Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
According to Genesis, God created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh. Many religious followers believe literally that everything from the air we breathe to the water we drink was created in a matter of days. Others scoff at this interpretation, insisting that the universe couldn’t have possibly been created in such a short time span. What really happened “in the beginning”?
Read Genesis Chapter 1. It explains the whole thing. There is no such thing as evolution it's a myth.
- Tamara
October 13, 2008 11:49AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I'm going to ask both Creationists and Evolutionists to look at the following with a completely open mind for just one minute. The Bible was written in ancient Hebrew, not English, yes? We are on the same page so far. In ancient Hebrew, the word yom can mean day, as in 12 or 24 hour periods, or simply period of time. Medieval scholars translated yom as day in English. They did not have a reason not to, yet. Now, consider that Yahweh was explaining this to a semi-literate group of ancient nomads, with no understanding of the cosmos or the world outside of their little society. He couldn't explain things to them using complex scientific terms, so he simplified it. In the beginning, God (the Hebrew word used here is Elohim, which is plural, and not Yahweh, but that's a different argument, so for now I'll just use the more accepted word, "God" rather than the correct translation of Gods) said, "let there be light," and there was light. Since there is no sound in space, the Big Bang would really be more like the Big Flash of LIGHT. On Day 2, God creates the heavens. From this Big Flash of Light, stars and planets and everything the ancient Hebrews could see in the heavens were created. He then, on that same day, seperated the waters of the earth from the waters in the heavens. Heavy volcanic activity in the early days of Earth's forming spewed a great deal of water vapor from the primordial ocean, forming an atmosphere. So far, it fits together fairly well. On Day 3, God seperates the water into one great basin, and dry land appears. One basin of water and one spot of dry land sounds a lot like Pangea to me. God also creates plants. This is the one place where they don't seem to line up absolutely perfectly, as God doesn't create the "lights in the sky," the sun, moon, and stars, until Day 4. It could perhaps refer to simple, anaerobic, single celled organisms being formed before the smoke and debris from the volcanic activity cleared enough to allow the "lights in the sky" to show through. Obviously, the ancient Hebrews would not have understood the concept of microscopic organisms, so this is a possibility. On Day 5 God creates the sea creatures (which came first) and the birds (which, along with reptiles, followed). On Day 6, God creates land animals, which are basically mammals, which also came next according to evolution . Finally, God created man, which fits in perfectly with evolutionary theory. The only differences are the complexity of terms and the lenght of the days, one caused by necessity and the other caused by poor translation. The only other difference being that one came several thousand years before the other, but is basically the same thing. The world was created exactly as the Bible says it was, over billions of years.
- richardsonkr January 15, 2009 10:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
Why would God explain this only to "a semi-literate group of ancient nomads, with no understanding of the cosmos or the world outside of their little society "? Why not give an updated version to modern Jewish or Christian or Islamic scholars? Surely all three groups today include people who understand geology, astronomy and biology on a rather more comprehensive level than the iron-age authors of Genesis?
In fact, being all-powerful, why be limited to the understanding of the writers? At least, if you can create the world, surely you can inspire sentences like "And the quickness of light shall be found to be always the same relative to the one who looketh; And behold, the quickness of the light when multiplied by itself and the true weight of matter equals the amount of force that went into its making". Now, an iron-age scribe pondering over the true meaning of those words would have been an argument for divine inspiration.
- Kyrre
May 12, 2009 10:34AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
While I have my own reasons for believing he did that, my personal opinions regarding religion are a bit outside of the mainstream, so I'm not going to discuss them. The Bible says that the Jews are his chosen people. Why he chose them, Christians don't know. Like I said, I have my own theories, but they're hardly relevant. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that the evidence shows this primitive culture's creation myth had some pretty remarkable insights, even if they were conveyed in a rather primitive fashion.
PS, You're quote from the theorhetical Bible was hilarious.
- richardsonkr June 2, 2009 7:06AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Very interesting summary. I always thought the light on the first day was the sun, but that is another argument. In school I was taught that in the beginning the atmosphere was fogy filled with heavy gases. When the plants formed they filtered the atmosphere. "So the Bible was right!" But the teacher says "how could they have known." "God" I answered.
- mike1948 July 25, 2009 10:43AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Most of those heavy gasses were filtered out of the atmosphere before life had even emerged, and the atmosphere was changed to oxygen long before plants evolved.
- MrBook July 26, 2009 8:28AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I had always been taught it was the plants. What filtered the atmosphere then Do you have a reference?
- mike1948 July 26, 2009 1:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/earth.html
Talks about how procaryote cells (pre- animals and plants) converted CO2 and H2O into O2.
http://www.ux1.eiu.edu /~cfjps/1400/atmos_origin.html
A bit more depth on where all the hydrogen and helium in the early atmosphere went... as well as a reiteration of the fact that our atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen.
- MrBook July 26, 2009 2:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Animals convert oxygen to co2. Plants covert co2 to oxygen. Procaryote cells covert co2 to oxygen. There plants!!
- mike1948 July 26, 2009 10:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
So you're saying that because it is written in the Bible that God created the universe in the manner described, then it must be true? I don't even know where to begin on this one. That kind of logic is not really going to cut it with any logical individual, Christian or not. Here are a couple of reasons why:
1) The Bible has been translated and retranslated over and over again and been reinterpreted (and in some cases completely rewritten) perhaps thousands of times along the way.along the way so it's beyond question that it has changed in it's original message
2) The level of knowledge exhibited by the ancients who wrote the Bible is far removed from our knowledge today, which implies that their view may be less than perfect. Amongst other things, they believed that the earth was flat.
3) No one even knows who wrote Genesis. I fail to see why they should be taken as... ahem... gospel.
4) Everything word written in Genesis is beyond ridiculous. For example the passage: "then God said "Let there be light!"." which is quite strange really as it was before he created the sun, moon and stars.
I could go on but I think I've made my point.
- RedDragon
June 4, 2009 8:42AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
You haven't made a point at all..
As I've already said.. I believe. And I understand that God knows every future event before it ever occurs. Is it some sort of limitation that the Bible has been translated? He knows the end product for one... and secondly - I've compared many versions.. in most cases the difference is negligible.. it's usually nothing but nit-picking over a word and several possible synonyms. The message remains the same. Some of the translations I wouldn't recommend.. they are in my opinion clearly inferior versions.. but still the point remains that the message is the same.. Are you familiar with the commandment 'Thou Shalt not Kill?'... is there some question about it's proper translation? How about 'turn the other cheek'... or 'spare the rod, spoil the child'... 'judge not lest ye be judged' or even 'let there be light'. Is there some controversy over the translation?? No, there isn't... instead it's just a straw man by atheists.
Even those words which people bicker over, an example being the word 'day' in genesis, are truly not very relevant. In Hebrew from what I understand the word translates loosely to 'a time'... so sure, we could argue he made the earth in a day.. or a billion years - but is that important? For a Christian definitely not..
You also have a problem with 'let there be light' coming before the creation of the sun and stars.
So you feel that a God which can create the universe somehow can't create light without the Sun? I'm pretty sure YOU can even create light without the Sun - in many ways even.
The problems people have with the Bible are problems with their understanding...
- lux113 July 16, 2009 7:17PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
"And I understand that God knows every future event before it ever occurs."
So if God has a perfect view of the future then God knew that when he created Adam/Eve, and placed the Tree of Knowledge in Eden that Adam/Eve would not be able to resist the temptation? Indeed creating them without enough willpower to do so?
Or even before that... God created Adam and saw that he was lonely... but God already knew that Adam was going to be lonely. Why create Adam, wait for him to get lonely, then create Eve?
If we take both the Bible as the literal truth, and the view that God is omniscient, then that means that God deliberately created an imperfect mankind... and if we further take that God is omnipotent then that means that God created an imperfect mankind even though a perfect mankind could be created.
"Some of the translations I wouldn't recommend.. they are in my opinion clearly inferior versions.. "
What makes those translations inferior? God created the Bible knowing that they would be translated that way, so obviously those translations are exactly as God intended them to be.
"Are you familiar with the commandment 'Thou Shalt not Kill?'... is there some question about it's proper translation?"
Actually yes... a more accurate translation is often seen as 'Thou shall not murder ', which is distinct from 'Thou shall not Kill'.
'Thou shall not kill' isn't a very practical commandment as we kill things all the time. Trees are killed every time they are cut down after all. There is no wiggle room in that statement... but 'Thou shall not murder' allows us to go about our daily lives.
"or 'spare the rod, spoil the child'..."
Beating your children is somewhat frowned upon these days.
"So you feel that a God which can create the universe somehow can't create light without the Sun? I'm pretty sure YOU can even create light without the Sun - in many ways even."
What about those who don't believe in the Christian God?
- MrBook July 17, 2009 3:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Yes.. he knew all of that -- he knew we would fall... he knew the translations would vary.. all of the above. Keep in mind also that some of what we are discussing is my particular viewpoint of God.. not a Catholic, Protestant... or anything like that perspective -
first off, I believe in a combination of predestination and free will - that they are both one in the same. As they say.. it was his 'plan'. The questions of evil in the world might be difficult for you.. as well as for most people to understand... but not from my viewpoint. Most importantly.. this life we live is the blink of an eye compared to eternity - pain and death that we perceive as so terrible.. is truly nothing but a dot on the timeline... look back to a period of your life that was very painful - now that you are far past it.. was it that big of a deal?.. Like I said.. these things are hard for most to understand.. but it's simply a matter of viewpoint.
And my point was simply.. that even in the 'inferior' translations - the meaning still is the same.
And thou shalt not kill... thou shalt not murder . right.. you are talking about semantics - we all understand the meaning. Those saying they don't are being deliberately difficult and willfully ignorant.. like a child pretending to not understand a parent's meaning simply so they can ignore the implications..
All of us know that disciplining a child is important - spare the rod / spoil the child (which is a paraphrase of the actual verses) is an example of that lesson, which is absolutely true. A child without discipline ends up being worse for it throughout his life - ( I'm a good example.. I never learned discipline and because of that I'm terribly irresponsible) These are all good rules.. Any sentence in the bible can be misinterpreted.. and misunderstood - yet, the fact remains that the rule itself is correct.
As far as those who don't believe in the 'Christian' God... this is an endlessly exaggerated perspective - We only have a few major religions - Islam uses the bible - the jews use the bible - and so do Christians.. among the jews and islamic it's simply they don't feel that Christ was divine.. beyond that they are simply different splinters of Christianity. Then you have the eastern religions.. which do not profess divinity - for example buddha was a man - that sat beneath a tree and was inspired.. and wrote a book of how people should live...from his deep understanding. This is not even in the same category. There has only been one religion that professed divinity in the way that Christianity has..
The point is - any line in the Bible or religious concept can be difficult if you come at it without understanding.. and I'm sure you could continue for pages with examples.. but that is simply misunderstanding. If I had the inclination to explain each and every one to you... I definitely could.. but really I can't devote my life to this conversation... =)
- lux113 July 17, 2009 4:34PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"Yes.. he knew all of that -- he knew we would fall... he knew the translations would vary.. all of the above. Keep in mind also that some of what we are discussing is my particular viewpoint of God.. not a Catholic, Protestant... or anything like that perspective -"
Well we are not really debating the Catholic or Protestant view on God... we are debating the creation / formation of Terra. Was it created in 6 days a few thousand years ago or is it older? What evidence is there that supports both views?
If Terra was not created by a materialistic process, but rather by some supernatural agent then how do you prove which one(s) were responsible for it? If it was an intentional creation then what was the motive behind its creation?
You say that God knew that mankind would fall... do you also believe that people suffer for eternity in Hell for that fall? Is it ethical to create intelligent creatures with the ability to act against your will IF you are going to torture them forever once they do?
"Most importantly.. this life we live is the blink of an eye compared to eternity - pain and death that we perceive as so terrible.. is truly nothing but a dot on the timeline..."
So then how is causing pain and death in that momentary blink worth an eternity of suffering?
"And thou shalt not kill... thou shalt not murder . right.. you are talking about semantics - we all understand the meaning. "
No, we don't. Look at the Quakers / Amish... They believe that the commandment is 'Thou Shall not Kill'. For some even killing in self defense is against God's will... yet a vast number of Christians see it quite differently. Who is right?
"All of us know that disciplining a child is important - spare the rod / spoil the child (which is a paraphrase of the actual verses) is an example of that lesson, which is absolutely true."
Psalms 24:
He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.
There are many who do take it literally. How can you demonstrate that they are wrong?
"Any sentence in the bible can be misinterpreted.. and misunderstood - yet, the fact remains that the rule itself is correct."
Then how can you be sure that your interpretation is the correct one?
"As far as those who don't believe in the 'Christian' God... this is an endlessly exaggerated perspective"
Exaggerated? How so? How is their view demonstratively inferior to Christian beliefs? I'm sure that all the Hindi, Taoists, Buddhists, Jainists, Pagans, Shamanists, etc... would disagree that their perspective is somehow exagerated.
"Islam uses the bible"
Have you ever read the Koran? It is hardly the Bible.
"the jews use the bible"
They use the OT as well as a whole host of commentaries such as the Talmud.
"among the jews and islamic it's simply they don't feel that Christ was divine"
There is a great deal more to their respective theologies then 'Christ isn't divine'!
"beyond that they are simply different splinters of Christianity"
Judaism is a splinter of Christianity? The religion / ethnic group that was around for centuries before Jesus was born? The religion / ethnic group that Jesus was a part of is a splinter of the religion that did not start up until after Jesus had died?
A more accurate statement would be that Christianity and Islam are splinters off of Judaism.
"There has only been one religion that professed divinity in the way that Christianity has.."
And how does that, objectively, make Christianity the 'true religion'?
"The point is - any line in the Bible or religious concept can be difficult if you come at it without understanding.."
How do you, objectively, demonstrate which understanding is the correct one? How can you be sure that your 'understanding' isn't just your interpretation, containing no objective truth to it?
"If I had the inclination to explain each and every one to you..."
How about explaining the passages where it is said that a male slave may be kept for 7 years but then must be freed... while a female slave can be kept for the span of her life?
- MrBook July 20, 2009 11:18PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
" even before that... God created Adam and saw that he was lonely... but God already knew that Adam was going to be lonely. Why create Adam, wait for him to get lonely, then create Eve?"
But if Adam had been created with Eve then she wouldn't have been as special to him. He had to get lonely before Eve would have been so important to him.
"If we take both the Bible as the literal truth, and the view that God is omniscient, then that means that God deliberately created an imperfect mankind... and if we further take that God is omnipotent then that means that God created an imperfect mankind even though a perfect mankind could be created."
What if our purpose on earth is to learn something that god can't teach us? The only thing that comes to mind is to learn how to make decisions. A perfect man would always make a perfect decision and not learn why it was the good choice. Does this make sense?
"Actually yes... a more accurate translation is often seen as 'Thou shall not murder ', which is distinct from 'Thou shall not Kill'."
And that's exactly why I support the right to carry fire arms and the death penalty . We're not murdering the criminal. We're killing him.
"So you feel that a God which can create the universe somehow can't create light without the Sun? I'm pretty sure YOU can even create light without the Sun - in many ways even."
In the logic of my mind. The mass of hydrogen and other various elements that made the sun would have become very hot before it had started its fusion process. Hot things give off light. Light before the sun is logical.
The assertion that it is properly translated into "times" or periods is better than days too. Assembly, Formation, early earth, precambrian, Cambrian, and the current times.
- Nivarion December 23, 2009 4:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
"But if Adam had been created with Eve then she wouldn't have been as special to him. He had to get lonely before Eve would have been so important to him."
So there are limits on the power of God? If God was not limited then he could have just as easily created Adam with the same appreciation for Eve without requiring Adam to suffer from being alone.
Also doesn't the fact that Adam experiences loneliness indicate that there was suffering before the fall?
"What if our purpose on earth is to learn something that god can't teach us? The only thing that comes to mind is to learn how to make decisions. A perfect man would always make a perfect decision and not learn why it was the good choice. Does this make sense?"
Only if you are dealing with a limited creator, one bound in some sense.
If God is omnipotent and omniscient then why does he require a flawed process in which most of the individuals involved will fail? And wouldn't a 'perfect man' already know why a decision was a good choice (if said man lacked such a knowledge then that man would be imperfect).
"And that's exactly why I support the right to carry fire arms and the death penalty . We're not murdering the criminal. We're killing him. "
Right (I agree with you on this point)... However we are discussing the nature of translations of the Bible and you said:
"Are you familiar with the commandment 'Thou Shalt not Kill?'... is there some question about it's proper translation?"
So obviously there is some question as to it's proper translation. You say that my bit about it originally being ' murder ' is an accurate translation... but the King James version, which was the translation of choice among Protestant denominations, translated it as 'kill'. Further consider pacifistic denominations like the Quakers who refuse violence in all its forms. They believe that killing is wrong (not just murder)
"In the logic of my mind. The mass of hydrogen and other various elements that made the sun would have become very hot before it had started its fusion process. Hot things give off light. Light before the sun is logical."
But is that consistent? According to Genesis plants were created on the third day, along with dry land and oceans. This would indicate that the Earth was fully formed and cool, which would only have happened long after fusion was initiated within the sun... indeed the entire cosmos was made after the earth according to Genesis. This cannot be true because otherwise we would not be able to see things further away then the age of the Earth.
"The assertion that it is properly translated into "times" or periods is better than days too. Assembly, Formation, early earth, precambrian, Cambrian, and the current times"
That hardly covers it... remember that according to Genesis:
Day 1 - separation of light from dark
Day 2 - separation of waters. creation of dry land
Day 3 - creation of plants
Day 4 - Sun and moon
Day 5 - Animals
Day 6 - Humans
Day 2 presents a problem, as it would have taken a great deal of time for oceans to form due to the heat of the early earth, plus the continual impacts the earth would have undergone.
Day 3 presents a problem as we know that life emerged in the ocean long before it came up onto the surface... the seas already 'teemed' with life before the first tree grew on dry land.
Day 4 presents a problem, as we know from dating that the moon is far older then life on earth (4.4 billion years ago at the least).
- MrBook December 23, 2009 9:25PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
A further addendum to day 4:
If we take genesis as an accounting of events we can see a further incongruity. If the Earth is ~4.4 billion years ago, and the stars were formed after the earth had cooled to the point where it was able to support plant life then the furthest starts that we could see could be no more then ~4.4 billion years old... yet the most distant object discovered to date is ~13.7 billion lightyears distant.
- MrBook December 23, 2009 9:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
If God knew how it would turn out when he created the world, the whole thing would be kind of pointless. God doesn't know our future but all our possible futures. Think of life as a choose your own adventure book. If you listen, God will tell you which way to go, but you always have free will.
- mike1948 July 25, 2009 11:00AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
So God is not omniscient?
- MrBook July 26, 2009 8:26AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Is God all powerful? No, because he gave that up when he gave mankind free will.
- mike1948 July 26, 2009 1:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
So if God is not all powerful and all knowing then God is fallible?
- MrBook July 26, 2009 2:25PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
If you take a basic Biology course at the high school level
(just a reminder: Biology is accepted by almost all religions regarding content)
there would be a detailed explanation of how life was created by chemical compounds and reactions. Whether this was an act of God or not is the question.
As a warning, you should try to avoid sticking to a book written before iron was used commonly word for word.
(If you must know, I am Christian, raised Christian. Don't assume otherwise)
- notarealperson September 17, 2009 7:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The bible is a book of absolutely no value. It's an object. It holds some quaint historical scripture.
To quote it in this manner will get you nowhere. In a few years from now it may actually get you a padded cell, in the same way it would get anyone a cell who consistently quoted faerie tales as rationale to carry around a two-bladed axe. We are entering a world where this level of idolatry of quaint desert folklore will get you in trouble. We are entering a world where these pathologically outdated belief systems will be a reason for people to be forced into regimens of heavy medication - not because the world becomes a tyranny persecuting believers - no because acting on this kind of superstitious nonsense will get people HURT.
- Khannea Suntzu
February 10, 2010 5:36PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
How do you explain the striking similarity of Genesis to pre-Judeo-Christian creation stories, specifically those of Mesopotamia?
- jstealth March 8, 2010 1:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"If the Bible is the inspired Word of the infinite Creator God, then it must be self-authenticating and self-attesting—and it is."
Exactly how is the Bible self-authenticating? Cetainly there are archaeologists hard at work in the lands of the Near East trying to find concrete objects - cities - that match with names and events mentioned in the Bible. But how does the Bible self authenticate the verses about four rivers coming out of Eden? It doesn't.
What, in general, does self authenticate mean? Does it mean "make predictions"? What verifiable predictions does the Bible make? How does Genesis help oil companies find oil? It doesn't. Scientific geology helps oil companies find oil. Evolution helps oil companies find oil.
- dvunkannon October 13, 2008 8:10PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
I don't care how many times you say it. You can't prove anything using that same thing, you have to use evidences outside of that.
Just like in my field...you can't prove a mathematical theorem by saying it's self-authenticating. You have to use other known facts and proven theorems to prove it. Any mathematician (such as myself) just has to laugh at such an excuse.
- bagpiper2005 October 13, 2008 8:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
"You can't prove anything using that same thing, you have to use evidences outside of that."
By using something outside of it, I assume you mean that you have to appeal to something more authoritative. You can't use something LESS authoritative to prove a point. So eventually you come to the end of that argument and you must have an ULTIMATE authority. One either chooses to believe in the ultimate authority of God's Word, or in man's flawed interpretation of the same evidence used by Creation Science, which doesn't exists to try to PROVE the Bible. That would mean that we're putting something else in a place of authority higher than God's Word. You can try your whole life to piece together the past using observations in the present, but if your presumptions and starting points are wrong, how can you even find the truth? Now if you have a reliable eyewitness account (and honestly, what's more reliable then the Word of the One who did the Creating?) you have the proper starting point to come to the correct conclusions.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/03/21/feedback-logic-over-bible
- BubbaCoop October 23, 2008 10:25AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
There is no proof that there even exists a God to begin with, so in that case you can't really use that either. So we don't even have a confirmed eyewitness account.
As I said, it also doesn't help anything that law-breaking conmen (e.g. Kent Hovind) pedal this BS. That really makes his case look weak and makes his followers look bad when he pulls some crap like that.
- bagpiper2005 October 23, 2008 10:38AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
Read Romans Chapter 1. There is proof.
- feeper November 4, 2008 2:50AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible, thus that is an invalid argument.
Proof of a deity would be by the scientific method, without the use of religious texts, without the use of "faith" and would have to be measured empirically. As it is, there is no way to do this, so the presence/absence of a deity will never be absolutely proven.
- bagpiper2005 November 4, 2008 7:46AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
The argument you're making would make sense if we could all just go up to God and ask, "Hey, is this true?" and God could give his answer directly to anyone who asked. But remember, when you refer to God's word, you're talking about the transcription of stories that were oral tradition for centuries. That isn't God's word, that's generations and generations of people playing the telephone game with something someone once said he heard from God (sometimes resulting in contradictory statements being supposedly made by the always-correct God). Now, we could use that, or we could use reproducible scientific tests. If you're looking for reliable evidence, there's a clear choice.
- thoughtcounts Z November 3, 2008 8:41AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
"Just like in my field...you can't prove a mathematical theorem by saying it's self-authenticating. You have to use other known facts and proven theorems to prove it. Any mathematician (such as myself) just has to laugh at such an excuse."
And how did you go about trying to prove that theorem? You did so by using mathematical postulates -- which are self-authenticating. Seriously, this hole in your argument is so big that I'm surprised such a smart, 21st century, non-stone age intellect like yourself failed to see it.
- Fundamental85 October 28, 2008 9:04AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
This is so because it has been proven. "And odd plus and odd equals an even." Yes, it's a mathematical postulate that seems fairly self-authenticating, however, there is a proof for it. Just like there is a proof for every other mathematical postulate. No postulate is "just there." They ALL have their associated proofs, no matter how trivial they might seem.
- bagpiper2005 October 28, 2008 10:02AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
At their very foundation theorems are based on a set of assumptions known as axioms. These are then combined to create theorems (which can then be used to create more elaborate theorems). There is nothing automatically true about the baseline axioms, just the assumption that "if X, Y, and Z are true then A"
- MrBook May 1, 2009 6:44AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
What if the other side, I mean the Creation Side, had compelling evidence? Ever been to a Creation Siminar? They are quite interesting. They have their scientists too. Are they any less a "Scientist" because they use science and their education to prove that "Evolution" is false?
- justsomeguywithanopinion November 19, 2008 4:57AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Me...listen to a guy who has a fake Ph.D. from a diploma mill and has the gall to evade his taxes? Heck no. I've listened to their evidence, and it is less than convincing.
- bagpiper2005 November 19, 2008 8:54AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Whose evidence? I was not referring to Hovind. You cannot break the law like he did and call himself a Christian and say you believe in the Bible.
I am talking about all the other Creation Scientists that are out there. And there are Plenty of them. I am talking about real scientists, with Real (not fake) doctors degrees who are studying the creation theory. Not every one has bought into the theory of Evolution.
Thoughts: I the 1800's Darwin wrote the Book "Origin of the Species". From that, the "Theory of Evolution" began a revolution that has snow balled into what we have today. It is a theory based upon a book. And because of that book, scientists have studied and studied the fossil records to prove that the theory is fact (which they have not done to any satisfaction, at least in my book). Then you have the Bible, written down by man many thousands of years ago and passed down over the ages. From that book, the theory of Creation comes. And as a result, many scientists have strove to prove their theory is true.
Which do you believe? They are after all both based on books written by men.
- justsomeguywithanopinion November 19, 2008 2:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
"On the Origin of Species" is out of date. It rightfully retains its historical significance as a turning point in Western society, but modern scientists rarely cite the text directly. Darwin's theory has almost entirely been supplanted by modern refinements. Remember that Darwin published his theory before the discovery of DNA. The mechanism he tentatively proposed to explain the heredity of traits, a critical component in his theory, was flawed and incorrect. Scientists discarded such ideas and incorporated discoveries from biology to create the modern evolutionary synthesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis
Darwin's theory was itself a refinement of earlier ideas. It had been known long into antiquity that species inherit traits and change over time. (Domestication of animals, animal breeding, etc) Darwin was the first to propose common descent. His novel idea was that isolated populations of the same species can diverge into separate species after many generations.
In stark contrast, "creation scientists" will stubbornly resist any discovery that contradicts the earliest formulation of their "theory." I use quotes because creationism offers no specific mechanisms and makes no useful predictions. The text upon which the idea is based makes absolutely no claim to scientific accuracy. In fact, the document was written centuries before the scientific method.
That is how your comparison fails. Darwin was wrong in many respects, and scientists rightfully discarded those ideas. Young earth creationism is also false on many points, yet "creation scientists" have not updated their theory.
- Antimatter November 20, 2008 1:18AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
I did not make a comparison, I was simply stating thoughts. I have not stated which side of this I am on because this subject always turns vicious no matter which side you are on.
There are more versions of the Creation theory than just the Young Earth theory. There is the "Theistic evolotion" view (to name one) - which in a since says that God created the earth and then let evolution take is course. (Which I think is all washed up from the get go).
- justsomeguywithanopinion November 23, 2008 6:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
"Which do you believe? They are after all both based on books written by men."
I know that one is the basis of some silly religions and the other is firmly backed by actual science.
- onein6billion December 7, 2008 8:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I actively attend the origins conferences hosted by a variety of different organizations, including Christian universities, Reasons to Believe, and most recently the Skeptic Society. I even saw a particularly dumbfounding live presentation by Kent Hovind when he was still a free man. After all that, I have yet to encounter one shred of convincing scientific evidence for a young earth or special creation.
Are there any specific examples that you had in mind? How do these creation scientists show that evolution is false? If they truly have found convincing evidence, they should be household names. Scientists love to overturn established theroies. Such discoveries bring lots of grant money.
- Antimatter November 20, 2008 12:13AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
Have you been to the ICR facility to watch their presentation? ICR is the Institute for Creation Research. And no, there were no specific ones. I am just getting the conversation going to see if any one is really spending time examining their view on this or just spouting words that they have no idea about.
- justsomeguywithanopinion November 23, 2008 6:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
"Have you been to the ICR facility to watch their presentation?"
ICR teaches hilarious nonsense. ICR moved to Texas and then wanted to give a "master of science education " degree. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board told them no. So they have filed a nonsensical 76 page lawsuit. So a real judge may get to judge their nonsense and pronounce it nonsense.
- onein6billion May 9, 2009 11:58AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"Are they any less a "Scientist" because they use science and their education to prove that "Evolution" is false?"
They are not scientists because their "evidence" is false. They just make up silly nonsense.
- onein6billion May 9, 2009 11:53AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
GOD is not physical except as CHRIST & a CHRISTIAN, true believers...GOD is SPIRIT ....YOU cannot PROVE SPIRIT, except for it's intervention upon men...AS in: INSPIRED....or INDWELT...THE effects of the SPIRIT's workings....WHEN the worlds or EARTH was created by GOD the writings refer to ,"the SPIRIT moved upon the EARTH & or WATERS"...I do not presume to know the totality of GOD or HE, as HE referse to himself, or itself(SPIRIT)...I would be equal with GOD if I had full kowledge & would myself BE GOD...HE or the SPIRIT rejuvinates a dead spirit,in man, EXAMPLE; in me to MY "salvation", as HE ,GOD calls this phenominon.. THIS is MY proof that HE exists & HE has convicted ME to "believe" in the writings which are contained in scripture; to which HE has given ME the gift of discernment & authenticity.... THE POWER to BELIEVE..THIS IS THE BEGINNING of SALVATION or what is refered to as FAITH WITNESS or PROOF, without which a man cannot believe...ENOUGH, O.K.? IT is a FAITH not MY own which has been given or transported to me...REF: The wind blows where it may but, ONLY the effects are seen, or made physical to the human...
- nobody October 16, 2008 10:17AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"THIS is MY proof that HE exists"
Well, your "proof" is a terrible waste of valuable electrons (and also ridiculous nonsense).
- onein6billion May 9, 2009 12:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"But how does the Bible self authenticate the verses about four rivers coming out of Eden? It doesn't"
You must be joking. You really expect the world to look the same 6,000 years later? And after a global flood that completely altered the face of the planet and breaking one continent into seven? But 4 rivers should still be the same? Rivers don't stay the same from one year to the next. Read Mark Twain's Life on the Mississippi.
"What, in general, does self authenticate mean? Does it mean "make predictions"?"
No, it means that the Word of God is internally consistent, although written over a period of 4,000 years by 40 different authors. It means that God can not lie, and His Word can not contradict itself.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/09/29/contradictions-introduction
That doesn't mean predictions, although valid predictions can and have been made based on biblical truths. Russ Humphreys' predictions of magnetic fields of other planets is probably the biggest one.
"How does Genesis help oil companies find oil?"
You're confusing operation science with historical science, which is based on philosophy and INTERPRETATION of evidence that exists in the present. It doesn't make ANY predictions about the past, because that's impossible. How can you make verifiable observations in the past?
"Evolution helps oil companies find oil."
Now you're just confused in general. What does "scientific geology" have to do with evolution? Flood geology is actually able to make better sense of the observable evidence than millions of years of slow processes. What would flood geology predict? How about billions of dead animals and plants rapidly buried under a mile of sediment laid down quickly, preserving animals in the middle of eating, or giving birth, all over the world? Plate tectonics, the single ice age, massive volcanic activity decreasing in intensity over the centuries, the same layers of sedimentary rock found on different sides of the ocean, flood sediment in Nevada transported from New England, all explained with the proper Biblical perspective, but still unexplained by secular geology.
- BubbaCoop October 23, 2008 10:19AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You're missing the point about the four rivers. A global flood powerful enough to carve the Grand Canyon from scratch, split one continent into seven, deposit miles of sediments... and yet four rivers remain on the surface near each other and identifiable by the same names. Just another miracle...
Self consistency is not self authentication. The Bible doesn't come with a checksum.
Nice avoidance of answering the question, "How does Genesis help oil companies find oil?" Here's the one perfect truthful book about the earth's past, and nothing in it can help a petroleum geologist??? How does assuming the Bible is literally true about a six day creation add anything to the observations of materialistic science? Every time they drill for oil, they are making a prediction about the past. When archaeologists go to a specific kind of rock to find a specific kind of fossil, as Shubin describes about Tikkalik, they are making a prediction about the past.
Geology has a lot to do with evolution. We don't find plants and animals in random places in the geologic column, we find them in strata with a correlation of geolgic age and development. Plate tectonics unexplained by secular geology?? Plate tectonics IS secular geology!
- dvunkannon October 23, 2008 12:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
"You're missing the point about the four rivers. A global flood powerful enough to carve the Grand Canyon from scratch, split one continent into seven, deposit miles of sediments... and yet four rivers remain on the surface near each other and identifiable by the same names. Just another miracle..."
Those who say that those modern-day rivers are the same ones of the pre-flood period are merely guessing. I would say that they are not. Most likely Noah and his sons saw these rivers and simply named them after their antediluvian counterparts.
- Fundamental85 October 28, 2008 9:10AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
You are opening the door to a non-literal explanation of the text. I don't think AiG would be happy!
- dvunkannon October 29, 2008 9:19AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
"No, it means that the Word of God is internally consistent"
Nonsense. "Self-authenticating" is obviously in the eye of the believer. But a skeptic says that phrase does not mean what you think it means. Any old nonsense could be "internally consistent" - and completely wrong.
- onein6billion May 9, 2009 12:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The Bible is no more self authenticating then any other irrational fantasy.
The whole idea of a creator, and a moment if creation is flawed:
"Some foolish men declare that a Creator made the world. The doctrine that the world was created is ill-advised, and should be rejected. If God created the world, where was he before creation?... How could God have made the world without any raw material? If you say He made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression... Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is, without beginning and end. And it is based on principles."
Mahapurana by Jinasena
Eden as a paradise. Sounds like a maximum security prison with all pervasive surveillance.
And, obscenity of obscenities, original sin. Were Adam & Eve zombies ? since without free will they were not human:
"To hold man's nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched." (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged)"
There must be some way that the human race can rid itself of the scourge of religion.
- Andrew Holt October 16, 2008 6:34AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
"Some foolish men declare that a Creator made the world. The doctrine that the world was created is ill-advised, and should be rejected. If God created the world, where was he before creation?... How could God have made the world without any raw material? If you say He made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression... Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is, without beginning and end. And it is based on principles."
Mahapurana by Jinasena
Total ignorance. God CREATED time. There was no "before". God created space. God created matter. It's evolutionists that have no answer for where the "raw material" came from.
God says:
For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Colossians 1:16-17
But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
2 Peter 3:5-7
(New International Version)
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
2 Timothy 4:3-4
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Romans 1:20
- BubbaCoop October 23, 2008 10:34AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
What is it with people like you ? was the bible the first book you read and then you quit reading anything else ?
Can you defend your position WITHOUT reference to the bible ?
Do you have any evidence, yes EVIDENCE, from another source that shows the bible is the word of God and not just a collection of books selected by the Vatican to support a particular viewpoint ?
Why do you find it easier to believe in some all powerful supernatural creator that is eternal than a natural universe that is eternal ?
Is it possible to prove (without reference to your book) that God exists, or does not exist ? probably not.
Science is not a collection of, cast in stone, answers. That kind of fixity is death. Science is a process. It will never end because there will always be more questions. You have simply abandoned the quest and with it your rational mind.
For anybody who reads this with, some semblance, of that rational mind, please take a look at:
http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html
http://www.working-minds.com/galtmini.htm
As Epicurus siad, a little while before Christ & your book:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
- Andrew Holt October 23, 2008 12:00PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
"from another source that shows the bible is the word of God and not just a collection of books selected by the Vatican to support a particular viewpoint ?"
You clearly don't know much about either textual criticism or church history.
Do you read books other than those produced by humanists? Just asking...
- Fundamental85 October 28, 2008 9:13AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
"Do you read books other than those produced by humanists? Just asking"
I am not a biblical scholar so I had to look for this, but "According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Canon of the New Testament: "The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history."
Yes. I have read the bible, I have also read "The communist manifesto" and many other things.
I'll treat the personal slight with the same contempt I show to politicians faced with an awkward question who launches a personal attack on their questioner.
I suppose it vain to hope that you could address any of my questions ?
- Andrew Holt October 29, 2008 2:28AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Andrew Holt, here's my take on your question:
1. "What is it with people like you ? was the bible the first book you read and then you quit reading anything else ? Can you defend your position WITHOUT reference to the bible ?"
2. "Do you have any evidence, yes EVIDENCE, from another source that shows the bible is the word of God and not just a collection of books selected by the Vatican to support a particular viewpoint ?"
My answers to your questions are: 1. Why does it matter; NO; and NO. 2. NO. The thing with people like us, people who believe in the Word of God is that we are dealing with a subject that goes beyond human beings. The Bible (Scriptures or Torah) Is not necessarily the first book that we have ever read, but it stands out as one of our most favorite books. If a man (or woman) says that he loves God and believes in Him as the Center of his life, then he will not have any problem using that book to help him support his viewpoint. By the way, the Vatican was not the only branch of Christianity to select Biblical Books and support a particular viewpoint, some Protestant denominations were also guilty of deciding which Books would remain in the Bible nearly four centuries ago. The Jewish people are guilty of omitting several Books from the Torah (Hebrew Bible), and some of these are included in today's Catholic Apocryphal editions of both Catholic and Protestant Bibles. One of these Books, the Book of Jasher, is an authentic Scriptural writing that many scholars believe should have remained in today's Torahs and Bibles. So much for that, I did not come here to split hairs with anyone. As far as evidence to show that the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God, you need look no further than the Bible itself. Since God cannot lie, why then, would the Word of God tell lies? The Bible (and Torah) are not Vatican-selected books, no matter how much some of us may want to believe that. In fact, the Vatican's Bible is the Christian Bible PLUS the Apocrypha, so technically speaking, the Vatican's Bible is more comprehensive than the one used by Protestants. Go figure on that one!
- camelcityman271 August 9, 2009 5:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I apologise for the personal slant to the first part of my first question, it was meant to be rhetorical.
From your further answer I take it that you
a) have read other books.
b) Have no evidence outside a single source.
You say "As far as evidence to show that the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God, you need look no further than the Bible itself. Since God cannot lie, why then, would the Word of God tell lies?"
That is such a naive statement that I am staggered.
1. "Since God cannot lie" So God is not all powerful ? Surely an omnipotent deity can do anything ?
2. Even if you are correct, men can lie. A man could quite easily write a book that says this is the word of God and be lying.
If I found a book describing a conflict between the Dark Lord Sauron, (who created a magical ring) and the inhabitants of middle earth. If this book ended with "This volume is true and was written whilst under divine inspiration of the one true God." Would you believe it ?
- Andrew Holt August 10, 2009 12:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
For the Bible to be divinely inspired all the persons writing the Bible or translating the Bible had to be listening to God, all the time. No stray thought. No theological spin.
- mike1948 August 14, 2009 3:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Now the trick is to prove that all of the authors were free of stray thoughts and theological spin
- MrBook August 22, 2009 5:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
“My answers to your questions are: 1. Why does it matter; NO; and NO. 2. NO.”
It is the third ‘No’ that I find most interesting. You freely admit that you cannot defend your position without the Bible, but are in a discussion with those who do not believe that the Bible is a valid source in scientific matters. If a religious source that cannot be supported otherwise is valid to you then what would you say to a Taoist that supports their arguments by relying on their holy texts?
“If a man (or woman) says that he loves God and believes in Him as the Center of his life, then he will not have any problem using that book to help him support his viewpoint.”
This is all well and good when talking among other Christians , but it comes across as ‘God did it’ when talking with those outside of Christiantiy. If I said that the sun was carried across the sky in Apollo’s chariot what would you say?
“By the way, the Vatican was not the only branch of Christianity to select Biblical Books and support a particular viewpoint, some Protestant denominations were also guilty of deciding which Books would remain in the Bible nearly four centuries ago.”
So who has the correct collection of books?
“As far as evidence to show that the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God, you need look no further than the Bible itself.”
If and only if you already accept the Bible as true is this a valid statement… it does not follow if you do not already accept the original statement that the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God.
“Since God cannot lie, why then, would the Word of God tell lies?”
The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not lie, we know this because the book describing the FSM says so and since the FSM does not lie then the book is true.
- MrBook August 14, 2009 5:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"Answers in Genesis" avoids doing the one thing that might actually lead them to understand the Biblical text: studying genuine, up-to-date, Biblical scholarship that reflects a genuine desire to understand the text rather than impose one's predetermined conclusions on it.
Not only is the Bible not self-authenticating, but no one comes to the Bible as a blank slate without other influences.
Biblical literalism is a PR exercise. Groups like Answers in Genesis claim to believe the whole Bible and take it all literally because it persuades people who do not examine the basis for their claim. Those who do find that in fact AiG and other groups like it are making false claims. They don't take the dome in Genesis 1 literally. They never argue that one needs to believe that Yahweh created by combatting the sea monster (called Leviathan or Rahab in the Bible). Their literalism is a selective on.
Moreover, Biblical scholarship has long noted that the days in Genesis 1(literal days consisting of evening and morning as per Jewish reckoning) are arranged in a poetic parallelism, with days 1-3 creating habitats that are then filled with life on days 4-6.
The issue is not simply ignoring science. Answers in Genesis ignores the Bible, and yet claims to be based in the Bible. Where I come from, we call that dishonesty.
- ReligionProf October 16, 2008 7:10AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
I would like your oppinion of my remarks
http://www.opposingviews.com/counters/but-what-does-the-bible-say
and
http://www.opposingviews.com/counters/the-origin-of-the-seven-day-week
- Gary Hurd October 17, 2008 2:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Obviously you haven't done much reading on the AiG website. They often cite Hebrew scholars, have documented beliefs about Genesis during various times in church history, and address what you refer to as "Biblical scholarship." Their website has a great search engine for anyone who really cares to find out.
AiG promotes a straight forward reading of the Bible. History (which includes Genesis 1-11) is read as history and poetry is read as poetry. This is very natural for most people unless they have a problem with the straight forward comments. No English translation I have used mentions a dome in Genesis 1, although the topic is discussed on their site at http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/firmament.asp .
There are many ways in which the Bible is self-authenticating. The consistency of the message (e.g. man's lostness and need for a savior), the numerous fulfilled prophecies, the multiple eyewitnesses of Christ's resurrection (who stuck by the truth of their testimony even when faced with death), and the fact that it is consistent with real life. In the last respect, the awesome design in nature and the Bible's wisdom in human relationships are what I found most convincing. For example, God commands that we forgive, but this makes no sense if God is not our Creator to whom we must give an account. In psychology they have found out that forgiveness is very important to our well being. There are other truths the Bible presents that science is catching up with too.
You have failed to engage the arguments presented by AiG and failed to demonstrate that they ignore the Bible or science.
- seektruth January 13, 2009 12:53PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"Obviously you haven't done much reading on the AiG website."
Of course not. That would be a terrible waste of time. But some people with a little time on their hands have looked at their nonsense and shown it for the nonsense that it is. For instance - AIG specifically warns you not to read "talk origins". They are afraid that you might realize that "talk origins" clearly demonstrates that what AIG tells you is nonsense.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc /
- onein6billion May 9, 2009 12:14PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"If the Bible is the inspired Word of the infinite Creator God, then it must be self-authenticating and self-attesting—and it is."
This means we have to compare scripture with scripture to get at the correct interpretation.
The Bible we now have is not complete. Not even close to complete. Paul said: "we know in part and we prophecy in part; but when that is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away." Jesus is that which is perfect. The living Word of God. Again the apostle said: " If every thing Jesus did and said were written down, the world itself could not contain the books.
So people who think they can know it all, from the tiny amount in the Bible are holding themselves in religious ignorance. Just like the Scribes and Pharisees did when Jesus brought fresh insight on what the Word really said.
- jumpstart October 16, 2008 7:33AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
FIRST of all YOU are sriritualy diserned from understanding until GOD moves upon your, HEART /MIND / CORE being...It is called CONVICTION, comming only from GOD's SPIRIT ...(INTERACTION) ...THE law,(COMMANDMENTS)were only given for MANKIND to see or conclude he NEEDS a SALVATION PLAN before GOD -MUST-/ administer the "JUSTICE" required for HIM to remain, GOD....THESE LAWS are something set up in ETERNITY past that must be followed to mantain GOD or ETERNITY or what ever, & is deemed neccessary for existance...THEY just are not arbitrary issues off the cuff ,so to speak...THEY are manditory for existance...IN all REALMS of ETERNITY...PREREQUISITS, if you will...
- nobody October 16, 2008 10:34AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The first problem with the debate question is that neither time nor space exists per se. Then comes the definition of units of time, such as “a day.” Neither of these points was apparent in earlier times when the myths date from. But even though it is also still true that science most probably does not have clear or even close answers in cosmology today (the big bang theory works pretty good, but the big splat theory has not been eliminated, and then there is understanding dark matter and dark energy and there possible implications) it does not mean that any theory or myth is as valid as any other.
Using biblical myths as anything other than analogies is disrespectful of religion and reduces its potential value to society. At the vary lest it make religion unnecessarily subject to discrediting and rejection when science proves here to fore believed “facts” unlikely, improbable or just plain wrong.
- RichNau October 16, 2008 12:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"One of the major problems that we all have (in fact, it’s the same problem Adam and Eve had in the Garden of Eden) is that we tend to start from outside God's Word and then go to what God has written in the Bible (or—in Adam's case—what God forbade him to do) to try to interpret it on the basis of our own pre-set ideas. This is the major reason why most people question the length of the days of creation in the book of Genesis."
Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence, including the claim that the Bible is the Word of God. It is dishonest to claim that those who reject or even question the Bible's dogmas are doing so because of "pre-set ideas". A common fallacy of bigots is to claim that their opponents are also bigoted. This is a smokescreen.
"If the Bible is the inspired Word of the infinite Creator God, then it must be self-authenticating and self-attesting—and it is. At the same time, my presupposition is that we should start with what God's Word says regardless of outside ideas, for only God's Word is infallible."
Nonsense! NOTHING is self-authenticating. You would never say anything else was, so why make an exception for the Bible? Especially considering the existence of other religious texts, most of whom you would DENY because of your faith in the Bible. And the followers of other faiths, in turn, would deny the Bible because of THEIR faith.
"If people doubt the length of the days of creation when the language of the Bible speaks so plainly that they are regular days, then they are accepting a particular approach to all of Scripture. Why shouldn't they then start to doubt that Christ's Virgin Birth really means a virgin birth? Why shouldn't people start to doubt that the Resurrection really means resurrection?"
There is clear evidence for a universe and Earth billions of years old and for the evolution of life and thus good reason to deny a literal reading of the Genesis creation stories. There is no evidence to outright deny the Virgin Birth of Christ or His Resurrection. Those who put their faith in Genesis more than in Jesus have no business calling themselves Christians.
- Dale Husband October 17, 2008 12:20AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I don't see what is so hard about it. I will start be quoting a bible verse.
I am the LORD, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me? Jeremiah 32:27
Now one has ever convinced me that I should take anything other than the literal view of the bible. If you truly want to find a great relationship with God, just believe Him.
The root of the problem has to do with your view of God. Is He a weak God, or is He a God who can do anything. There is not good reason to believe otherwise.
Flip
- feeper November 4, 2008 2:48AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Your stating what you believe, not what can be demonstrated scientifically.
Logically what is the difference between your quote of the Bible and a Buddhist's quote of the Diamond Sutra? or a Muslims quote of the Koran?
I've do not have any issues with your beliefs... but I do question their use in a scientific context.
- MrBook November 5, 2008 3:57AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
There is much scientific evidence to proof it, it's just that you wouldn't believe it anyway. The problem being that there isn't much proof in what men say anyway. Which of us hasn't lied once or twice. The answer is no one. So how can you believe what any man says.
The bible is the only record of creation and the scribes kept near perfect records by their mathematical system. So by faith I believe it. God chose the Jews for many reasons, but one was to keep track of His relationship with man and write it down.
- feeper November 7, 2008 5:36PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I do not 'believe' in science. I see it as a rational way to understand the world. I do not believe that if I drop a pencil that it will fall, I just know that according to gravitational theories that if I hold a pencil up then let go that it will be pulled towards the largest concentration of mass (which happens to be the earth).
If I did hold up a pencil, let it go, and it did not fall then that would not change my beliefs... I'd just examine the situation to see what was keeping it from acting as expected. My beliefs do not enter into it.
It's the same for the current scientifically accepted theories about the origins of the earth. I've read through the theories and the evidence, and I agree with the common consensus about the age and creation of the earth.
You believe in Biblical Genesis, but I've yet to see any evidence to support it... or to give it more credence then the Egyptian, Native American, or Viking creation stories.
You state that everyone lies, but then go on to say that you trust one group of scribes out of all the others. How does their mathematical system lead to near perfect records?
- MrBook November 8, 2008 6:23AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
All this is hard to understand. I was once where you are at. I did not believe any of it. I found myself wrong on everything. The truth is not something man has much of in his nature. What man has not lied once or twice? The answer is none.
There supposedly is scientific evidence for both beliefs......so who do you belief?
My logic is there is no good reason to not believe in 6 days as the bible says.
- feeper November 7, 2008 6:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
As I stated above, I 'believe' neither side. Logically the evidence points to the 4.5 billion year creation that is the common consensus.
If everyone lies then how can you say that the Bible is absolute truth after being copied and translated for thousands of years?
- MrBook November 8, 2008 7:24AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
It has been translated for about six thousand years. I do not know how their system worked but the dead sea scrolls were identical to the written word.
I told you earlier that I did not always believe in God the way He wants us to believe in Him. I believed there was a God, but that was the end of it. What other records are there that are six thousand years old besides the Bible. No one has ever been able to prove the Bible wrong. Many have tried and many have found a relationship with God the Creator because of it.
I don't know everything, but what I do know is by life experience, Why would a God as great as he is take 4.5 billion years to create the earth when there is nothing to difficult for Him. Time means nothing to God. Some things are a mystery for sure, but that is why it takes faith to please God.
- feeper November 13, 2008 6:30PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"It has been translated for about six thousand years. I do not know how their system worked but the dead sea scrolls were identical to the written word."
The Dead Sea scrolls are little more then two thousand years old, but then how does that age 'prove' the Bible is true, or that it is six thousand years old? And which version of the Bible are we talking about? The KJV? The Latin text? The Greek text? What about the books that are not found in current translations (Book of Enoch, Gospel of Thomas, or any of the other Apocrypha texts).
"What other records are there that are six thousand years old besides the Bible. No one has ever been able to prove the Bible wrong. Many have tried and many have found a relationship with God the Creator because of it"
What evidence is there that places the age of the Bible at six thousand years (Hebrew did not appear until around 1000 BC, the oldest 'complete' texts being the aforementioned Dead Sea scrolls at 200 BC, and the oldest surviving fragment originating from ~600 BC). Coincidentally, negative proof is a rather tricky thing. Saying that something is true because there is no proof that it is false is a logical fallacy... If I say that since there is no proof that unicorns did not exist then they existed, would you say that that is a reasonable argument?
"I don't know everything, but what I do know is by life experience, Why would a God as great as he is take 4.5 billion years to create the earth when there is nothing to difficult for Him. Time means nothing to God. Some things are a mystery for sure, but that is why it takes faith to please God."
If time means nothing to God then why would it matter to God if it took 4.5 billion years to create the earth? "Why would God take 4.5 billion years..." is also not a scientific argument, its not really any sort of argument. The evidence, as presented (astronomical, geological, archeological) all points back past 6k years, what is the evidence that contradicts this?
- MrBook November 13, 2008 8:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
You are an intellectual and people like you have the hardest time believing anything, let alone trying to intellectualize the bible or God or anything like it.
The truth is in order to understand the creator God you will need to have the Born Again experience. After that than it is easier to understand because then you have a true relationship with Him. I admit it is difficult to wrap your mind around, I had the same problem.
It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle then it is a rich man to get into heaven.
The same applies to intellectuals. When things are as simple as True Christianity is, it will be hard for a person like you to understand. One day I hope you will.
Flip
- feeper November 14, 2008 6:19AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Tell me, Have you ever read the "Origin of the Species"? I have and I find it to be a pretty far stretch. The whole theory of Evolution is based on that book, and I do mean theory. For something to go beyond a theory, it has to be proven beyond and shadow of a doubt. Evolution has never been proven to that point. Just as you say that creation cannot be proven by science.
My question is this: Is a Scientist who studies Evolution more credible than one studying Creation? What if they both have the same Credentials, the same degrees, the same experience, but one is studying creation and one evolution ? Which one is More credible?
I can answer that based on what I have gotten from another debate on this issue. Most in that debate said that the one studying evolution was more credible than the one studying evolution.
- justsomeguywithanopinion November 19, 2008 3:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
"Tell me, Have you ever read the "Origin of the Species"? I have and I find it to be a pretty far stretch. The whole theory of Evolution is based on that book, and I do mean theory."
The theory of Evolution is not based on OotS, that is just the book that 'first' put for the idea. It is also a theory that we can observe in action then test.
"For something to go beyond a theory, it has to be proven beyond and shadow of a doubt."
Actually no... There is nothing in science beyond a theory. Some theories are now known as laws due to how rigorously they have been tested, but that does not mean that they are absolutely perfect or beyond reproach.
Evolution is just a theory, though one with a great deal of evidence backing it up... where is the evidence for a 6 day creation?
"My question is this: Is a Scientist who studies Evolution more credible than one studying Creation? What if they both have the same Credentials, the same degrees, the same experience, but one is studying creation and one evolution ? Which one is More credible?"
One would have to look at their research and methodologies to determine which one was found more credible.
"Most in that debate said that the one studying evolution was more credible than the one studying evolution."
Yes, because the evidence for evolution, and a 4.5 billion year old earth, is far stronger then the evidence for creationism . To be seen as credible a creationist would have to demonstrate how their theory was better at describing what we observe then the current theories.
- MrBook May 1, 2009 7:18AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Many people claim that certain writings are the Word of God.
The Samaritans believe that their version of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy is the Word of God.
Jews believe that the Masoretic text is the written Word of God.
Protestant Christians add the 27 books of the New Testament to the Hebrew scriptures and believe that this is the Word of God.
Catholics add to this the Apocrypha and believe that this is the Word of God.
Orthodox Christians add to this some other material and believe that this is the Word of God.
Muslims regard the above scriptures as corrupted and accept the Qur'an as the true Word of God.
The prophet Jeremiah said, ""How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie." (Jeremiah 8:8, English Standard Version).
It is impossible to know which, if any, of these contradictory opinions is true. The fact that people believe that they are right proves nothing.
- Michael Glass
November 14, 2008 4:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
after the entire cain and able thing, the brother left to another group of people to find a wife....but a litteral reading of the bible does not allow there to be other people. this is because in my opinion every religion's creation story is the creation story of THEIR people.
If a people live on an island with a volcano you can be certain fire and lava will be given as evidence of their God's expression. If their cculture tells it's own story from an austere desert, you may be certain that it's laws from God will reflect the severity of the conditions around them. The Egyptian's Gods demonstrated cyclicalness in every aspect of their human discription as the Nile's cyclical swelling was THE essence of their survival.
In the same manner, religions can become mutated by it's authors. God takes on the behavior of a Ceasar once Ceasar co-opted the bible. Popes read into the Bible and extend the reality of the narrative's interpretation in ways that resemble exactly how history sees them. If a pope was self agrandizing and greedy for power, God become increasingly so.
Read a little anthropology and one quickly realises that the devil as described by each in the Bible reflects EXACTLY the specific negatives being experienced by those who are believed to have actually penned each of the gospels at the time such things, by all evidence available, were first commited to paper. If the evil the group faced was a persecutorial leader....then the qualities of the devil described by them resemble the cruelty of the leader. if the advesary was a cultural bias against the gospel sources group, the details of evil resemble this.
On several side notes; If Jesus agreed with all of God's laws then he HAD to kill the adultress rather than get away with the "let he who is without sin" thing. If this were an example to follow, we should enact NO judgement on anyone. except the Bible does not allow us to ignore it's laws, so we MUST stone people as prescribed....right?
If God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the apple, he would have had to have imparted to them the seriousness of doing so and the concequences. but they did not know of right and wrong yet. how could they have known that eating the apple was wrong? A threat of pain? pain was something they never knew.
we have free will right? it is not free will if we are threatened with damnation. that is extortion.
The story of creation, man inparticular is best read as insight the authors found, divine or not. what we do know from personal experience is that Man at some point in our evolution , divinely guided or not, is most different from the animals because we ARE capable of harming needlessly, doing things which are short sighted, eating crud, making and then inhaling smog....we are no longer biological robots, mating when spring arrives, migrating when the sun gets lower and lower in the sky.
If god is perfect then why did he let the devil loose on man?
If God has a plan and knows evrything why do so many people feel they have the right to doubt Gods plan by asking for things? Anything! This description of God is either one of a selfish Ceasar like God where we should beg and plead but he will doe as he wishes anyway and we should be thankful no matter the turn of events or people are wrong in their actions and prayer should be for thanks and appology only.
God is more than humans can comprehend. No two persons experience the divine the same even if they are of the same faith and subsect of that faith. All that we can know about evil is that it is experienced by us as that which destroys Life. Life as we know it is not simply whether something is breathing, it is the ability to unfold, continue to express. Be it a spieces becoming another over time or a person being allowed to find his or her self....to have options in this existance open. Suppression of Life are seen in poverty, shame created by a selfish culture, war, greed, violence All anyone can say for certain if they believe in God is that God creates. That is all we can see for certain from this side of the screen.
- taoish November 27, 2008 9:32AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
A day is like a thousand years, and a thousand like a day - please compare and contrast that true statement about time (as measured by God, and documented by one of His children) with the idea that it had to be a literal six days. In the time it takes to read this sentence, I could have walked away from the keyboard, poured a cup of coffee, returned, and thought long and hard about how I would phrase my next sentence - so it is with God in His being outside of time. That which measures all things must, of necessity, be greater than all things being measured, no?
As an aside, my faith does not rest on whether it was a literal six days, or an indeterminate amount of time (as we measure time) that is recorded as being of six days duration - nor should that alone be used as a litmus test.
- Rick D November 28, 2008 5:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Creationist scientists are not hard to come by. Even Darwin believed in a Supreme Being. If there is a god out there, and He made everything, then wouldn't it stand to reason that He made the laws of nature? If that is the case, wouldn't it be reasonable to consider the possibility that just maybe He might create the Earth in a time and fashion after the manner of the very laws He created?
Our understanding of a day is usually 24 hours. But when you get right down to it, a "day" is merely the time it takes for the Earth to rotate on it's axis. Maybe God was busy keeping time based on the rotational axis of another planet, or a star? If that is the case, and said planet was a lot heftier than the Earth, than a "day" to God could have been any number of years or millenia to us. It's all about how you interpret it. The scientists and creationists can both be right on this one.
- Livvy December 12, 2008 10:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
AiG argues that pretexts brought by the reader are to blame for difficulties accepting The Bible as literal truth. But, since The Bible is rendered as a text written in human language, it cannot be entirely self-authenticating. The reader must bring at least her understanding of that language in order to be able to interpret the printed word. Every reading of The Bible is colored the reader's understanding of the language, not to mention by the translator's abilities and proclivities in preparing the particular edition being read. Therefore, everyone who reads The Bible (or anything else, for that matter) must necessarily project a bit of themselves, including their prejudices, into the narrative.
AiG may have been trying to say that, rather than finding the flaws, one should strain to hear the truth in the scripture. But this particular argument, proceeding as it does from an absurd premise, does not hold up.
- Charles Ames December 13, 2008 3:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The Bible is true because the Bible says so is incredibly juvenile logic.
- Blue Linchpin December 16, 2008 10:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
Everything I say is correct, regardless of logic or evidence that attempts to prove me wrong. And I say the Earth wasn't created in six days.
See how that works? That's basically what you said, just with the Bible. Sorry, doesn't work.
- Blue Linchpin May 2, 2009 1:54AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
While AIG tries to defend Genesis with the weakest possible argument, Answers in Creation explain Genesis I in a way that gives it a literal interpretation that is still in line with science .
http://www.answersincreation.org/genesis1.htm
- mike1948 August 6, 2009 12:05AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I agree with everything you say; except your conclusion! "The entire creationist argument is based on their particular biblical interpretations".
I'm a creationist, Not a YEC. At least the 6000 year variety. Science is only making wild guesses at the age of the Universe. Science is only that advanced too those who
are wowed by technology.
Intelligent Design is a science. A science that has been shelved for that last 150 years.
But a science.
- jumpstart October 16, 2008 11:46AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
The only assuption we make in science is that the nature of the universe is consistant and rational. The current estimate of the age of the universe is totally in accord with this minimal assuption.
True, the universe could be insane. This is one of the questions posed by Rene Descartes in his 1644 work, Principles of Philosophy (Principia philosophiae). I find that Descartes was congruent with the Bible that the universe is indeed coherent.
- Gary Hurd October 17, 2008 2:53PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
"The only assuption we make in science is that the nature of the universe is consistant and rational. The current estimate of the age of the universe is totally in accord with this minimal assuption." -Gary
That really gives me a laugh, Gary. I could make a list of scientific assumptions a mile lone. The first and worst is, "assume that their is no creator and then prove it".
If the Universe is consistent and rational, that in itself would point to a Creator.
There are many hypothesis that are assumed to be true; when estimating the age of the U.
Lastly your point must assume that Scientist and mankind in general; still maintain enough rational to be able too discern the mind of God. Which is revealed in His Creation. Which is another laugh,
judging by current events.
Me and my house, we will trust the Lord.
- jumpstart October 17, 2008 5:00PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
The absence of a creator is not an assumption of the sciences. Scientists almost always rely upon methodological naturalism, the assumption that explanations of observable effects are most useful when they describe specific (natural) mechanisms. This has worked well so far, but nothing in the scientific method precludes supernatural explanations if the observations warrant it.
Scientists gave intelligent design a fair chance. Once upon a time, intelligent design did made a prediction that we could measure and verify. It predicted that life would have "irreducibly complex" structures that could not have evolved by natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous mutations. Several candidates of irreducibly complex structures were suggested, and scientists took a careful look at each. Not one turned out to be irreducibly complex.
That's worth repeating: No biological structure is known to be irreducibly complex.
This is why intelligent design was rejected. It made predictions that further investigation found to be false. The vast majority of scientific ideas die this way; it's okay. The only unscientific feature of modern intelligent design is the unwillingness of many to abandon it in light of these new observations.
- Antimatter October 17, 2008 5:55PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
The notion that science "assume{s} that their(sic) is no creator and then prove it" is plainly ridiculous.
By "consistant" we mean that the behavior of the universe cannot vary without some physical manifestation. By rational we mean that the order of the universe is discernable. This is entirely within the edict of Scripture.
You pretend to have "a list of scientific assumptions a mile lone(sic)."
So, your first effort was a flop. How about making the next "mile."
- Gary Hurd October 17, 2008 11:29PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
"The notion that science "assume{s} that their(sic) is no creator and then prove it" is plainly ridiculous." -Gary
As a famous living scientist said:
"we must not let the divine foot in the door".
If you denigh that reference, to a creator in scientific writings, is greatly discouraged by the current leaders of science and academia, (even punished). Then you are either very naive, self deluded, unaware of current events or worse.
By "consistant" we mean that the behavior of the universe cannot vary without some physical manifestation. By rational we mean that the order of the universe is discernable. This is entirely within the edict of Scripture." -Gary
It is consistent but. We don't know enough about the physics to draw any sound boarder on where that consistency begins or ends. Also one of the consistencies would naturally be, inconsistency. As every thing we have observed in the universe so far.
Tends to have polar opposites. So if their is consistency their must also be things that are inconsistent!
Yes the Universe is discernible by the rational.
Unfortunately, reason has been forsaken for an agenda of secular philosophy. That has a arrogant know it all attitude.
If you really are scholarly and really want to learn about scientific assumption. You could start with this book: http://www.amazon.com/Ten-Assumptions-Science-Scientific-Worldview/dp/0595662633
Authors blog here: http://scientificphilosophy.com /
- jumpstart October 18, 2008 2:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
"It is consistent but. We don't know enough about the physics to draw any sound boarder on where that consistency begins or ends. Also one of the consistencies would naturally be, inconsistency. As every thing we have observed in the universe so far."
Science is based on what can be observed / tested. So far every observable area of the universe obeys the same laws that we observe on earth. Without some evidence to the contrary there is no scientific way to claim that the laws will differ elsewhere.
"Also one of the consistencies would naturally be, inconsistency. As every thing we have observed in the universe so far."
If it is consistent then it cannot be inconstant at the same time. If we somehow observed an area of the earth where gravity was reversed then a scientific investigation would have to demonstrate what conditions 'there' caused gravity to be reversed. That would either make the observation in line with current scientific thinking (a powerful magnetic field giving the appearance of reversed gravity) or lead to an expansion of existing theories to describe anti-gravity.
The first step is to observe something that does not appear to fit within current scientific knowledge, and so far the observed laws appear to be universal in scope.
Saying that they might not be, but that we have not observed where they are inconsistent is not a scientific argument.
- MrBook October 18, 2008 5:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
"Science is based on what can be observed / tested. So far every observable area of the universe obeys the same laws that we observe on earth. Without some evidence to the contrary there is no scientific way to claim that the laws will differ elsewhere." -MrBook
Well, that is what we would like to believe about science. Unfortunately there is historic science, untestable theories about past events, like neo-Darwinism, and origins of the Universe.
Then there is operational science, where things are tested proved and applicable too useful invention.
You must know little about cosmology! They have all kinds of contrary evidence (observations) that seem inconsistent to prevailing theories and other observations. The unifying law, is what Einstein failed to find.
That means they can't draw a constant picture unifying all the different observations. So they (assume) things like, "dark matter", "dark energy", etc. etc.
"If it is consistent then it cannot be inconstant at the same time." -Mr. Book
Wrong, and simple minded. That is like saying it can't be hot or cold, light or dark, ordered and chaotic, all at the same time. But it is. Drawing the line where the borders are, helps define the principles. OF course we know that, darkness, cold and chaos aren't real things. They can't be measured.
Only their opposites can be measured. They are only naturally occurring consequences of there opposites.
God is creating and maintaining greater order out of disorder, (chaos, inconsistency). The light is flooding the universe and displacing the darkness.
Law and order (consistency) is expanding. When disorder pops up it's ugly head; it is healed or amputated, and regrown.
Those who are of the light, will come to the light.
Those who are of the darkness. Are not part of the order. They are part of the chaos and destructive power. That will be eliminated.
But thanks, Mr.Book for agreeing that science does make assumptions.
Basic assumption as a whole community.
More as individual disciplines.
Even more as groups working together.
and finally individual assumptions.
A list a mile long.
- jumpstart October 19, 2008 8:02AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
"Science is based on what can be observed / tested. So far every observable area of the universe obeys the same laws that we observe on earth."
Then problem, though, is the assumption that the operational laws of the universe are the same laws that brought the universe into existence. That would be like assuming that the processes that operation in my Chevy are the same processes which brought the car into existence in the first place. Anyone would say it's a crazy, flawed, and obviously wrong assumption.
- BubbaCoop October 23, 2008 10:50AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Intelligent design might be a seasoned exercise in rationalization, but the claim that it is a "science" cannot be supported. If anything can be said to characterize science, it is a profound skepticism and hard-nosed objectivity in seeking to disprove conjectures, ruling out all other possibilities before making any claim of finding "the truth". By contrast, Intelligent Design seeks only to rationalized the observable world with the belief in an intelligent creator. Devotees of Intelligent Design may be intelligent, rational, disciplined thinkers, but they are not doing science.
- Charles Ames December 14, 2008 1:40AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
What Mister Ames says about ID applies just as
well to macro evolution . Darwin conflated it with micro-evolution; which mankind had realized for thousands of years.
It has held an exalted place in the hearts of materialistically minded people every since. Without
an iota of concrete evidence.
ID is a science because it is possible for humans
to identify it.
Materialist just don't want to see it. So they refuse to admit it can be seen.
They dumb themselves down, and they dumb science down.
The first law of science, should be. (follow the evidence where ever it leads). Materialist insist it read. (follow the evidence, as long as it doesn't lead to a creator.)
- jumpstart December 14, 2008 7:30AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Talk about complete and utter nonsense!
Elephants on elephants ! Winged lions! Celestial dictators creating their own private Auschwitz and sending people to be tortured for aeons! Holy men turning pee into sake! 80 virgins in paradise ! People coming back from the dead ! DC10s with sleeping souls ferried across the galaxy ! Dragons eating the sun ! .... The circle of superstitious nuts was really big one time. But then some people shook their head, woke up from this trance of parochial drivel and started charting facts, hypothesis, testing them, developed a logic, established laws.
Finally we woke up from the chimpansee terror trance and we started explaining the real world, not the world of sock puppets and magic spells and faerie lalala nonsense, but the world of materialistic facts. And it is to be expected that this debate, center stage of progress, is an unfinished business ... but where the religious hysterical fantasts and liars kept coming up with the same old senile and offensive hyperbole, science and reason changed the world and made all the men in dresses look like fools and demagogues. Finally we know a few things for sure, and not because some monkey god climbed down the beanstalk from the heavens and told us his secrets by having a village lunatic write them on dried camel dung tablets, but rather because we looked and found out one fact after another, and had the freedom to ARGUE over why they would be that way.
Well we know by now, these godists can't be blamed for their sillyness - it's so sad really - they are sick in the head. A lifetime of brainwashing can do that to you. Ignorant parents waving a bible in the face of their children . It's so sad really. The superstitiously deranged, - actually all rather pityful people who just don't get it. The poor wretches probably say the same of modernity and evolution and scientific theory and particle physics and the modern worlds will just nod and say 'sure grandpa' and move on.
We'll probably find some decent explanation why the brain comes up and clings to all this nonsense, and in a generation we'll have a cure as well. A pill against irrational hysterical explanations of a complex world and a lifetime superstition and existential fear. Most these pathetic fantasts and liars will probably refuse the pill and in the end they'll slowly wither away in reservations or funny farms, cared for and fed and clothed, as a small dwindling sect of stubborn believers. They might last a long time, huddled away, but eventually the world will be cleaned of the primitive phase of unfounded belief and humanity will have movde on to something better.
And by then these 'bibbles' or whatever it is they call those books, will be sold on Ebay or displayed in museums in the same way as we now display ancient meso-american or egyptian artefacts in a museum, and nobody believes in that anymore. But it will be valued nonetheless - as a historical phase of humanity.
- Khannea Suntzu February 10, 2010 5:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The author seems to thing there is no extra-biblical evidence of a young earth. Couldn't be further from the truth. Here's 14, for starters
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
What I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that billions of years contradicts the Bible in many different places. It contradicts the concept that creation was Good when Adam and Eve were created. Were they standing on a good earth, or on top of billions of fossils that died violently, or from cancer. We even have fossilized thorns that the Bible is clear did not exist before sin.
"The only assuption (sic) we make in science is that the nature of the universe is consistant (sic) and rational"
Which BY DEFINITION excludes supernatural intervention. Which makes science not the search for truth, but the search for how things could have happened on their own without God.
- BubbaCoop October 23, 2008 10:47AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
All of those so-called "evidences" have been debunked by real scientists with real degrees and have true understanding of science.
How did "creation scientists" even get their degrees in the first place? They should have their degrees retracted for spewing such utter nonsense!
Nonetheless, you must be a pawn of that sleazy tax-evading, unpatriotic disgrace of an "American" named Kent Hovind (who, by the way, does NOT have an accredited doctoral degree).
- bagpiper2005 October 25, 2008 9:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
It is unfortuanate that creationists cannot be persuaded by facts.
- Gary Hurd October 27, 2008 2:53PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Kent Hovind is where he belongs! Both of his "ministries" Creation Science Evangelism, and his dinosaur theme park were for-profit organizations. Almost all bona fide Christian for-profit organizations, such as Christian booksellers, and Christian music and recording businesses pay their due taxes. But Hovind was so self-deluded that he thought he was above the law--the tax law! Also, he's insane. He believes a lot of nonsense about the government, UFOs, one-world government and Antichrist conspiracies and such.
I wonder if he will ever get out.
Barb Rainey
- barbrainey November 17, 2008 5:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
as a prisoner. His first year he was repeatedly moved, which a method of isolating a prisoner socially and psychologically.
- Gary Hurd November 17, 2008 7:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
This kind of labeling is the beginning of
insanity. Which leads to persecution of one
segment of society by the insane attitude of the other.
- jumpstart December 14, 2008 8:08AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Facts? What facts?
Don't you mean Theories?
- justsomeguywithanopinion November 19, 2008 3:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
And why is that?
Are they not allowed to use their education in what so ever way they choose?
Are not we a free America where people can believe how they choose?
I will give you that Kent Hovind is not a credible source, but he is not the only source. What makes one an expert? Their degree? According to your theory, a person who studies the creation sides degree is worthless. That is not how the institution that gave it to the feels. If they earned it, they earned it.
- justsomeguywithanopinion November 19, 2008 3:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I have found that most web sights about religion and evolution are bunk and are promoted by an agenda not open to reason. The mind is made up and that's it.
Example fact, the OT is a collection of books written by Hebrew authors. They put to words what they believe was the revealed word of their God and was they were ALREADY practicing as a tribe.
Fact, the Hebrew people were concerned about God's laws, not about science. The purpose of the Bible is man's salvation not a science text book.
I believe both camps enfringe. Science is the study of the universe's physical processes, NOT origins. The "Creationists" shouldn't look to the Bible for scientific or Historic absolutes. Ex. nowhere is it claimed that Moses personally wrote the Torah but as was the custome of the day he was the likely author with scribes putting his words to the written form.
- Big O December 2, 2008 9:59AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
This argument is known as Non-Overlapping Magesteria (NOMA) and it is summarised thus: science is about the ages of rocks and religion about the rock of ages.
The argument runs that science is not equipped to address religious claims, which are metaphysical. I have never found this argument a compelling one and it can be attacked in two obvious ways.
Firstly, that far from being a metaphysical concept, the god of the bible is explicitly a scientific concept (he acts in the physical world, and has physical, measurable impacts on it). Believers believe in the power of prayer for example, which directly impacts on the physical world and as such can be (and has been) addressed using the scientific method.
Secondly, if science and religion are NOMA, then why do religionists continue to use 'science' (or, in their case, pseudo-science) to try to prove god, for example in so-called ' intelligent design '?
The truth is that if science ever proved the existence of god, religionists would suddenly have no problem accepting it and no problem with NOMA. The reason they argue for NOMA is that they don't have any actual evidence for their hypothesis and that science deals many body blows to the existence of a supernatural creator. They therefore invoke NOMA so that the weakness of their arguments and their lack of evidence can be protected from the rigours of scientific inquiry.
- The Celestial Teapot
February 15, 2010 10:08AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
It is obvious that Peter is referring too Genesis in this passage. He mentions, "from the beginning of the Earth", "heavens were of
old", the great flood of Noah. Then says the secular world would be willingly ignorant of the flood, and further commands Christians; not to be ignorant of the fact that God is
not constrained by any amount of time in all those passages.
Before Darwin or even Jesus Christ. Theologians interpreted the days of Genesis as
a figurative frame work, to explain the 6 day man works, on the seventh He rests and remembers the Lord.
Further time has nothing to do with evolution. It is not an engine that can cause it. Neo-Darwinism suggest evolution must have happened quickly. Because of the evidence of the fossil record.
So both AIG and the Materialist view are wrong.
- jumpstart October 16, 2008 11:29AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I will have fun with this one later.
I have a good answer for this one.
And, No, I do not think that Joseph is right.
- justsomeguywithanopinion November 19, 2008 3:18PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Peter wrote that as a reminder to the people he wrote the book to.
1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
He is referring to Genesis and much more only in that he said in the Last Days scoffers would come who would not believe the Words of the Bible... What he is saying here has nothing to do with the creation of the earth but rather the return of Jesus and the coming destruction of the Earth. Again, this is where one has to read the whole text to know what is said.
If you up to it, read the Matthew Henery commentary on the Bible. Or even the Barnes commentary on the Bible.
Am I a theologian? We will leave that unknown.
- justsomeguywithanopinion November 23, 2008 6:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
"By the word of God the heavens were of old". v5 is a direct reference
to the Creation of Genesis.
"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." v8
So why do you disobey, by ignoring verse 8 in your list?
Why did the Holy Spirit move him to write that verse? Do you have
a better (sensible) reason?
V4 - "all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation". Sounds like a reference to (uniformitarianism) type thinking.
Then the reminder of the flood, (catastrophism) as all the proof we need that Genesis is correct!
If not a reminder that time isn't relevant with the Creator; and we
shouldn't be measuring it? What is the purpose of verse 8? The tone of the whole
chp. sounds like we shouldn't be measuring the
time since the beginning or when the Lord shall return.
Also on another comment of your's, you said, their was nothing in Genesis that indicates the 6 days are anything but regular days!
There is plenty in the Genesis account that suggest these were not regular days. I suppose your mind has already been spoiled concerning Genesis. With reading to many commentaries, instead of going directly to the Lord and the Holy Spirit. Which He promised would lead us into all truth.
It is better to please the Lord then men.
- jumpstart November 23, 2008 9:18PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Why does any one think God is limited to time.
- countryboy July 26, 2009 9:15AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Does the Bible state that the world was created in six days?
- MrBook July 26, 2009 2:44PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
What do you think!
- countryboy July 26, 2009 5:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Was the earth created in six days or six thousand years? All evidence points to a accretion of material over the course of millions of years several starting around 4 billion years ago.
Genesis is just a creation myth, just like all the others.
- MrBook July 26, 2009 9:17PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
One day we all will know the truth!
- countryboy July 27, 2009 5:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
but who could it be? Is it you or me? Or maybe the Buddhists... or the Gnostics... or the ancient Greeks (then we will all suffer in Tarterus for not offering up sacrifices to Zeus).
- MrBook July 27, 2009 9:18PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Is it me or is it you? Only time will tell.
- countryboy July 28, 2009 7:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Claiming ' god ', whatever the hell it is, 'exists' is a lie. Ly-ing. Going around telling people things which are untrue.
I have respect for people who write fiction. stuff like harry potter - faerie tales . But you should not continually claim that stuff has any basis in reality, because if you do you are either a fantasy, or a liar.
If I'd go around trying to tell people that they'd better start doing 'what is necessary' to make sure Hui... huch... hutichi... Huitzilopchttli (couch!) happy I'd get locked up in a padded cell in no time. Largely because back in the old days they used to cut out people's hearts over that bullshit. I have little more reason to trust you over the idiot notions you claim. You listen to what you say? It sounds like total bullshit!
- Khannea Suntzu February 10, 2010 6:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
What ever you think is OK.But Jesus loves you and so do I !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- countryboy February 10, 2010 7:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Some dead rabbi towelhead who died two thousand years ago has the hots for me.
- Khannea Suntzu February 11, 2010 1:51AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I would not say the hots for you.But he loves you and cares for you.Jesus is alive and well he is my best friend.Jesus will fill you with love joy and peace.People will always let you down but not my Jesus.Jesus loves you and so do I Life is awesome with Jesus!
- countryboy February 11, 2010 7:04AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Listen, I know life gets lonely sometimes. It does for all of us, because we evolved without a plan - and at the core of our being we know. But still there is hope for all of us, and we don't need to drugg or delude ourselves - you can abandon childish ways and grow up, and become someone who faces the harsh glare of the truth, in every nuance. All you need to do is accept that 'what is, that is' and do not embellish, make up things, or throw yourself in the fantasies your parent filled your head with. I know that's a tall order. But in the end what do you have - nothing. You die, and that's all there is to it. If you accept the world for what it is, it shall set you free. No celestial dictator, no threat of everlasting Auschwitz if you don't follow some tribalist late iron age law , and no everlasting heroin rush under the skirts of a cult demagogue, no matter how he secretly appeals to your submerged homosexual urges. You can do without all that and simply let go of the lies, the nonsense and the deceit. Life can be awesome if you come to your senses.
- Khannea Suntzu February 11, 2010 9:47AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Life is awesome with Jesus.Religion kills.Jesus saves! Bless you!
- countryboy February 11, 2010 10:18AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
If the existence of a fossil record contradicting parts of the Bible then that does not disprove (in and of itself) the fossil record. It would have to be challenged on it's own ground (such a an explanation of why the record dates are incorrect and a verifiable explanation for the fossil records existence).
- MrBook October 16, 2008 2:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
It is indeed spiritually immature to equate death and decay with evil. Without death, reproduction would not be necessary, and without reproduction, natural selection could not improve a species over time. And without decay, nutrients in once living things could not be returned to the soil to replenish it and enable plants to grow. That's why the depiction of life prior to the Fall of Man, with no animals dying and all of them being vegetarian, is ludicrous. Within a few years, the cycle of life would grind to a halt because the animals would have eaten all the plants and the world would have been in a static state forever. God told the animals and people, even before the Fall, to "be fruitful and multiply". That would quickly end once all the plants were eaten.
If the gospel message is dependent on the Genesis myths, we are better off without it. Fortunately, no one has to be that narrow minded or irrational. The problem of sin among human beings would remain even if Genesis had never been written.
BTW, the Jews, whose ancestors wrote the Bible, do not beleive in Original Sin. So why should we?
- Dale Husband October 17, 2008 10:52AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
You don't understand !
There is no 'reason' anywhere in what you claim. There is no 'plan' or 'blueprint' or 'grand design'. There no 'cycle of life'. It is all one horrible conflict - animals eating each other. Nature, existence, it is the biggest most senseless trench warfare that has existed forever. If you have cows the ability to shoot laser beams from their eyes they'd kill every human and every predator, and they'd breed out of control and cover the globe until disease cut down their numbers. There is no architectural plan behind this. It is all one giant catastrophe that has lasted hundreds of millions of years.
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiX1B8Y93Gk&feature=related
- http://www.thoughtware.tv/videos/watch/4670-Zizek-we-Should-Become-More-Artificial -
The fact that it means something to you and me is largely because we have evolved a capacity to attribute abstractions of desirable or undesirable, largely out of tribal causes and presume things that just aren't there.
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Pattern_recognition
http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalflawsinreasoning/a/subjective.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia
Don't displace one mythological explanation of reality with another.
- Khannea Suntzu February 10, 2010 6:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
The Earth is not billions of years old because that would mean your ancient holy book and everything you believe in would be wrong?
I'm sorry but this took SERIOUS cahones to write as a defense of your beliefs.
The ability for life forms to die and things to be destroyed is absolutely not dependant on the actions of a specific species of life form, but I believe you when you say that you believe that and must accept that regardless of how flimsy that shows your beliefs to truly be.
- Rice klowN June 17, 2009 11:30AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
All AiG is showing is that the author of one part of the Bible took the author of another part of the Bible literally, not that either one knew what they were talking about. What if the Hebrews had a seven day week and wrote the text to justify and sanctify existing practice?
AiG's argument is no more sophisticated than "I'm right because I think I'm right."
- dvunkannon October 13, 2008 8:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Of all of AIG's silliness, I think this one is the winner.
- onein6billion October 14, 2008 7:20AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I believe that the 6-day Creation of the Universe as we know it today has to be taken literally, even though Scripture does say that one day in the eyes of the Heavenly Father is like a thousand years. The first verse in Gensis says that "God created the heavens and the earth," which means that yes, the Earth has been around for millions of years, a verification of rock samples and other geological data that concludes the Earth has been around for millions of years. At some point within those millions of years, God decided to transform a lifeless Earth into a life-giving planet while at the same time He was creating time, outer space, the galaxies, stars, our Milky Way and Solar System, the Earth's moon, the presence of evening, day, and night on Earth, and all of the living things to grow and roam on the planet. As the previous poster had mentioned, the significance of the 7-day week would be useless if we decided not to interpret literally the Genesis Creation story. If he did not take 7 literal days to create the Universe as we know it today, then He would have no reason to bless the seventh day and set it apart. Everything else in Scripture, I believe that we are free to interpret it as we wish. But if we are dealing with a highly-intelligent Being who can separate the waters of the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans at will, then why would we question or doubt that He could create our mortal Universe in six days flat?
- camelcityman271 August 6, 2009 7:49PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
If the seven-day week is relevant, shouldn't the names of the days be relevant as well? Specifically the days named after pagan Gods--Odin's day, Thor's Day, Freya's Day, etc. Would God have built a pattern of idolatry into something that significant?
- quantummechanik August 7, 2009 12:09AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Human beings added names to the days of week, they were originally and simply numbers. The first day, the second day, the third day, and so forth. No, God did not place elements of idolatry into His days (or anything else, for that matter). I believe that when people take out the supernatural aspect of this issue, then we might as well give all the credit to men, many of whom always seem to know more than our Heavenly Father. I say let's stop trying to rationalize everything in God's creations and allow Him some of the honor.
