Evidence for creationism

[Janusi]

Originally Posted by Isaiah
13:22 And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.

I never knew that according to the bible, dragons live in palaces. Pleasant ones to boot. I wonder if they built them or did they hire contractors for the job?

The only way you can be an honest Christian, is by not reading the bible.
Moderator Action: Warned - Trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Margaret Thatcher could stay at Chequers when she was PM.

 

[Leifmk]

Actually, it would be more like asking the race car driver why he prefers to be in first.

From my point of view, it's sometimes more like asking a guy in a juiced-up crapmobile why he thinks the roads around my house are a damn racetrack.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I never knew that according to the bible, dragons live in palaces. Pleasant ones to boot. I wonder if they built them or did they hire contractors for the job?

The only way you can be an honest Christian, is by not reading the bible.

Its a metaphor.

 

[Arakhor]

Its a metaphor.

If it's a metaphor, explain it! You don't get away with pat answers in a thread specifically devoted to explanations.

 

[GhostWriter16]

If it's a metaphor, explain it! You don't get away with pat answers in a thread specifically devoted to explanations.

Later I will. I need time to read and think about it. But I felt the need to defend Christianity from "You can't believe it if you read the Bible" garbage.

 

[bathsheba666]

Its a metaphor.

Just like the creation in Genesis.

 

[MobBoss]

Ladies and gentlemen, I present you the dangers of religion. The danger of making the important question irrelevant and slowing progression since forever and laughing all the way

To counter, I will simply point out that in history, some great science has been done by people of faith.

Religion is still, at its root, a quest for truth. It simply asks different questions than science does. And thats not necessarily a bad thing.

Time spend discovering is time lost? Progress is wasted time?

No, time spent thinking you have the right answer when you dont is lost.

I dont see what is so arguable about that.

No. Not to both of us.

Ah, well, so much for trying to be fair then I guess.

But I advice you to never complain about it again, as you have done in the past.

Stating that unbelivers dont get the same thing from biblical text as a follower of Christ does isnt exactly a complaint. Its more of an observation.

Since I know you wouldn't want to be seen as a hypocrite.

You will think what you will think. /shrug.

Deal with it.

Fair enough?

I have. For a long, long time.

 

[Seon]

Later I will. I need time to read and think about it. But I felt the need to defend Christianity from "You can't believe it if you read the Bible" garbage.

If you don't have anything to say other than that, I suggest you don't say anything at all in the first place. First of all, it does nothing but worsen your position as it makes the proponent of it look foolish, but it is also a logical fallacy. You can't make a conclusion that it is a "metaphor" without knowing what it's a metaphor for or without having any proof that it is a metaphor.

What you seem to be doing is making conclusions and then trying to find evidence for it.

 

[superisis]

I have one question for the bible believers:

In the NT, Mathew's Gospel he says on the second page (1:17) that from Abraham to David there were 14 generations, from David to the capture in Babylonia there were 14 generations and from Babylonia to Christ there we 14 generations. However in the verses preceding it they count up the names, but there aren't 14x3=42 names, there are only 41. So what gives? There is no way to interpret fourteen generations and make the count fit. So what happened there; is it also a metaphor?

These were excellent, thanks

Thanks. My hobby is collecting good youtube videos on atheism/evolution/logic. I've got plenty more

 

[PeteAtoms]

Religion is still, at its root, a quest for truth. It simply asks different questions than science does. And thats not necessarily a bad thing.

What truths has religion not found yet? I was under the impression that religion pretty much had nature and the universe pretty well summed up, only altering these "truths" in hindsight when actual truth is revealed by science/logic.

What questions are still left unanswered by religion (to the religious mind)?

 

[Arakhor]

Well, they might have been counting Jesus himself as the 42nd generation.

The thing I'm more interested in is the length of a generation. Even at 30 years per generation, Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon in 532 BC, not c. 450 BC and King David is dated to c.1000 BC (not c. 900 BC). 42 generations would supposedly set Abraham at roughly 1300 BC.

 

[warpus]

No, time spent thinking you have the right answer when you dont is lost.

There are a *lot* of things that are wrong that we assume to be right, right now. What can we do about it?

Nothing, aside from trying to figure out what we have wrong and what we have right. That's way better than assuming that whatever we think we know is right no matter what.

 

[Luckymoose]

Just like the creation in Genesis.

Spot on.

 

[Miles Teg]

Well, they might have been counting Jesus himself as the 42nd generation.

The thing I'm more interested in is the length of a generation. Even at 30 years per generation, Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon in 532 BC, not c. 450 BC and King David is dated to c.1000 BC (not c. 900 BC). 42 generations would supposedly set Abraham at roughly 1300 BC.

And of course, Jesus's list of ancestors is completely different in Matthew and Luke. Currently, the favored Christian response to this is based on a complicated system of adoption and phrasing that doesn't really seem to have been used anywhere outside of these two particular books of the Bible. Christians generally like to ignore the latter part of that sentence.

