Evidence FOR Creationism

[Perfection]

I don't think I can debate if my only sources of information backing my stance are cut off from me I suppose.(According to someone's post above)

Assuming I can use my sources we can continue....

And those sources would be...

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

That web site people around here think is stupid....

 

[Perfection]

That web site people around here think is stupid....

Well, you've allready posted two of thier articles, why don't you discredit my rubbutals on them? I mean, if they have such good arguements surely you could tell me where I went wrong.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Well Sword of Geddon, you are free to consider the Bible was right about how the world has been created. But I personally believe that the philosophical message of the Genesis is more important than the facts pictured in it. I consider this as an allegory. Moreover, I should add that the creation of the Universe is a mystery and no matter how all this had been created, it's not incompatible with the existence of God.

Don't forget this, the most important in the Ancient Testament as mush than in the Gospels is the messages, the philosophy of it.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

But isn't it true that if one book of the bible is false, than the Bible as a whole cannot be trusted?

Perfection: I'll do my best, I guess name one piece of evidence for evolution and I'll try and find an article on AiG or one of the other sites, sort of like playing catch I suppose.

 

[Steph]

But isn't it true that if one book of the bible is false, than the Bible as a whole cannot be trusted?

No, that's where you are wrong. Personnally, I'm an agnostic. In the true meaning of the world "who doesn't believe". With no complement. It's not "I don't believe God exists". Or "I don't believe God doesn't exist". It's just "I don't believe". It means I simply don't know. The existence or God is something than cannot be proven, God in general (his existence, his will, his plans, etc) are behind human comprehension, and therefore it's pointless to try to explain it. I despise people who say "God clearly says". It's extreamly presomptuous of them to say such thing if God exists.

This introduction being, er, introcuded, let's move to the point.

Once again, I agree with Marla. The important part of the Bible is not the text, but the spirit, the message behind. You can if you will take the Bible to the letter. But then, it leads to ridiculous fights to prove Creationism against Evolutionism. Yes, I wrote ridiculous, because from a relatively neutral point of view, as I try to have here by asserting the various arguments from a logical approach, your attempt to prove Creationism are not very serious.
And more importantly, you may miss completly what should be the philosophical message behind the Bible.

You can perfectly consider the Bible, including Genesis, as true, if you read it as a collection of metaphore to strengthen the message. Consequently, you can trust the message of the Bible, but not the exact words.
It would be very beneficial for you. First, it would force you to move to a new level of thinking, trying to decipher the texts, to understand the meaning behind, to prospect the mind of the philisophical part instead of sticking to material interpretation.
Second, you could live in a world with less contradiction.

When you read the evidences for evolution, don't you think sometime "Hey, this is troubling..."? I know you do think it because you try to counter the evidences. And when you give evidences for creationism, don't you sometimes find them a bit shaky?

Why is it impossible for you to try to make evolution and the Bible live together? I know many christians, scientist christians, who still believe in god while also regarding scientific facts, including evolution, as true.

Now, if you don't believe it's possible, we can discuss it. I can show you than you can still read the Bible and consider it true, while accepting scientific theory such as evolution. They do not necessarily contradict each other.

But to have a positive discussion, you have to be ready to accept one thing. The Bible is not a succession of facts to be read to the first degree.
Don't forget two things:
- The Bible as you know it has been written by men, to be read by men. Wether it was based on insight of God is a matter of personnal belief. But you can't deny your own Bible has not been miracuously given to you by God himself, written by his own hand.
- The men in question had the knowledge of their time. It means there way to write the texts was done in word that are comprehensible, and easily, by the writter, and by the "reader". For an un educated people, listening to the priest, the messages had to be easily understandable.

Are you ready to open your mind and seek the other possible degrees?

 

[Masquerouge]

But isn't it true that if one book of the bible is false, than the Bible as a whole cannot be trusted?

Yes, you got the point

If you believe that the Genesis is true and up to date, then you must also believe that books such as the Deuteronom and Kings are true and up to date.
Have you ever read those two books ? Do you abide by the rules of these books ? I guess not, or else your life would be very funny.
For instance :
Deuteronomy 21
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Do you condone that ? Stoning rebellious sons ?
So why do you choose to believe Genesis and not the other parts of the Bible ?
Why do you choose to believe the Bible when it talk about "scientifical" matters, but not when it talk about human matters ?

 

[yoshi74]

But isn't it true that if one book of the bible is false, than the Bible as a whole cannot be trusted?

Yes, thats what i concluded long ago. The bible is written by man. And no man can decide whether they were under influence or not. In the end you don't trust in god, but in the man who claimed they were inspired by god. But hey, the world is full of false prophets who claim to be the mouth of god. The bible writers have the advantage that they are long dead, and their writing has at least some style. How in any way can a human know what is true. So eighter believe in everyone of none of them.

But then, when you WANT to believe in god, than you don't need a proof, and reject any proof against it. Its fine by me when you do that. But dont try to convince others to your fairy tales.

 

[Perfection]

But isn't it true that if one book of the bible is false, than the Bible as a whole cannot be trusted?

