Evidence for creationism

[Tacitusitis]

On the Mormon issue, I don't really like making common cause with people who do the right thing for the wrong reasons. I have talked to Creationists who say "atheists are amoral because they don't believe there's a God who will punish murderers." When I pushed them to the logical conclusion of this statement, yes, they did say that they thought they might murder people if they didn't believe God was going to punish them for it. So wow, their only reason for not committing murder is belief in an imaginary sky judge? Is that not scary? I mean what happens if/when they lose their faith?

Similarly, Mormons may have GREAT "family values" but if it's all based on a book that's a lie.... then....?

I hate to quote the Bible but there's somethin in there about no good fruit coming from a poisoned tree?

 

[kiwitt]

I The Bible is wrong but we can learn from it?

What we can learn from it, is what we similarly learned from Aesop's fables - some moral lesson's.

 

[carlosMM]

Come on Carlos, you're better then that.

If a population doubled every 100 years in 4500 years it would be 35 trillion times the initial population.

funny thing nobody ever mentioned the required terraforming and massive manna rain required. oh, and the total absence of illnesses, wars, etc., which is entirely contradictory to what the very source of YEC actually says. OOPS.



Also, it is irrelevant what *I* know, it is telling enough that Dom chose not to answer.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

Sorry. I guess the best way to explain it is that each book needs to be considered separately.

I can't fathom why someone would risk living their life by a forgery. How do you tell what is "authentic" and what is not?

I've known some Mormons that I had very high respect for. They were very strong in their faith and had excellent family values. Both husband and wife were missionaries in Brazil and they knew their Book of Mormon quite well. Even though both I and many others believe the Mormon religion to be based on falsehood, does that not change the fact that this family has such high family values? I see no reason why I can't study and learn from the BoM even though I don't believe in the Mormon Doctrine. The same can be said regarding the Bible and an atheist. Could not an atheist study the Bible and learn from its moral teachings and maintain his lack of beliefs?

1. Respect for a person has nothing to do with respect for their beliefs. There are many people for whom I have respect who's beliefs are nothing but deluded fiction.

2. Sure, mormons tend to have great family values, until your family values are different from theirs. Then they pay huge sums of money to make sure your family and civil rights are banned by law. "Family values for me, but not for thee" is not moral, it's monstrous. I have no respect whatsoever for Mormon morality or values.

3. Most atheists have no interest in studying the Bible, because the moral teachings in it just aren't all that great. I suppose there may be some good things in there if you take the "do as I say not as I do" approach but that makes god a huge hypocrite, and you shouldn't be doing many of the things he says either. I am more moral than the god of the Bible, and I bet you are too. He's kind of a dick.

 

[PeteAtoms]

Dr. Seuss and Sesame Street are just as good (if not better) sources for moral guidance and education. Oh, and Archie comic books.

You can get all the good moral wholesomeness of the bible, without the other baggage that comes with it (contradiction, internal inconsistencies, superstition, etc).

 

[Brian Shanahan]

* I agree with evolution
* I believe the Bible is imperfect
* I've stated that some of the books of the Bible are forgeries
* I don't take the Bible literally and don't believe it should be

Then why did you so stupidly get so upset when someone else called it opinion. You yourself have acknowledged here and elsewhere that it is in fact opinion, without overtly stating it. Or is it that you do not want it given that level of validity and would prefer to call it by another name, fantasy maybe?

But anyway here is the whole arguement paraphrased for convenience:
askthepizzaguy (atpg for short): Bible is opinion, not fact.
Methos: I've lost most of my respect for you because of this statement.
Me: But why, his point is both valid and true.
Methos: He should not be allowed to disrespect holy books like the book of mormon or the bible.
Me: But why? They are only propoganda pieces put out by religious factions to justify their position. Too much respect for them is a bad thing, i believe you have too much respect for them. You should know better than that. Challenge your beliefs.
Methos: You don't listen to me.

Frankly I read through everything thoroughly before replying to you, and I cannot see any conclusion other than the one I'm holding. You made a stupid statement to atpg re his own pretty accurate assessment of the bible, I called you on it and suddenly you're trying to defend your position for all it's worth, by using simply and solely stating "The bible is authority, we should respect it, and not defame it by accurately describing it as an opinion piece". If you cannot get that point through your head there's no point me talking to you.

 

[Arakhor]

you just think that, as long as they still believe in God and the Bible, creationism will flow from that

Only if they are taught to take the Bible literally and as a foe of modern science, rather than as an aide to life.

 

[sophie]

Dr. Seuss and Sesame Street are just as good (if not better) sources for moral guidance and education. Oh, and Archie comic books.

You can get all the good moral wholesomeness of the bible, without the other baggage that comes with it (contradiction, internal inconsistencies, superstition, etc).

I would definitely go with good sources. I don't think I'd give my children the Bible until they were in their early teens. I mean come on, since when is being malicious, jealous, incestuous, and a sadist the sign of good moral teachings?

 

[squadbroken]

3. Most atheists have no interest in studying the Bible, because the moral teachings in it just aren't all that great. I suppose there may be some good things in there if you take the "do as I say not as I do" approach but that makes god a huge hypocrite, and you shouldn't be doing many of the things he says either. I am more moral than the god of the Bible, and I bet you are too. He's kind of a dick.

This. If the bible is supposed to be a "moral guide" then it fails pretty hard at it. But that's not surprising, considering it was written by a bunch of bronze age barbarians.

 

[BasketCase]

There's no test which can disprove God.

I agree with the rest of your post, but I do think it's possible to disprove God.

At least, using the conventional definition of God as all-powerful. Any such God would, at least occasionally, do something completely screwball just for fun, like creating flying purple cows in the middle of Times Square. Stuff that is completely unexplainable.

It hasn't happened. Yes, a lot of wierdness happens in the world, but all of it can be explained. We don't know what those strange lights in the sky are, but we can guess. An omnipotent God (whether a kind or malicious or indifferent one) would at least occasionally do something that completely violates the laws of reality and has no possible explanation.

But we've never seen that, therefore there is no God.

 

[Traitorfish]

I agree with the rest of your post, but I do think it's possible to disprove God.

At least, using the conventional definition of God as all-powerful. Any such God would, at least occasionally, do something completely screwball just for fun, like creating flying purple cows in the middle of Times Square. Stuff that is completely unexplainable.

It hasn't happened. Yes, a lot of wierdness happens in the world, but all of it can be explained. We don't know what those strange lights in the sky are, but we can guess. An omnipotent God (whether a kind or malicious or indifferent one) would at least occasionally do something that completely violates the laws of reality and has no possible explanation.

But we've never seen that, therefore there is no God.

Maybe he just got it out of his system early on? It would explain the Cambrian explosion.

 

[carlosMM]

The all-powerful and especially the all-loving gods can be debunked easily. Thor and consorts, on the other hand (i.e., flawed and mean gods who can't be measured by extrinsic parameters) are a different thing altogether.

it is, btw, a typical BasketCase to immediately jump to the conclusiong that the word "God" is spelled with a capital "G" means the Christian god - but one that is well warranted in Western civilizations.

 

[BasketCase]

Well, well. I see you haven't changed a bit.

If I'd meant the Christian God, I would have said so. I spelled it with a capital G because I felt like it.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I agree with the rest of your post, but I do think it's possible to disprove God.

At least, using the conventional definition of God as all-powerful. Any such God would, at least occasionally, do something completely screwball just for fun, like creating flying purple cows in the middle of Times Square. Stuff that is completely unexplainable.

It hasn't happened. Yes, a lot of wierdness happens in the world, but all of it can be explained. We don't know what those strange lights in the sky are, but we can guess. An omnipotent God (whether a kind or malicious or indifferent one) would at least occasionally do something that completely violates the laws of reality and has no possible explanation.

But we've never seen that, therefore there is no God.

The problem with your logic is two-fold. A: Things that can't be explained scientifically HAVE happened, and B: God is not that petty as to mess with the world for fun.

You may believe God does not exist, but your logic does not prove it false.

Well, well. I see you haven't changed a bit.

If I'd meant the Christian God, I would have said so. I spelled it with a capital G because I felt like it.

Well, God with a capital G is supposed to mean a monotheistic God, AKA an all-powerful, omnipotent god. Small g, on the other hand, can mean nearly anything. What is a small-g god? Mostly just a superhuman.

 

[Berzerker]

Your science textbook either gives you a lot better argument that just that, you are deliberately misrepresenting it or your textbook is a pile of foecal matter and needs to be replaced.

To accuse me of lying and not even try to back it up is more chickencrap... You start a thread asking for evidence of creationism and you behave like a jerk when people offer evidence. Hell, you accuse me of dishonesty after you repeatedly moved the goalposts? You asked for evidence and when it was given you ignored it and asked for proof, and when called on that BS you wanted "compelling evidence" instead - all the while you ignored the evidence I offered and then wanted me to find the posts for you (read your own damn thread). You didn't even show any "textbook" evidence to the contrary. Dont lecture others about honesty or ethics.

You're reading that into the text. It's not really there.

Specifically? Here's what I said:

Genesis describes a dark water covered world before "creation" followed by a spinning world in close proximity to a star with plate tectonics building the continents and the appearance of life. How does the science challenge that?

and Genesis says

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

You think this doesn't describe a dark, water covered world? I do... Gen 1:9-10 makes it clear the "Earth" in this verse refers to submerged land waiting to appear from under the waters - in modern scientific lingo, plate tectonics is the process by which the "dry land" came into existence.

continuing

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Light = day, darkness = night - what causes that phenomenon? A spinning world and a nearby star. Do you disagree? Planetary theorists believe the Earth acquired its spin - "day and night" - after a massive collision. I think that massive collision pushed the Earth into a new orbit closer to the Sun thereby giving the Sun its assignment as ruler of the day - that terminology implies a new terrestrial orbit closer to the Sun, the Moon would appear much larger if the Earth was ~3-4x further from the Sun.

The world was never water covered.

According to Gen 1:2, before God came upon the scene to "create", the "Earth" was in some sort of transitive state - not "technically" Earth yet. Why? We find out in Gen 1:9-10 - Earth is the name God gave to the "dry land" that was revealed by the waters as they formed the seas. The Earth was submerged in Gen 1:2, it was not "dry". This is God's definition of "Earth", not this planet, not the waters or "deep", just the (dry) land - The Bible never claims God created the waters in Gen 1:2, there's a reason for that.

This jives with creation myths all over the world. Even among many N American peoples, the "creator" - sky God - sent a diving animal under the already existing waters to bring back mud and this was spread out to create the land. Other myths describe a battle between celestial "gods" in which a watery dragon or serpent or monster (biblical Tehom, Mesopotamian Tiamat) is slain and carved up to form Heaven and Earth. These myths jive with current theories about the Earth having suffered one or more massive collisions early on...

The question becomes: where did this collision occur? I think the asteroids are the clue... Theorists trying to explain where Earth got its water keep pointing away from the Sun. Why? Because they dont think the Earth could have formed here with all this water, the early solar wind would have pushed water vapor etc outward and the asteroid belt happens to be the approximate location water vapor would have slowed and started freezing. So they got theories about comets (and as that theory is found lacking, asteroids) delivering us our water. And I dont buy into the theory Jupiter's size prevented a planet forming halfway to the Sun, Mars aint that much closer - the asteroid belt is where a planet should have formed very early on relatively speaking.

What does the science say about the Earth's complicated history? The consensus view is that plate tectonics built the continents and the process began ~-4 bya. This is based on the scarcity of continental crust/rock dating back further. This time period coincides with the "late heavy bombardment" and life appeared shortly thereafter. But the oldest material found so far is a 4.4 byo zircon crystal researchers claim is evidence of shallow seas or an ocean. If that date holds up, it means previous "textbook" theories about the age of the oceans are way off. The next time you have a chance to watch a docu on Earth history, pay close attention to the Earth around 4 bya - they'll show an ocean (green from iron) followed by the appearance of small chunks of surface magma etc as plate tectonics started raising up "dry land".

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

A submerged "Earth", (a dark) world covered by water - thats what "the deep" means. This is the biblical Tehom, or Mesopotamian Tiamat...

The continents never came out of water..

Wiki plate tectonics

The bugs came before animals, unlike what Genesis says.

The moon came before the plants, unlike what the Genesis says.

I never said science supports everything in the Bible, I'm talking about the verses 1-10 in Genesis and the analysis I've provided. If you read the thread (or my contribution), I made that clear several times early on. But I'm not willing to ignore the later verses describing life and people etc, the Sun and Moon were already in existence before God created anything - but their "roles" were not yet "assigned". By virtue of creating this world they were given assignments and the text can appear a bit confusing for suggesting they appeared after Heaven and Earth. But this is consistent with a proto-Earth covered by water in "darkness" if the Earth formed further from the Sun. The Mesopotamian versions say the Sun preceded creation, they just place the proto-Earth further away from the Sun too - where its darker.

Now you must admit that the Genesis, and in extension the bible, is imperfect.

I never denied it (or claimed it was perfect), you guys keep confusing me with someone else.

We backed it up many times.

You didn't do squat, the fact I'm having to repeat stuff for you is proof you haven't paid attention to my argument. I dont even remember you anyway, so who is "we"? And dont speak for Brian - he made accusations and ran away. Dont cover for that BS! Even one of the mods (omg, I'm in their kennel) chastised him for what he did, and here you are defending that chickencrap behavior.

 

[negZero]

The problem with your logic is two-fold. A: Things that can't be explained scientifically HAVE happened

Please tell me these things, science has never been able to explain.

 

[BasketCase]

The problem with your logic is two-fold. A: Things that can't be explained scientifically HAVE happened

Such as? Honest. Try me. (Been there myself, dude--everything strange that I have seen/read about, in my entire life, had a logical explanation)

and B: God is not that petty as to mess with the world for fun.

You sure? Your conclusion here is based on a description of God that was written by human beings. I find it entirely possible (read: very likely) that even a kind and loving God is not above a little harmless mischief. In fact, a more vast and intelligent Being would probably get bored more easily, and need more distraction/entertainment/fun.

Well, God with a capital G is supposed to mean a monotheistic God, AKA an all-powerful, omnipotent god.

You're aware you just lower-cased it yourself? No, I wasn't referring specifically to the Christian god (yes, that time I lower-cased it on purpose ); I was writing the proof to refer to any God ( okay, seriously, BasketCase, now you're just being a jerk ) powerful enough to create universes and planets and people at will.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Such as? Honest. Try me. (Been there myself, dude--everything strange that I have seen/read about, in my entire life, had a logical explanation)


You sure? Your conclusion here is based on a description of God that was written by human beings. I find it entirely possible (read: very likely) that even a kind and loving God is not above a little harmless mischief. In fact, a more vast and intelligent Being would probably get bored more easily, and need more distraction/entertainment/fun.


You're aware you just lower-cased it yourself? No, I wasn't referring specifically to the Christian god (yes, that time I lower-cased it on purpose ); I was writing the proof to refer to any God ( okay, seriously, BasketCase, now you're just being a jerk ) powerful enough to create universes and planets and people at will.

To answer your first question: Well, there were miracles done by Christ. In the modern era, there are still reports of miracles in third world countries (Which makes a lot of sense because in America everyone has heard of Christianity, in a place where its never been heard of, it would make sense that a miracle would be needed.)

To the second question, God created the concept of fun, he has no need of it for himself, its for our benefit.

 

[negZero]

To answer your first question: Well, there were miracles done by Christ. In the modern era, there are still reports of miracles in third world countries (Which makes a lot of sense because in America everyone has heard of Christianity, in a place where its never been heard of, it would make sense that a miracle would be needed.)

Can we get some links on these miracles that withstood scientific inquiry?

 

[BasketCase]

I suppose the turning of water into wine qualifies. Simple explanation: the world's first magic trick. Jesus hid vessels of wine under his robe and did a switcheroo.

In the modern era, there are still reports of miracles in third world countries

Uhhh....pretty please? Examples? I can only think of one (the cobra in a tree incident) which has a really simply explanation: God didn't put the cobra there, people did.

To the second question, God created the concept of fun, he has no need of it for himself, its for our benefit.

The underlined part doesn't follow. We humans created the concept of movies--we enjoy them even though we don't need them. Careful here, we're getting into rather dicey ideas such as "want" versus "need". If you subscribe to the Christian idea that God created us in His image, it's very likely God can get bored--He made us capable of boredom because He is capable of boredom himself (see how the "made in His image" dealie applies?)


Edit: JACKPOT! NegZero's post reminded me of the following ancient tale, but I couldn't remember where it was from--apparently it's from none other than the Bible itself!

A very old magic trick

Short (and in-English) version: An ancient temple contains a statue that can apparently eat. Food is placed before the statue, and the chamber is sealed for the night. In the morning, the seals on the door are intact--but all the food is gone! Turns out there was a secret door through which the temple priests would enter and eat free meals at the expense of their own king.