The passages you're talking about refer to the Destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. and all remnants of the old covenant with it, which some of the disciples probably did witness.

No dice. Jesus does prophesy (read, the author inserted a later date) that the temple would be destroyed, but then he segues into an apocalyptic narrative along the lines of the Revelation of John, capped by a clear promise that it will happen in his generation. While the temple part was fulfilled, the rest of it obviously wasn't.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, they might have been counting Jesus himself as the 42nd generation.

The thing I'm more interested in is the length of a generation. Even at 30 years per generation, Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon in 532 BC, not c. 450 BC and King David is dated to c.1000 BC (not c. 900 BC). 42 generations would supposedly set Abraham at roughly 1300 BC.

I don't think so.

I think that the 14 generations meant "14 important generations" because there were certainly a few generations at least that were skipped. This was fairly common back then. That aside, the estimated date for Egypt's rise was (I think) somewhere around 3,000 BC so the Flood must have predated that.

And Abraham is usually spotted at 2,000 BC.

And of course, Jesus's list of ancestors is completely different in Matthew and Luke. Currently, the favored Christian response to this is based on a complicated system of adoption and phrasing that doesn't really seem to have been used anywhere outside of these two particular books of the Bible. Christians generally like to ignore the latter part of that sentence.

Its because Matthew was recording Joseph's line, and Luke recorded Mary's line. This also makes sense because, at least according to us, Jesus was born of a virgin, and as Joseph came from Jehoakim (Don't hold me to the name or spelling), Joseph could NOT have procreated to make the Messiah because it was proophecied no king would ever sit on the throne from Jehoakim's line. Mary was not even descended from Solomon, but she was descended from David, thus making her suitable to carry him.

No dice. Jesus does prophesy (read, the author inserted a later date) that the temple would be destroyed, but then he segues into an apocalyptic narrative along the lines of the Revelation of John, capped by a clear promise that it will happen in his generation. While the temple part was fulfilled, the rest of it obviously wasn't.

Well, many Christians believe that Nero was the antichrist, Revelation and other apocolyptic events (With a few exceptions) happened during that time, and anything that doesn't fit was allegorical. I don't accept this view personally though. The way I look at it, when he said "This generation will not pass away" he wasn't talking about there's. He MIGHT have been talking about the generation of 1948 (Israel returning) or he may have been talking about a different generation. I'd guess it was talking about the Generation of the Tribulation's start would still be there when it ended (AKA: some humans will survive.)

 

[Arakhor]

Well, many Christians believe that Nero was the antichrist, Revelation and other apocolyptic events (With a few exceptions) happened during that time, and anything that doesn't fit was allegorical.

Who are or were these "many Christians" and can you point to any Roman writers recording the events that supposedly align with Revelation?

 

[Miles Teg]

Its because Matthew was recording Joseph's line, and Luke recorded Mary's line. This also makes sense because, at least according to us, Jesus was born of a virgin, and as Joseph came from Jehoakim (Don't hold me to the name or spelling), Joseph could NOT have procreated to make the Messiah because it was proophecied no king would ever sit on the throne from Jehoakim's line. Mary was not even descended from Solomon, but she was descended from David, thus making her suitable to carry him.

I'm aware of all this, I was just pointing out that there's no reason in the scriptures to believe that Matthew and Luke were writing about the different sides of Jesus's family, and that common Christian justifications for how the reader can tell this(generally based on the exact phrasing each author used) are pretty ahistorical.

Well, many Christians believe that Nero was the antichrist, Revelation and other apocolyptic events (With a few exceptions) happened during that time, and anything that doesn't fit was allegorical. I don't accept this view personally though. The way I look at it, when he said "This generation will not pass away" he wasn't talking about there's. He MIGHT have been talking about the generation of 1948 (Israel returning) or he may have been talking about a different generation. I'd guess it was talking about the Generation of the Tribulation's start would still be there when it ended (AKA: some humans will survive.)

Again, read your Bible. Jesus explicitly says that "this generation" shall not pass away. Aside from your predefined beliefs, why do you think "this generation" refers to anything other than, you know, "this generation", as of that moment?

Anyways, we've wandered a fair bit from the subject of creationism, so he's a question:

What would be minimum amount of evolutionary change required to validate current scientific theory?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Who are or were these "many Christians" and can you point to any Roman writers recording the events that supposedly align with Revelation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism

Its a common view actually, and common with Amillennialists (I'm assuming you are an Amillennialist since it takes a rather literal reading of the Bible to be premillennial.)

I don't agree with it though. I am a premillennial futurist. At least right now.

 

[Arakhor]

I don't believe in any sort of millennial teachings. Jesus left his footprints behind on the hill where he departed and he is highly unlikely to be coming back.