No book can be completly trusted, books are human inventions and such are subject to human fallacy. That doesn't mean books aren't a very valuable asset to building up beliefs, but it's very important to read crtically. Also, I might say that the invalidity of one part of a book doesn't make the rest invalid. I'd wager that every single important work written in the history of science has some level of factual errors

Perfection: I'll do my best, I guess name one piece of evidence for evolution and I'll try and find an article on AiG or one of the other sites, sort of like playing catch I suppose.

How about you try debating without relying on other people's arguements? And what's the point of giving me an article to debunk if you don't back it up with a counterarguement?

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

I have in past felt a Supernatural pressence(The Holy Sprit), I know this wasn't me, because it knew things I couldn't possibly know, and I later found out what it said was true... That led me to conclude that theres far more to the world than meets the eye(or the nose, touch or ear for that matter), and that the God of the Bible does indeed exist. Once, I was looking for something I lost. The Voice told me EXACTLY where it was. Although I was raised in a Christian home, I wasn't really a Christian until October of 1998(I was 15 at the time). I talked the talk, but I didn't walk the walk, and it showed. I was a completely different person before then, and I didn't hear the voice either.

Yes, the Bible is written by Man(With the exception of the Ten Commandments), but it wasn't the men who were the authors(With the exception of a few books, although they to were divinely inspired).

 

[CenturionV]

How about you try debating without relying on other people's arguements? And what's the point of giving me an article to debunk if you don't back it up with a counterarguement?

why, just because there some body elses makes them less valid?

Your just trying to lure him into posting some thing on the board that he is not equipped to defend.

If you want a counter argument, go to the person who wrote the article, not the guy who posts the link to it.

 

[Mauer]

Do you condone that ? Stoning rebellious sons ?
So why do you choose to believe Genesis and not the other parts of the Bible ?
Why do you choose to believe the Bible when it talk about "scientifical" matters, but not when it talk about human matters ?

This and all of the other strange laws are the laws of Moses. Which if you read the entire bible, you will understand that believers in Christ are not under the law. If you are under the law, then you will be judged by it. Indeed, none of us would be found innocent. Which is the reason behind the Savior. He has paid our penalty and if we would just believe in Him, then we will not be judged by the law, but covered with His righteousness.

 

[Perfection]

I have in past felt a Supernatural pressence(The Holy Sprit), I know this wasn't me, because it knew things I couldn't possibly know, and I later found out what it said was true...

Like...

Yes, the Bible is written by Man(With the exception of the Ten Commandments), but it wasn't the men who were the authors(With the exception of a few books, although they to were divinely inspired).

Do you got any evidence of that you can share with me.

why, just because there some body elses makes them less valid?

No, I object because it's not really debating, rather he posts an article, then I debunk it, he posts another article, then I debunk it. He's not responding to my criticisms, he's not using crtical thinking skills, he's just posting articles.

Your just trying to lure him into posting some thing on the board that he is not equipped to defend.

He already has posting things on the board that it appears he is not equipped to defend! I've seen no defense of the articles after my debunking! Anyways, it's not my problem if he can't back up his beliefs without copying and pasting the arguments of others!

If you want a counter argument, go to the person who wrote the article, not the guy who posts the link to it.

So it's okay if I post all kinds of evolution articles here, and not back them up?

If you post an article as an argument, it's fair game to me, and I'll tear through it, and criticize you if you move on without addressing it. If you don't want to defend an article, don't post it!

 

[CenturionV]

So it's okay if I post all kinds of evolution articles here, and not back them up?

If you post an article as an argument, it's fair game to me, and I'll tear through it, and criticize you if you move on without addressing it. If you don't want to defend an article, don't post it?

What do you mean? He can't post a link to an article, without having to defend it? Who said this had anything to do with debate? If I post a site, and you refuse to read it you are just ignoring the evidence. But don't expect me to defend the articles because I did not write them. Just because I'm not willing to defend an article, does not make it any less true, and less acurate, or any less "fair" of me to do so, science is not the kind of thing people can just discuss on internet forums in one afternoon. If you want the truth, go debunk the arcticles to the people who wrote them, listen to there counter arguments.

Some how I get the feeling you won't do that, because your essentially a scientific bully, you like the feeling of coming on to the forum, going through a good afternoon of lofty ceationist debunking, and all before 6. You won't discuss the articles with the people who wrote them cuz you know you will lose. And your not really interested in there argument, your more interested in being able to pick them apart, with nobody being able to take shots back at you.

You come on the internet bragging about how "I have not seen any evidence for creationism" we post links to pages, but you refuse to actually seriously look into the arguments, and discuss them with the people who are knowledgable in that area. Your obvious goal is your personnel enjoyment in "debunking" creationism, not in actually addressing the arguments to the people who know it best.

The onus is on you, your the one making wild claims that there is NO evidence for creationism, as your basis for your belief in evolution.

 

[Perfection]

What do you mean? He can't post a link to an article, without having to defend it?

He can do whatever the hell he wants, but just posting articles without defending them reflects poorly on his arguement.

