Evidence for creationism

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just to play devils advocate, if the Bible is infallible and the Literal Word of God, how can someone be a Christian yet ignore parts of it?

While I interpret most of it literally, there are those that don't. I think that you can have different beliefs and still be saved, though I don't think you can be saved if you don't believe Jesus is God or in his plan for salvation.
 
My statements were biogenesis not abiogenesis. Is there any scientist that would disagree all known physical life today comes from life and so far they have found no exception to this? Thus if there is no argument but agreement on these facts then your "argument from ignorance" doesn't apply.
Science can only study life today and apply it to the past.
abiogenesis can never be falsified it can only be verified.
If you don't think abiogenesis is impossible, why do you propose that the fact science hasn't accomplished it yet is evidence for creationism?
 
If you don't think abiogenesis is impossible, why do you propose that the fact science hasn't accomplished it yet is evidence for creationism?
I don't have any faith in abiogenesis. If you believe in abiogenesis then that's your belief.
 
One of the best evidences that give an age of about 600 years is helium. Helium is a by product of nuclear decay, so it is a good way to see how much decay has occurred. Since it is slippery, it will diffuse easily out of any substance, so it is a good way to see how much by product.
http://creation.com/helium-evidence-for-a-young-world-continues-to-confound-critics

Contre really beat down your second argument, but he seems to have got sidetracked on your typo (for the record's sake, creationist claim helium can't last much more than 6,000 years, not 600). In any case, he didn't explain why the study was a load of crap.

Leaving aside the fact that Russell Humphreys (the guy behind this study) seems to have used an are with atypical examples of helium, refuses to provide mounds of important data and metadata, and can't seem to find anyone who's reproduced his findings (always critical in actual science), we have a minor problem:

If helium worked like in Humphreys model, we would all be dead. This is because helium would have to undergo billions of years worth of radioactive decay in a very short period, which would produce some mild side effects, along the order of "global extinction of life" or something minor like that. Since we're still here, either Humphreys is wrong, or our entire understanding of radioactive decay has major problems. It's worth noting that Humphreys seems to be aware of these problems, even as he tries to gloss them over with the hope that he's going to make a new discovery.
 
I don't have any faith in abiogenesis. If you believe in abiogenesis then that's your belief.
Whatever. My point is as it ever was: Science's current inability to accomplish abiogenesis does not make it impossible, and it sure as hell doesn't count as evidence for creationism.
 
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html



34:4 Yet hear the word of the LORD, O Zedekiah king of Judah; Thus saith the LORD of thee, Thou shalt not die by the sword:
34:5 But thou shalt die in peace: and with the burnings of thy fathers, the former kings which were before thee, so shall they burn odours for thee; and they will lament thee, saying, Ah lord! for I have pronounced the word, saith the LORD.

52:10 And the king of Babylon slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes: he slew also all the princes of Judah in Riblah.
52:11 Then he put out the eyes of Zedekiah; and the king of Babylon bound him in chains, and carried him to Babylon, and put him in prison till the day of his death.
Why did you leave off verse 34:2-3
".... Thus saith the Lord; Behold I will give this city into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall burn it with fire. And thou shalt not escape out of his hand , but shalt surely be taken, and delivered into his hand; and thine eyes shall behold the eyes of the king of Babylon, and he shall speak with thee mouth to mouth, and thou shalt go to Babylon."
He died in peace but not before he was conquered.

The other verse made it clear they are referring to the "Day of the Lord" or what we refer the Great Tribulation. Babylon represent in scripture the very best of the Gentile kingdoms, the head of gold.
 
Does that change the fact that he did not die in peace, as was prophesized, but rather in a jail, blinded by force and in chains?

No?
 
No, because he didn't die in peace. His eyes were plucked out and he rotted away in a jail of the enemy.
 
There are other, worse examples of unfulfilled Biblical prophecies.

Case in Point. According to Ezekiel, speaking in the name of the Lord, Tyre would be completely demolished (by King Nebuchadnezzar, not some future Apocalypse), and Egypt would be uninhabited for forty years. Obviously, since Egypt has been continuously inhabited since the Dawn of Civilization and Tyre is one of the biggest cities in Lebanon, I don't think God got it right.

And of course, Jesus rather famously predicted that at least one of his disciples would live to see his return. Unfortunately, biblical literalists rarely refer to the Wandering Jew anymore, which is a shame.
 

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
God says that if Adam eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then the day that he does so, he will die. But later Adam eats the forbidden fruit (3:6) and yet lives for another 930 years (5:5). 2:17

It was talking about Spiritual Death. Had he died at that moment, he'd have died in his sins and gone to hell (Spiritual death.) There is evidence he was saved during his life though, so he got spiritual life back.

As a punishment for killing Abel, God says Cain will be "a fugitive and a vagabond." Yet in just a few verses (4:16-17) Cain will settle down, marry, have a son, and build a city. This is not the activity one would expect from a fugitive and a vagabond. 4:12

Well, he BUILT that city. Probably because he wasn't welcome anywhere else.

