Evidence for creationism

[Askthepizzaguy]

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.

That's how I see it, but today's people continually cite it as some perfect book containing scientific knowledge.

If it were really the word of God, it would have its facts right about history, geography, and everything else.

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.

Go on...

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.

It's not gaps I'm worried about, but physical and logical contradictions and impossibilities.

The issue is that old, bad data is not thrown out and replaced with new, better data.

It's religious dogma that isn't allowed to change. That's why it isn't knowledge at all, but stubborn opinion in defiance of reality.

But really, divinely inspired word of God doesn't even know about the origins of life or predicted that the world was round?

Like a bucket of aardvark feces aboard a rickety ark, that stinks.

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.

If it's not factual, it's not actually knowledge.

So, yes the Bible should not be taken literally,

That is the grand conclusion towards which I am driving, but some are too stubborn to listen.

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.

Then it is an IMPERFECT book written by MEN, not God, and therefore it is not Holy or Sacred or Infallible.

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's Bible did then does science do now.

You're absolutely right. Which means they can't accept the Bible as literal, unchanging, and infallible.

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.

Now you're preaching to the choir.

Faith is fine. God is fine. Belief in God is fine.

When that extends to pushing fingers into your ears and shutting your eyes and saying "lalalalala" in a debate about evidence, that's NOT fine.

 

[SuperJay]

The problem with your statement is that YEC aren't the only ones who believe in Creationism.

Fair enough; changed my post to read "Creationist side" instead of "YEC side."

The offer stands: either Creationists provide the evidence for Creationism, or concede and end the debate.

Like I said, I don't personally care if people choose to believe in Creationism. I'm not here to convince anyone that their religious beliefs are wrong. But when you start asserting that your religious beliefs are objective truths, you've left "faith" behind altogether.

 

[carlosMM]

Well, the ark could have hypothetically happened anywhere from 4,000 to 18,000 years ago (And Young Earth Creationism still work.) I say somewhere between 6-8,000 years ago personally.

YEC is usually defined as belief in Usher's 6,000 year old earth...

But let's take your 8,000 years.

if there were 35,000 slaves in ~3,500 BC, then we must assume at least the same number of people supervising and guarding them and farming food crops etc. So the tally is now 70,000. That can't however, have been the entire population of Egypt, you need a complex and stratified society (as we know they had), so we can easily at least double then number again, to get sufficient population to support an adequate number of professional stonemasons, architects, water engineers, troops to safeguard the ruling class and the state etc.... So at the very least we are looking at a population of 140,000.

Care to explain how to get from 4 females in the world in 8,000 BC to 140,000 in Egypt ALONE, who report extensively on other large peoples around them (Nubia, etc.), in only 4,500 years at most?

And remember, this is only evolution within a species. So we will have two dogs, two cats, two monkeys, exc. and then micro worked from there.

So now you define "kind" at the genus level for mammals? Make up your mind please.

Remember though, the two didn't have to be from the same species. For instance, as a random example, a wolf and a house dog could have been the two dogs, and they could have created all the dogs we know today over in 2,000 years easily.

AGAIN: where is all that high evolution rate gone to - ancient Egyptians didn't note anything special, nor did the Romans - hey, beetles in Egyptian drawings from 5000 years ago look exactly like certain subspecies today..... so you allow a few centuries for a massive amount of evolution, then it got turned off just like that?

Nonsense!

Hmmm ... it may be possible to fit 2 of each species if they did not get the number (18,000) Wrong

A ship made exclusively of wood that size would leak so bad within minutes that youäd need more people to bail than it could hold. You need iron fittings.
Also, it would roll in the tiniest wave action.

AiG is a nuthouse of incredible proportions, in my opinion - and that of any sane scientist and theologian in the world. Just ask them.....

 

[Methos]

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

While I like your statement, I worry that Dom hasn't met his own. I have no problem with Dom believing how he does. I just hope he sits down and serious contemplates his own decision so that he has a strong foundation to believe what he does.

The Bible is OPINION.

You just removed a large part of the respect I had for you and your argument. I have no problem with someone not believing in the Bible, its their choice. But to say its an opinion is to show your own ignorance in what the Bible is. I disagree with Mormonism and believe the Book of Mormon to be false, but I still highly respect the BoM and what it teaches. Just because you disagree/disbelieve something, doesn't mean you should treat it as utter trash.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

You can still respect an opinion...

 

[Traitorfish]

You just removed a large part of the respect I had for you and your argument. I have no problem with someone not believing in the Bible, its their choice. But to say its an opinion is to show your own ignorance in what the Bible is. I disagree with Mormonism and believe the Book of Mormon to be false, but I still highly respect the BoM and what it teaches. Just because you disagree/disbelieve something, doesn't mean you should treat it as utter trash.

That doesn't mean it has the slightest ounce of legitimacy in the realm of science. At the very least, to acknowledge it is to either demand the acknowledgement of every other set of creation myths- Norse, Greek, Hindu, whatever- or to arbitrarily privilege one set because it happens to be popular.

 

[GhostWriter16]

My brain is too on overload to discuss evolution (I suck at it) but I'll answer the Egypt question.

First of all, the first people lived for 900 years. This changed after the flood, but people still lived longer (Even in Exodus we see Moses live 120 years.) However, immediately after the flood, Shem lived 600 years, so we can assume similar lifespans for his brothers, then three generations of 400 years, then 3 generations of 200 years. It stands to reason the childbearing age would have been higher. Not to mention the ways genealogies were done back then, there could have been many generations that were not listed. Which is also why assuming the Earth is precisely 6,000 years old is a fallacy.

 

[Methos]

That's how I see it, but today's people continually cite it as some perfect book containing scientific knowledge.

If it were really the word of God, it would have its facts right about history, geography, and everything else.

The Bible is not a textbook and it isn't meant to be taken as such, so why should it be 100% factual? It's rather difficult to teach in parables if you put such a stipulation on it.

But really, divinely inspired word of God doesn't even know about the origins of life or predicted that the world was round?

I don't recall the Bible every stating that the world was flat or round, so I'm rather confused as to your statement.

Then it is an IMPERFECT book written by MEN, not God, and therefore it is not Holy or Sacred or Infallible.

The first part I can agree with, but not the latter. Just because its not a perfect book, doesn't mean we can't learn from it. One of the Gnostic Scriptures I've read is in no way factual, nor even meant to be taken that way, yet what it teaches is very amazing.

[qoute]When that extends to pushing fingers into your ears and shutting your eyes and saying "lalalalala" in a debate about evidence, that's NOT fine.[/QUOTE]

I realize your primarily argueing against Dom, but your own statements are as far fetched as Dom's are. I may be mis-reading you, but your statements seem to imply that because it isn't 100% factual, then nothing can be learned from it.

Fair enough; changed my post to read "Creationist side" instead of "YEC side."

The offer stands: either Creationists provide the evidence for Creationism, or concede and end the debate.

The problem with that is, I cannot. I believe in Creationism and I believe in Evolution. So from the Big Bang on, you and I would more then likely be in agreement. I'm guessing prior to the Big Bang is where we'd conflict, but I don't see how we can effectively argue that using evidence, so not really a point to even try.

 

[Haseri]

The Bible is not a textbook and it isn't meant to be taken as such, so why should it be 100% factual? It's rather difficult to teach in parables if you put such a stipulation on it.

The problem comes when people do try to treat it as a textbook and 100% accurate.

 

[Methos]

That doesn't mean it has the slightest ounce of legitimacy in the realm of science.

I don't recall stating that it does, so I'm rather confused as to your own statement.

At the very least, to acknowledge it is to either demand the acknowledgement of every other set of creation myths- Norse, Greek, Hindu, whatever- or to arbitrarily privilege one set because it happens to be popular.

Just because I believe in God and His Son, Jesus, doesn't mean I can't learn from the other Creation myths, or even other religions. Or is that not what you're saying?

The problem comes when people do try to treat it as a textbook and 100% accurate.

I agree.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Just because I believe in God and His Son, Jesus, doesn't mean I can't learn from the other Creation myths, or even other religions. Or is that not what you're saying?

Just for curiosity, but if the early chapters of the Bible (Genesis 1-11) are supposed to be figurative, why did the writer of Hebrews recognize them as real people?

Also, do you believe Christ's words to be perfectly accurate?

 

[kiwitt]

@ATPG: If it's not factual, it's not actually knowledge.

You are missing the main point; The Bible was considered "knowledge", in a different time (4,000+ years ago). Remember it was painstaking observation to deduce the Earth revolved around the Sun and no the other way round. 1,000's of years of "evolution" of scientific method and logic has has given us new ways of looking at the world.

I agree that people should not be "dogmatic" about the information contained in it. I also think many people who still believe in God, surrounded by all this scientific knowledge, accept the Bible as just one portion of knowledge, which can now be refutted with new knowledge. I think any YEC should go to this site; http://www.originscience.com/,

which allow then to keep their "faith" , while still getting a better understanding of world in which they live.

RE: the Site above - EDITOR'S NOTE: I created this site while I was still a struggling Christian. I eventually abandoned the faith and am now an atheist. The site remains as it was. New site here.

 

[Methos]

Just for curiosity, but if the early chapters of the Bible (Genesis 1-11) are supposed to be figurative, why did the writer of Hebrews recognize them as real people?

Do you mind waiting for the reply? I'd have to read up on it before making any sort of statement and I start getting ready for work soon, so I'll either post it tomorrow (if the thread is still active), or PM you.

Also, do you believe Christ's words to be perfectly accurate?

Based on how I think what you mean, then my answer would be no. I believe Jesus spoke in parables and that He didn't mean for us to take His words literally.

 

[Tacitusitis]

Science doesn't "plug holes" in the Biblical cosmology

Science says the Biblical cosmology is bass ackwards and wrong

 

[GhostWriter16]

Do you mind waiting for the reply? I'd have to read up on it before making any sort of statement and I start getting ready for work soon, so I'll either post it tomorrow (if the thread is still active), or PM you.

Sure

Based on how I think what you mean, then my answer would be no. I believe Jesus spoke in parables and that He didn't mean for us to take His words literally.

No, that's obvious he spoke in parables, but when he wasn't, do you believe he was always right, or when he spoke in parables do you believe his point was always right?

 

[Thedrin]

AskThePizzaGuy:
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.

Just in case there's any confusion I do believe that evolution is a reasonable explanation for how life has developed on Earth. I have never studied it, but I am happy to accept that the scientific process has worked.

I understand the difference between opinion and fact, and if I were to accept a creationist theory as truth I would first have to be convinced of it by means of "facts, data, logic, reasoning, proofs...", though such a theory would first have to overcome my suspicion that it's impossible to prove creation of the Universe by a being that exists outside it.

I used to - a few years back - take part in a forum [no longer exists] where creationist views were often discussed. There were differences in my style and the style you have used in this thread (I won't claim to have been as thorough, logical or eloquent as yourself), but I did insist that creationists be able to provide sound, logical reasoning to back up their theories and remove apparent contradictions. This expectation was never met. It gave me a pleasant sense of self righteousness knowing that I had won on my terms, but, frankly, winning on my terms achieved nothing. I believe that only a minority of creationists would change their minds based on reading your posts in this thread.

Methos:
While I like your statement, I worry that Dom hasn't met his own. I have no problem with Dom believing how he does. I just hope he sits down and serious contemplates his own decision so that he has a strong foundation to believe what he does.

Yes, I'd have the same worry.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

I was told by a physicist that the Bible is scientifically accurate.

 

[reverend oats]

And that one source means it's all true! Because random physicist also knows about geology, biology, and every other scientific discipline ever!

 

[Brian Shanahan]

You just removed a large part of the respect I had for you and your argument. I have no problem with someone not believing in the Bible, its their choice. But to say its an opinion is to show your own ignorance in what the Bible is. I disagree with Mormonism and believe the Book of Mormon to be false, but I still highly respect the BoM and what it teaches. Just because you disagree/disbelieve something, doesn't mean you should treat it as utter trash.

Sorry but he tells the truth, and you lose respect for him because of that. Tell me how this works as I'm confused

Look even if we accept god is real, we are still left with the Torah and Bible as books created (long) after the events they pupport to portray, written by partisans of a particular ideology. Even if they are right in the general idea, i.e. Yahweh is real and he is the only god, and he will send a messiah to save us all who turned out to be Jesus (or not if you're Jewish), there are still going to be large chunks of the works written in ignorance of the facts or to promote a certain faction and suppress others. So what askthepizzaguy is in every case correct and therefore anyone losing respect over this statement of FACT seriously needs to examine how blindly they they follow their religious ideology.

 

[kiwitt]

I believe that only a minority of creationists would change their minds based on reading your posts in this thread.

I agree ...

However as an atheist, who is now going to go to church, with his wife, because that is what she wants to do at the moment, I am going to have to have a filter whereby I try to simply listen to the message (of love), but try to ignore any information presented as fact fro the Bible.