Who said this had anything to do with debate?

That's basicly what OT is.

If I post a site, and you refuse to read it you are just ignoring the evidence.

Or I don't have time to read a whole site.

But don't expect me to defend the articles because I did not write them.

You use them in an arguement, and don't defend them then your arguement stinks!

Just because I'm not willing to defend an article, does not make it any less true, and less acurate, or any less "fair" of me to do so,

No but it does makes your arguement stink after I refute it and leave its corpse dangling in the thread, and you don't come along to defend it.

science is not the kind of thing people can just discuss on internet forums in one afternoon.

Sure it is, I do it all the time.

If you want the truth, go debunk the arcticles to the people who wrote them, listen to there counter arguments.

I already have truth.

Some how I get the feeling you won't do that, because your essentially a scientific bully, you like the feeling of coming on to the forum, going through a good afternoon of lofty ceationist debunking, and all before 6. You won't discuss the articles with the people who wrote them cuz you know you will lose.

No, it's because I don't have the time to debunk all the articles, I do have a life, you know.

And your not really interested in there argument, your more interested in being able to pick them apart, with nobody being able to take shots back at you.

Ummm, if I can pick the arguement apart then it's not really a good one

You come on the internet bragging about how "I have not seen any evidence for creationism" we post links to pages, but you refuse to actually seriously look into the arguments, and discuss them with the people who are knowledgable in that area.

No, it's just when I look into it I see gaping holes!

Your obvious goal is your personnel enjoyment in "debunking" creationism, not in actually addressing the arguments to the people who know it best.

That's a facet, I do find it a wee bit fun. I don't adress those who know it best simply because I'd have to put more time into it. This is an afternoon hobby, not a career.

The onus is on you, your the one making wild claims that there is NO evidence for creationism, as your basis for your belief in evolution.

I never said there is "NO evidence for creationism" I said I haven't seen any (not counting illogical or unscientific evidence).

 

[CenturionV]

I never said there is "NO evidence for creationism" I said I haven't seen any (not counting illogical or unscientific evidence).

Well then its just down to personnel opinion, if your not going to make a statement that there is no evidence about creationism, then why should I care what your personnel belief is? All the evidence I've seen leads me to believe in creationism, and I have still not seen any acceptable evidence for evolution. (not counting illogical or unscientific evidence, like the idea that information can come from lack of information, life, from lack of life. I just can't justify believing in that no matter how hard I might try)

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

Like...

Once, I was looking for something I lost. The Voice told me EXACTLY where it was. Although I was raised in a Christian home, I wasn't really a Christian until October of 1998(I was 15 at the time). I talked the talk, but I didn't walk the walk, and it showed. I was a completely different person before then, and I didn't hear the voice either.

 

[Marla_Singer]

No Sword of Geddon, as Steph has said, it's not because some facts are wrong that the message is wrong. The Gospels have been written by four prophets, each one has a different interpretation of Jesus' life. So there is contradictions inside the Bible... and if that's the case, it's simply because the Bible doesn't pretend to have been written by God, it's a lot more humble, writers are telling about stories they've heard but haven't seen by themselves. So yes, those writers are interpreting those facts, but that doesn't mean that those facts didn't happen.

My humble opinion is that everyone should be free to make her/his own interpretation on how things really happened. I actually think that there is simply no other way. And more importantly, what is the most interesting in the Bible is the message of it.

By the way, my personal message to people who don't believe in God, you don't have more evidences He doesn't exist than creationists have proofs that the evolution is wrong. I think it would be better if everyone would simply respect people believing different than themselves, instead of trying to convince they are necessarily wrong.

 

[JollyRoger]

Yes, the Bible is written by Man(With the exception of the Ten Commandments), but it wasn't the men who were the authors(With the exception of a few books, although they to were divinely inspired).

God should have run His work past a good editor before He started divinely inspiring people. Let's just look at the first commandment - God admits He is a jealous God. Then go to the New Testament, near all the verses you holier-than-thou's use to justify your homophobia. Good Lord, jealousy is an abomination. Did God blind you to not see the inconsistency? After all, the 10 commandments and the homosexual verses near the jealousy verses are some of the most quoted by modern day Christians.

As for Genesis - don't think about it too much - you might start wondering why it was Adam and God (who went by the name Steve) before it was Adam and Eve and then begin to question the intermediate step of God trying to set Adam up with an animal before He got around to inventing woman. And what is the first thing God does after Adam sees the nakedness of Eve and that it is good? He kicks them out of the "Garden" (He must have been in one of His jealous rages). Maybe God should audition for Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

The only evidence for Creationism is an old book filled with inconsistencies. But you don't need evidence - you just need faith. Now beg God's forgiveness for questioning your faith in Him by seeking evidence.

 

[Steph]

Yes, and you can believe in God, read the message of the Bible, while in the same time believe in evolution. The Bible can be interpretated as a set of metaphores, and then they do not necessarily contradict with other theories such as evolution.
For instance, you can consider Adam as the first man, 5000 years ago AND believe in evolution with man appearing from primates thousands of years before.