God promises Abram and his descendants all of the land of Canaan. But both history and the bible (Acts 7:5 and Heb.11:13) show that God's promise to Abram was not fulfilled. 13:15, 15:18, 17:8, 28:13-14

I'm fairly certain that was a promise conditional on obedience.

How long was the Egyptian captivity? This verse says 400 years, but Ex.12:40 and Gal.3:17 say 430 years. 15:13

400 was a large generalization, 430 was more exact.

"In the fourth generation they [Abraham's descendants] shall come hither again." But, if we count Abraham, then their return occurred after seven generations: Abraham, Isaac (Gen.21:1-3), Jacob (Gen.25:19-26), Levi (Gen.35:22-23), Kohath (Ex.6:16), Amramn (Ex.6:18), and Moses (Ex.6:20). 15:16

Levi was the first you should count, because it was talking about AFTER the enslavement IIRC.

God promises Abram's descendants the land of Canaan from the Nile to the Euphrates. But according to Acts 7:5 and Heb.11:13 God's promise to Abram was not fulfilled. 15:18

Again, they weren't obedient.

God promises to make Isaac's descendents as numerous as "the stars of heaven", which, of course, never happened. The Jews have always been, and will always be, a small minority. 26:4

He specifically said "Count the stars in the sky if you can. As you can't count the stars, so you can't count the descendants I will give you." There are only about 3,000 stars in sight, and more Jews than that. Though this promise may have been another conditional one.

God renames Jacob twice (32:28, 35:10 ). God says that Jacob will henceforth be called Israel, but the Bible continues to call him Jacob anyway (47:28-29). And even God himself calls him Jacob in 46:2. 32:28, 35:10

I think Jacob was his name, but Israel was also his name. Or maybe because he knew we'd think of him as Jacob. And because Israel was the name of his house, maybe not him himself.

I will go through some of the more interesting ones, but I just realized how many there were here. If I miss a few that you think are particularly interesting, let me know, because I don't feel like refuting the entire list.

God promises to cast out many nations including the Canaanites and the Jebusites. But he was unable to fulfill his promise. 33:2

Again conditional on obedience.

False prophets are to be (you guessed it) executed. How do you know who is a false prophet? By whether or not their predictions come true. (Watch out Jehovah's Witnesses!) 18:20

The law was particularly for Ancient Israel, because of its status as the Holy and Chosen nation. Though Numbers implies that the punishment of death may have been symbolic anyway. I don't think America should punish false prophets.

Joshua tells the Israelites that God will "without fail" drive out the Canaanites and the Jebusites. But later, the Bible tells us that he could not drive them out. 3:10

While Joshua was a Godly man, his speech isn't God's, and it isn't written as Scripture, but his voice. Thus all you can assume is that he said this, not that he was right. And again, the promise was conditional anyway.

"Thy kingdom shall be established for ever."
God says that Davids's kingdom will last forever. It didn't of course. It was entirely destroyed about 400 years after Solomon's death, never to be rebuilt. 7:13, 16

Its a still future event. Christ is the Son of David (Well, literally descendant of David) and he will rule for all eternity. You may not accept that, but that's our interpretation.

God puts a "lying spirit" in the mouth of his prophets. 22:22

False Prophets of Pagan gods. How is this a contradiction?

Paul tells the Corinthians to be good until "the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." (He expected Jesus to return within their lifetimes.) 1:7-8

Paul believed this, he never claimed to know for sure.

James quotes a scripture that says, "The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy." But there is no such verse in the Bible. 4:5

He may have quoted the Apocrypha or some other work (No, that does not make them Scripture, just makes that one verse accurate.)

All of the Revelation stuff, and probably all the other prophecies that "Contradict themselves" are still future events.

Sorry I skipped a lot, but I couldn't be bothered to do all of them. If you have one or two that you are particularly interested in my answer to, quote them or give me the number and I'll respond;)

@Miles Teg- That one's out of my league. Sorry, but I really don't know. I bet Classical_hero can, and I'm sure he will eventually.
 
While Joshua was a Godly man, his speech isn't God's, and it isn't written as Scripture, but his voice. Thus all you can assume is that he said this, not that he was right. And again, the promise was conditional anyway.

I'll probably pick over your arguments at later date, but this one stuck out to me, because it's one of my favorite Biblical absurdities. I'm going to quote directly from Judges 1:19 on this.

And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

That's the narrator talking, with no implication of fallibility. And God is directly stated to be with Judah, which should be enough to overcome anything. But oh noes, iron chariots. That was obviously too much for God.
 
And of course, Jesus rather famously predicted that at least one of his disciples would live to see his return. Unfortunately, biblical literalists rarely refer to the Wandering Jew anymore, which is a shame.

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.
 
That's the narrator talking, with no implication of fallibility. And God is directly stated to be with Judah, which should be enough to overcome anything. But oh noes, iron chariots. That was obviously too much for God.

No, it was too much for Judah. God was with them, but they must have been in peace or something.
 
There are only 2 (arguably 3) species of elephants alive today out of a total of 350 species that lived over the span of 50 million years from the Proboscidea order that God created.

So...shoddy workmanship...just liked making elephants, slightly different each time...whats the deal creationists?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom