Evidence for creationism

[Askthepizzaguy]

Learn more about Evolution:

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


Words bad? Don't worry, pictures good!

EVOLUTION​

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM EVOLUTION DENIAL​

Spoiler :

Which do you think holds more water?

Spoiler :

(Obviously, the flood theory..... GET IT???)

But here's the thing. One is a scientific THEORY, which is an entirely separate phenomenon from Creationism, which is a religious belief with no scientific foundation.

Creation "science" does not start from a perspective of "I do not know" and attempts to find out what the truth is, whatever it may be, regardless of personal belief, as real science does.

Creation "science" starts with the view that the Bible is true, and then attempts to prove that the Bible is true, and rejects everything that does not prove that the Bible is true, and explains gaps by saying a wizard did it.

That's not science. It's not the same as a scientific theory. It doesn't belong in public schools. It belongs to those who live in a fantasy land, because that's what it is, total fiction and pure fantasy.

 

[SuperJay]

As for my opinion on schools, it depends on precisely how its done. I consider it totally unacceptable to teach it as fact or to word test questions in such a way that you will either accept evolution or get them wrong. But to teach it as a possible theory, and to ask questions in a format of "According to the Theory of Evolution..." would be OK I guess. A better option would be to teach both that and ID or neither.

This is where I have a problem - when people try and push an education system to adopt their personal religious beliefs, rather than teaching actual documented scientific knowledge. I have zero issues if you want to believe in Intelligent Design, or Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy - and what you teach your own children is your business.

But I have a really big frakking problem with your assertion that my children should be taught that your beliefs about Intelligent Design are as equally substantiated as evolution is, and that ID has as much evidence for it as evolution does. As you yourself have repeatedly admitted, ID is not verifiable, cannot be substantiated through evidence, and requires an extreme leap of faith to even begin to explain.

 

[Methos]

I'm guessing you missed my post ATPG.

<...snip...>

Guys, try not to insult Dom. While I also disagree with his beliefs, I see no reason to insult him. And Dom, you might want to consider considering your reply more before posting. You're not helping yourself much. If anything, check your Bible and see if it has anything to say on the subject.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I apologise for misinterpreting your post.

I'm curious though, at what point would believing in the Big Bang and evolution be the tipping point towards damnation - what other views would a person have to hold that would cause believing in macroevolution to be the tipping point?

I don't know your views on purgatory, so feel free to include that if it's relevant.

Edit:

If creation occurred as described in the Bible, I can't believe that the Christian God would care about whether a person chose to believe in the Big Bang and evolution over the Biblical description. I do not think either view is morally superior. The question asked above is because you do, apparently, think that there is a moral value in one view (assuming salvation is determined by morals). I'd like to know what that value is.

Something being important does not mean that you being wrong on a certain number of those things then you are damned. That's not how it works.

2 Timothy 3:16

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

So, according to that logic, all Scripture is important, HOWEVER that does not mean that you have to be right on everything in Scripture to be a Christian. There are certain things, such as the Substitutionary Atonement, that I frankly do not think you can be saved if you don't believe, because that's the essence of Christianity as Christ taught it. Something like this, on the other hand, while important, is not a Salvation issue. Its important but not critical.

To the paragraph about purgatory- I do not accept the existence of purgatory.

As for Salvation- It is by faith and repentance, not morality.

 

[GenMarshall]

As for Salvation- It is by faith and repentance.

....





Sadly, that's not a reality for me. God will never forgive me anyway.

 

[GhostWriter16]

....





Sadly, that's not a reality for me. God will never forgive me anyway.

Why not? God will forgive anyone who asks it.

 

[Tacitusitis]

cept The Gays, is what I think Civ is sayin

 

[GhostWriter16]

cept The Gays, is what I think Civ is sayin

Untrue. God will forgive them too.

 

[Thedrin]

Domination3000:
As for Salvation- It is by faith and repentance, not morality.

Surely repentance requires morality? Anyway, I'll rephrase this

Me:
If creation occurred as described in the Bible, I can't believe that the Christian God would care about whether a person chose to believe in the Big Bang and evolution over the Biblical description. I do not think either view is morally superior. The question asked above is because you do, apparently, think that there is a moral value in one view (assuming salvation is determined by morals). I'd like to know what that value is.

as:

Would a person need to repent for believing evolution was the mechanism by which God created biological diversity (I don't mean intelligent design).

By the way, I thought you were a YEC. Why would you advocate teaching ID in schools at all. That's an old Earth theory, isn't it?

 

[galdre]

Untrue. God will forgive them too.

yes, as long as they stop being gay

"just be someone other than who you are, and god will love you"

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Here's a real beauty:

The magical force is called time. The world won't last long enough. If it does, macroevolution may happen. It may not. That is meaningless.

1. The world won't be around long enough for evolution to happen on a macro scale.
(Fact?)

2. If it does....
(Huh?)

If it does, macroevolution may happen. It may not. That is meaningless.




