients saw lots of stars in the sky at night. The perception of innumerability of the stars was very evident to them. They didn't need to count them all literally to see it that way.

[Fake Messiah]

nor have you given any evidence that God does not exist.

Perhaps that is a subject for another topic.

Third modern science has debunk most all religions, just not Christianity or the Jewish.

It did debunk Jews and Christians as well because there is no archeological evidence that any of the events described in Old Testament happened. Also modern science showed us that Earth did not exist before stars as Bible describes. There is also a fossil record that debunks Book of Genesis. Science showed us that Earth is not immovable as Bible claims, etc.

Fourth some of the sciences you want to rely on as good science just are not and haven't been proven so, there exist great problems in them.

Not true. It is rather the other way around and there is a problem with the world described in Bible. Like there is no evidence that world wide flood happened where one man gathered all the species of animals to save them, or that it could ever happen.

Metaphors in the Bible are clear in understanding they are just that.

Not true because many Christians belive six day creation is just a metaphor and evolution is true while you think the opposite. And there are those that even take descriptions of Earth being immovable and flat seriously. So there is no clear demarcation line what is true in the Bible and what is a lie.

[Belacqua]

So when we look back on any past age with fondness, we tend to see a biased image where enlightenment of lasting value is remembered for their continued utility, and relative fundamentalism is forgotten precisely because they are incapable of making things of lasting value.

I'm curious how you're defining "relative fundamentalism" here. 

Were the builders of Chartres Cathedral in this category? Is it of lasting value? 

Normally "fundamentalism" is considered a modern term. From Wikipedia: 

Christian fundamentalism has been defined by George Marsden as the demand for a strict adherence to certain theological doctrines, in reaction against Modernist theology.[12] The term was originally coined by its supporters to describe what they claimed were five specific classic theological beliefs of Christianity, and that developed into a Christian fundamentalist movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century.[13] Fundamentalism as a movement arose in the United States, starting among conservative Presbyterian theologians at Princeton Theological Seminary in the late 19th century. It soon spread to conservatives among the Baptists and other denominations around 1910 to 1920. The movement's purpose was to reaffirm key theological tenets and defend them against the challenges of liberal theology and higher criticism.[14]

The term "fundamentalism" has roots in the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897), which defined those tenets it considered fundamental to Christian belief. The term was prefigured by The Fundamentals, a collection of twelve books on five subjects published in 1910 and funded by the brothers Milton and Lyman Stewart, but coined by Curtis Lee Lawes, editor of The Watchman-Examiner, who proposed in the wake of the 1920 pre-convention meeting of the Northern Baptist Convention (now the American Baptist Churches USA) that those fighting for the fundamentals of the faith be called "fundamentalists."[15] The Fundamentals came to represent a Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy that appeared late in the 19th century within some Protestant denominations in the United States, and continued in earnest through the 1920s. The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs traces to the Niagara Bible Conference and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which distilled these into what became known as the five fundamentals:[16]

[Fake Messiah]

So when we look back on any past age with fondness, we tend to see a biased image where enlightenment of lasting value is remembered for their continued utility, and relative fundamentalism is forgotten precisely because they are incapable of making things of lasting value.

I'm curious how you're defining "relative fundamentalism" here. 

Were the builders of Chartres Cathedral in this category? Is it of lasting value? 

Stories serve as the foundations and pillars of human societies. As history unfolded, stories about gods, nations and corporations grew so powerful that they began to dominate objective reality. Believing in the great god Sobek, the Mandate of Heaven or the Bible enabled people to build Lake Fayum, the Great Wall of China and Chartres Cathedral. Unfortunately, blind faith in these stories meant that human efforts frequently focused on increasing the glory of fictional entities such as gods and nations, instead of bettering the lives of real sentient beings.

[Belacqua]

Believing in the great god Sobek, the Mandate of Heaven or the Bible enabled people to build Lake Fayum, the Great Wall of China and Chartres Cathedral. 

I think so too.

Strict and sincere believers created a great deal of lasting value. 

Naturally, they should have done other things as well.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sounds more like engineering that enabled that.

[tackattack]

Disclaimer, not a generalization I feel is true.

Why? It's like asking an alcoholic why he drinks.
From what I've noticed Creationists are people who are very spiteful, filled with hate, who are constantly cursing other people, and I guess one can get addicted to it. They vent their own life's failures by blaming others, by being angry at others and they get short bursts of pleasure by yelling at other people how they're going to hell and whatnot.

Why? It's like asking an alcoholic why he drinks.
From what I've noticed Atheists are people who are very spiteful, filled with hate, who are constantly cursing other people, and I guess one can get addicted to it. They vent their own life's failures by blaming others, by being angry at others and they get short bursts of pleasure by yelling at other people how they're irrational and like sheep.

I'm not completely sure what you're talking about but I see that you tie creationism with nationalism/ jingoism, but to me it is not surprising that these two things get intertwined, because jingoism is another excuse to be hateful so combining these two things gives people more opportunity to get high on hate.

I'm not completely sure what you're talking about but I see that you tie politics with nationalism, but to me it is not surprising that these two things get intertwined, because politics is another excuse to be hateful so combining these two things gives people more opportunity to get high on hate.

[Anomalocaris]

“Don’t generalize” has often become an aegis behind which real problems can be denied and ignored, or more importantly opportunistic alliance of convenience with real miscreants can be sustained. 

Generalizations may be unfair to various degrees to various constituencies it tars.   But that does not make all generalizations equal in their degrees of applicability, or even insight.

“You too” may be not untrue, but is often true to a smaller degree than the reciprocal.

---

Believing in the great god Sobek, the Mandate of Heaven or the Bible enabled people to build Lake Fayum, the Great Wall of China and Chartres Cathedral. 

I think so too.

Strict and sincere believers created a great deal of lasting value. 

Naturally, they should have done other things as well.

If the third Reich didn’t collapse so soon in the pyre of its own crimes it would also likely bequeath to posterity awe inspiring monumental edifices and prodigious quantities of public art. 

Most human endeavors that entrain large number of people and demand devotion will inevitable enlist some people of ability and creativity that can make lemonade out of lemons so that things will be created in its name that, when the endeavor itself has run its course, will remain and be considered of lasting value.   

But the subtle point here is the lasting value is only there because the opportunity cost it incurred is sunk and can’t be unpaid.   If the opportunity cost is considered in the assessment whether any value would remain is a totally different question.

If humans can make things of lasting value out of material so unpromising as domineering wish-thinking and crude superstition, one shudder to think what could have been made but were not made because those with creativity were constrained to make do with lemons because of the self-importance and ambitions of the purveyors of rotten lemons.

[mordant]

So my question is, how can an apologist have no problem calling other theologies myths but when facing the same fallacies that are literally described in their bible, they pass these errors off as metaphors...

Short answer: it's a category error.

Longer answer: Most people are born into a religious belief-system. It is what they know. Everything on the outside of that system (i.e., other belief systems) are placed into a different category, usually, "wrong" vs theirs being right. To take a meta-view of things and step back and see the bigger picture and demote their religion of origin to be "just another religion" is too much for most people to endure, or at least something they don't typically bother with. Because by the time they have the intellectual maturity to do that, they already are invested in the rightness and used to the comfort of their original belief. Most people are not curious enough or committed enough to understanding reality as it is (rather than as they wish it to be), that they're willing to go against their parents and teachers and other mentors, a lifetime of community and belonging, and the threat of being ostracized, and take the risk of asking uncomfortable questions.

It is no accident that skepticism and doubt are decried as sins and credulous religious faith is praised as a virtue, in most religions. Asking questions is a fundamental, primal taboo.

So people color inside the lines and nothing changes, unless some combination of the bullshit filters you were born with and unwanted life experiences force you to question things, and those questions lead to a shift in perspective.

[The Grand Nudger]

By looking up, gc, as you already realized.

That’s the interesting thing about comments like that, or their contemporary Quran is miracles. Simple observational statements... both right and wrong, are somehow transformed in the minds of motivated people into a profound insight that no human could have arrived upon.

Thats the tragedy of such beliefs, and it’s certainly the same thing going on with creationists. The contents of these beliefs are very much a product of human insight and observation. This is their value.

Or, they’re science books that get basic things wrong?