So, you believe that evolution doesn't exist because it does exist but happens too slowly for it to cause different species because the world will end and if it does not then macroevolution may happen but whether it does or not is... "meaningless".

• But you know FOR SURE there's no macroevolution.

No, you DON'T know for sure. That's why you state something as a fact, like you know it is a fact, and then proceed to give what ifs, if that thing you just stated as a fact like you were an all-knowing God doesn't come to be. And that what if leads to.... and maybe there is marcoevolution, but it would be "meaningless macroevolution". So even in the scenario where you fail, it somehow doesn't matter that you've failed?



Is anyone else gasping for air after all that?

 

[Methos]

2 Timothy 3:16

So, according to that logic, all Scripture is important,

I suggest you research the Pastoral Epistles, as many Biblical scholars do not believe in their authenticity. Second, even if 2 Timothy is authentic, at the time of its writing the Bible didn't exist and also at that time all the Gnostic Scriptures still existed, so therefore 2 Timothy is saying they are correct too.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Surely repentance requires morality? Anyway, I'll rephrase this



as:

Would a person need to repent for believing evolution was the mechanism by which God created biological diversity (I don't mean intelligent design).

By the way, I thought you were a YEC. Why would you advocate teaching ID in schools at all. That's an old Earth theory, isn't it?

Well, first of all, nobody is going to recognize every sin they committed, the point is that you repent of being a sinner in general.

I don't think believing in evolution is so much a sin as a doctrinal error.

yes, as long as they stop being gay

"just be someone other than who you are, and god will love you"

Ummm... You completely misunderstand.

First of all, everybody sins, so just because they are practicing homosexuality does not mean that they are exempt from salvation, merely that they are wrong.

Second of all, what if somebody has an inclination to pedophilia? (Not comparing the two.) "Just be someone else other than who you are..." No! Just don't sin, because that's what God commands. And not so that he'll love you, he loves you anyway.

@Methos- Scripture would mean, well, whatever parts of Scripture are authentic.

Also, I trust God to keep his scripture together. I believe God was with the people who put it together. If the Bible has "Non-authentic" books then we can just make up doctrine and assume its correct because whatever disagrees with us "Isn't accurate."

I choose not to accept that.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'm not a Bible literalist, but I'll take a stab at some of your points.

I'm glad SOMEONE is.

Recall the 'breaking of the bread'? Jesus fed thousands with just a loaf or two. He did the same thing with fish.

Bible doesn't mention this happening on the ark, so this does the following:

1. Makes stuff up out of thin air
2. Requires magic
3. Is the same thing as saying "God did it".

Why not just say "God did it" whenever I have a criticism of anything in the Bible? Why attempt to give any other answer, when you always have to fall back on "I dunno, God must have done it somehow!"

You should take into consideration our common day ships that are made of very heavy metal that carry thousands of people, or the aircraft carriers that carry thousands of people and heavy equipment.

Noah built a modern day metal cargo vessel out of wood?

The bible is specific and clear about what the vessel was shaped like, made out of, and what its dimensions were.

And according to the laws of physics (God can break them so it doesn't matter... but why would he create laws of physics just to later break them? Doesn't that mean he made a mistake?) that ship wouldn't be able to support that kind of volume and mass of animals and still float.

I'm not a mathematician but just a pair of each species alive today and all those who died "in between", not including food, water, feces, seeds, cages, and the enormous staff you'd need to feed them all, would not fit in that ark, and that's been proven with math.

If I REALLY have to I'll go find links, but I'm really getting tired of being the side of this debate that has to cite facts which are then dismissed with "God did it".

It's a form of trolling.

My other hobby is caving and the cave divers among us have talked about freshwater caves in the ocean. They talk about how amazing and beautiful it is when you pass through the barrier/divider between salt and fresh water. I don't quite understand it myself.

The flood would still require all the lake and river fish to end up in the ocean.

Once again, the only explanation is "I dunno, God's magic".

I always find it funny that atheist argue the Bible literally. Heck, I find it hilarious that Christians take the Bible literally.

I don't argue the Bible literally, except when I am arguing with a Biblical literalist.

Blame the literalist. I'm the one who thinks it's daft to take it literally. My arguments show why.

I disagree with you. There are not only three choices. You've merely given him only three.

Then he needs to give his own answer, not go "I disagree and I'm right, I don't know how I'm right but I do know I am right and not ever wrong about this, even when I am, and if I were it wouldn't matter anyway".




EDIT:

Here, it's not even hard to google.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Math, reason, logic. None of those could have fit on the Ark with Noah and his steaming buckets of animal poo.

There's about a hundred other blatantly obvious errors with this story. All have to be explained by "I dunno, Wizardry."

That's NOT SCIENCE!

 

[SuperJay]

Then he needs to give his own answer, not go "I disagree and I'm right, I don't know how I'm right but I do know I am right and not ever wrong about this, even when I am, and if I were it wouldn't matter anyway".

Bingo. ATPG has a point here that keeps being conveniently ignored. He's rebutting points logically, providing evidence, and backing up his arguments. If the opposition in this debate cannot do the same - and the past several pages of this thread would indicate that it cannot - than the opposition concedes and the debate ends.

This thread is called "Evidence for Creationism." If someone on the Creationist side cannot provide that evidence, the debate is over.

Continuing this runaround with "I don't know, I don't care, it's meaningless" or "maybe, sort of, perhaps, supposedly" is an exercise in futility and a waste of time.

 

[Thedrin]

Domination3000:
Well, first of all, nobody is going to recognize every sin they committed, the point is that you repent of being a sinner in general.

I don't think believing in evolution is so much a sin as a doctrinal error.

I really don't know how to continue after that first sentence. It raises questions I cannot directly relate to creationism, but that would have to be answered before I could continue asking you about your views on creationism and scientific consensus.

 

[Thedrin]

Bingo. ATPG has a point here that keeps being conveniently ignored. He's rebutting points logically, providing evidence, and backing up his arguments. If the opposition in this debate cannot do the same - and the past several pages of this thread would indicate that it cannot - than the opposition concedes and the debate ends.

This thread is called "Evidence for Creationism." If someone on the YEC side cannot provide that evidence, the debate is over.

Continuing this runaround with "I don't know, I don't care, it's meaningless" or "maybe, sort of, perhaps, supposedly" is an exercise in futility and a waste of time.

You and Domination3000s' definitions of evidence are different. That he hasn't met yours doesn't mean he hasn't met his own.

Creationism threads have been active on this and every other OT forum I've taken part in since I first started using forums (2001). Threads always go this way, and yet - somehow - new threads on the same topic continue to be posted.

 

[Methos]

This thread is called "Evidence for Creationism." If someone on the YEC side cannot provide that evidence, the debate is over.

The problem with your statement is that YEC aren't the only ones who believe in Creationism. YEC stands for Young Earth Creationism, which in itself implies there are other forms of it. Granted, YEC is about the only one that can be argued using evidence against using evidence.

Edit: Clarified that last sentence with the word "against".

 

[kiwitt]

Bible doesn't mention this happening on the ark, so this does the following:

1. Makes stuff up out of thin air
2. Requires magic
3. Is the same thing as saying "God did it".

Why not just say "God did it" whenever I have a criticism of anything in the Bible? Why attempt to give any other answer, when you always have to fall back on "I dunno, God must have done it somehow!"

You need to see the Bible as providing knowledge for a different age and a different group of people who are not as educated about the world as people are today.

If we take the point that the Bible is a compendium of knowledge more than 4,000 years old (if you consider the old testament, in regards to creation), then we need to accept that as more knowledge that was found it was placed in libraries. From our "Civ playing", we know about the Alexandria Library and the amount of world knowledge that was lost when it was destroyed.

Science has continued to increase our knowledge in our libraries and internet web pages. As science is known to have gaps, the Bible is obviously also going to have gaps, given the growth in knowledge.

The priests and scholars who were teaching about God from the early Bible, were teaching to an audience where even this information supplied could be considered new. So the audience has to be considered in the age it was written. In addition, the knowledge to be taught would have been a lot smaller as well.

So, yes the Bible should not be taken literally, but in the Bible there are messages and advice that is still relevant today, which will work across any generation. I see the Bible not as the "Word of God", but people's understanding of what God is and can do in a time when there were many unexplained things. When people attack the Bible they are really attacking the frailties of men and as I explained earlier in this post, men's knowledge of things were severely lacking many 1,000's of years ago as we all know.

People may believe the Bible is literal, and that is their choice, but they need to accept science is helping to plug the holes in the Bibles knowledge, like Alexandria did then does science do now.

The main problem I have is not with the Bible itself, but the actual existence of God, and that is a whole other debate. Jesus may or may not have existed, but the message of "Love" he taught is the most important and this message has been taught, by many prophets before and after him, like Mohammad, Buddha, Gandhi, Dali Lama, Mandela, etc. as well as many lay-preachers.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

If we don't get a more substantive answer than "It's what I believe/I don't know/God did it somehow" then this debate is over and this thread should be locked.

I am going to ask the YEC/evolution denier side to either come up with actual scientific arguments, or please for the love of your God, stop posting.

You and Domination3000s' definitions of evidence are different. That he hasn't met yours doesn't mean he hasn't met his own.

Domination hasn't provided any evidence. The Bible is not evidence.

If I wrote a book to back up my opinion, and all it contained was my opinions, and I cited my book as evidence, that's not the same thing as evidence.

The Bible is OPINION. Beliefs are OPINION. Evidence requires substance, facts, data, logic, reasoning, proofs....

If he doesn't agree with the definition of evidence, he can spend his time arguing with a dictionary.