- camelcityman271 August 7, 2009 7:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Why should we just stop? Why not keep trying to understand the universe? I could never imagine being satisfied with a 'God did it'.
- MrBook August 8, 2009 1:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
There are some things human beings were not meant to understand because the God who created this Universe is a Being who is greater than all of His Creation. I am not here to argue Scripture on God because the Bible tells us that the man who lacks wisdom says that there is no God (Psalm 14, Verse 1). I believe that it's a good thing to want to know more about our Universe, but the Universe we need to focus on is our personal Universe, Planet Earth. We encounter galaxies of people every day, on the street, at work, in our neighborhoods, and on the streets and highways. Some of them are homeless, poor, needy, lonely, or just plain everyday people who could benefit from a smile or kind word and deed. The stars are thousands and millions of light years away, but many of the Earth's 7 billion people are only minutes away from us. Yes, God did create the Universe and more. He also allowed us the opportunity to live among other people, so that we could share ourselves with our fellow men and women, and make a difference in their lives. I will not deny the existence of a supernatural Being greater than myself, because none of us made the choice to be born. This was something that happened without our consent - I don't need to prove the existence of God because I am not here to split hairs with other people. But until we can definitely prove that God does not exist, then I would consider it useless to debate on the subject. As one preacher said: "The unbelievers don't believe in God until they find themselves in a disaster and at the brink of death." Death is such a powerful thing, that it has motivated such people to get down on their knees and pray to the very same God that they say they don't believe in! God is real - the proof is all over the Earth and around you, evening, morning, day and night.
- camelcityman271 August 8, 2009 10:29PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
What proof can you offer that right now we have reached the maximum limit of human knowledge? Why is it at this moment that nothing more should be known, why not 100 years ago, or 100 years from now?
"I am not here to argue Scripture on God because the Bible tells us that the man who lacks wisdom says that there is no God (Psalm 14, Verse 1)"
You do realize that quoting from the Bible only works when you are talking with Christians... and I've met more then a few people that I would count as wise who were not Christians.
"The unbelievers don't believe in God until they find themselves in a disaster and at the brink of death."
The old 'no atheists in foxholes' bit? I think that the Military Association of Atheists and Free Thinkers would disagree with you on that bit.
- MrBook August 9, 2009 1:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I am not an atheist, and have no reason to debate with anyone concerning an Eternal Being who is greater than any of us. "He who entertains a scoffer will do so to his sorrow, and the father of one who lacks wisdom has no joy (Proverbs 17:21)." You have your beliefs, and I have mine. I have given you my respect - therefore, we would never reach a common ground on the reality of the existence of God, which in my book, is a no-brainer.
- camelcityman271 August 9, 2009 3:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
AIG doesn't believe the geological data. They believe the world is a little over 6,000 years old!!
- mike1948 August 7, 2009 12:20AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
There are some answers in there.
Why am I so distrustful of snakes?
AIG's got that.
What's the biggest I could build a boat without irritating G-d?
AIG's got that.
How old is the earth?
Mmmmmehhhh.
See, the 6000 year number is a calculation made by a guy named Usherr. I almost feel bad about criticizing it because it was a massive amount of time, effort and brilliance that the guy put into it. This was a labor of love. But we have to at least be consistent. They keep saying "Scientists could be wrong". Well...Bishop Usher could be wrong. Very, very wrong.
- quantummechanik August 7, 2009 12:28AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Usher got a bad rap. He wasn't trying to find out how old the world was, he wanted to compare the Bible chronology with other historical chronologies to see where the Bible fit into history. Some other literalist took it and decided the world was created in 4004BC and Usher got the blame.
- mike1948 August 7, 2009 1:13AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Well once you accept the existence of an all powerful deity then anything is possible... The same can be said for invisible gnomes building everything.
However for those who do see no evidence for a divine being (or invisible gnomes) see no reason to presume that the world was created in six days... indeed the evidence is quite strongly pointing in another direction.
- MrBook August 7, 2009 4:51PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Ok, I will be the first to say it...
"Modern biblical scholarship recognizes that the first chapter in Genesis is a late addition to the Bible. The prior existance of a pagan seven day week had to be accomidated by the Hebrews, and two different efforts were introduced, the earliest in Exodus 16. The later, probably dating to the post exilic period, was the seven day creation week which is given a total of two sentences of biblical support."
Where is the proof that Modern Biblical Scholarship recognizes this? Since the point of this is to show proof of your stand and every one is crying out for proof of creation if it really exists, I am saying where is your proof that Genesis One is a late addition to the Book.
I have studied in a Theological Seminary and studied the Bible in the Original Languages and have never heard this one.
- justsomeguywithanopinion November 23, 2008 6:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I do not agree that the Christians prior to the 19th century had little interpretive guidence... Matthew Henry, for example, wrote his commentary on the Bible in 1708-1710.
Were there others before that? Good question. One that I am going to research.
- justsomeguywithanopinion November 23, 2008 6:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
AiG decries scientists for making "unproven assumptions" while making many of their own. The most significant are the following claims.
1. The Bible is infallible
2. AiG correctly understands the Bible
Both of these have not been demonstrated by AiG and are, in fact, not provable. The Bible is rife with vague messages and contradictory passages. Only by the special pleading of organizations like AiG do these passages form a coherent whole, yet the truths AiG found in the Bible are wholly inconsistent with the reality of the world around us. What reason do we have then to trust AiG's interpretations of Biblical passages?
Scientists has proven beyond any reasonable scientific doubt that our planet is billions of years old. If scientists were making bad assumptions, we would expect independent dating methods to give us wildly conflicting results, yet independent dating methods all agree. There is currently no scientific dissent whatsoever in favor of a significantly younger earth.
I highly suggest the following article for any Christian with concerns over the reliability of radiometric dating methods.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html
- Antimatter October 13, 2008 12:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: No
>>>antimatter:"Both of these have not been demonstrated by AiG and are, in fact, not provable. The Bible is rife with vague messages and contradictory passages."
>>sologos:You are ignoring centuries of good scholarship, including that in the last century specifically engaging the arguments of Historical criticism and so-called "higher" reasoning.,
>>> antimatter:"Scientists has proven beyond any reasonable scientific doubt that our planet is billions of years old."
>>sologos: Might it not depend on where in the universe you are taking your readings?
- sologos October 13, 2008 10:51PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
"You are ignoring centuries of good scholarship, including that in the last century specifically engaging the arguments of Historical criticism and so-called 'higher' reasoning."
No, I'm not. I've read both. I find the historical criticism approach more palatable, but it still seems like a lot of over-analysis of ancient mythology to me.
"Might it not depend on where in the universe you are taking your readings?"
No, because isotope decay occurs at a predictable rate. If an observer were exploiting a relativistic effect to make the Earth appear younger in his own frame of reference, then he would also see that time itself was passing proportionally faster on the Earth. Our planet has been here for at least 4.5 billion years, measuring from the planet's own frame of reference.
- Antimatter October 14, 2008 12:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
"You are ignoring centuries of good scholarship, including that in the last century specifically engaging the arguments of Historical criticism and so-called 'higher' reasoning."
>>>antimatter:"No, I'm not. I've read both. I find the historical criticism approach more palatable, but it still seems like a lot of over-analysis of ancient mythology to me."
>> OK, well this now sounds more like opinion.
>>sologos:"Might it not depend on where in the universe you are taking your readings?"
>>>antimatter:"No, because isotope decay occurs at a predictable rate. If an observer were exploiting a relativistic effect to make the Earth appear younger in his own frame of reference, then he would also see that time itself was passing proportionally faster on the Earth. Our planet has been here for at least 4.5 billion years, measuring from the planet's own frame of reference."
>>>sologos: My statement is addressing your belief that the bible contradicts the scientific age of the earth.I am suggesting a possible reconsiliation of scripture with present day scientific findings. I bring up relativity as regards the location from where the biblical statement is being made. The scripture is silent as to which locale in the spacetime continuum, the Author of the account was measuring time from on the first day of creation. 24 hours in a low gravitational field goes a bit quicker than one day on earth. Likewise, the evening and morning of the first day near, say, the center of the universe during the first day of expansion, might be equivalent to billions of years more peripherally. Even now, the age of the earth, by whatever scientific determination, assumes an eathly observer, and does does not generally take into acount that an observer from Betelgeuse disagrees with this age. Some scientists believe that the universe may have early been expanding at a rate which was, pardoxically, several times faster than the speed of light. Thus an earth that is billions of years old may be compatible with six days of creation. Scripture actually hints at this discrepancy when it speaks of a morning and evening before earth is clearly revolving around the sun, not that the human scribe could possibly have understood the implications.
The age of the earth beyond the six days of creation is, moreover, not so clearly alluded to in the scripture. It is not simply the account of the days of creation that people use to interpret a young earth, but the various geneologies. These geneologies are not so easily decipherable, as the linguistic analyses of the same has begotten a variety of different interpretations for the age of "Mankind", mostly an inhouse debate. The bible is not, of course, written as a scientific treatise but that doen't mean that it can not be reconciled to the natural universe.
I reaize that this explanation means little to one who views the whole thing as a myth to begin with, but perhaps some day you might want to know that there are answers.
- sologos October 14, 2008 5:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
"The scripture is silent as to which locale in the spacetime continuum, the Author of the account was measuring time from on the first day of creation."
Are you sure? Take a look at Genesis 1:2. If you must insist on forcing the narrative into a "materialist straight jacket," as Dr. Hurd described it, then it certainly does not appear that the observer was at a great distance. The passage states that god's spirit was hovering over the oceans, and presumably god was the observer.
"Even now, the age of the earth, by whatever scientific determination, assumes an eathly observer, and does does not generally take into acount that an observer from Betelgeuse disagrees with this age."
Any observer in the known universe would have similar estimates for the age of our planet. An observer on Betelgeuse could make a crude estimate of the earth's age by comparing our sun with other main sequence stars. Furthermore, they could precisely measure the rate at which time passes here by running light from our star through a spectrometer. If our planet were positioned in a gravitational field such that 4.5 billion years here would appear as 6 days to someone else, then they would find light from our star to be dramatically redshifted.
Incidentally, if we were positioned in such a gravitational field, we would expect all starlight outside that field to be dramatically blueshifted. That is not consistent with observations of the heavens above us.
- Antimatter October 17, 2008 7:26PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
>>>antimatter:"Are you sure? Take a look at Genesis 1:2. If you must insist on forcing the narrative into a "materialist straight jacket," as Dr. Hurd described it, then it certainly does not appear that the observer was at a great distance. The passage states that god's spirit was hovering over the oceans, and presumably god was the observer."
>>sologos: To believe that infinite God would be confined to any one location at any one time would indeed be to put God into a "materialist straight jacket" The measure of time could have been assigned to anywhere inside the universe. One thing for sure, time was and continues to be passing differently in different parts of the universe. From whose perspective is the universe 14.2 billion years?
>>>antimatter:"Any observer in the known universe would have similar estimates for the age of our planet.".
>>sologos: We are speaking of 2 different things, antimatter. Even if it were possible to precisely calculate the amount of time that has passed at another location in the universe, it would not change the the fact that the amount of time that has passed at the observer's locale is different.
>>>antimatter:"Incidentally, if we were positioned in such a gravitational field, we would expect all starlight outside that field to be dramatically blueshifted. That is not consistent with observations of the heavens above us."
>>sologos: Please clarify how this negates relativity.
- sologos October 17, 2008 9:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
"One thing for sure, time was and continues to be passing differently in different parts of the universe. From whose perspective is the universe 14.2 billion years?"
Time does pass at different rates at different locations, but that variance follows very specific mathematical equations. The Lorentz transformation converts between two reference frames traveling at a constant relative velocity. Similar transformations exist for gravitational time dilation. (See the Schwarzschild metric.) My point being: You cannot manipulate time as you please to suit your interpretation of the Bible. Unless you wish to confine god the observer to the center of a black hole, the observable universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old as measured from most frames of reference therein.
"Please clarify how this negates relativity."
It doesn't negate relativity; my example was derived from it. But first I must apologize, as I had my examples reversed. In an attempt to explain distant starlight on a young earth, creationists sometimes argue that the earth must be at the center of a massive gravitational field. This light would be blue shifted. The reverse is true in your case: We would expect dramatic redshift from any location in the universe where god supposedly made his observations of a 144-hour creation.
- Antimatter October 20, 2008 4:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
But what have ancient scriptures ultimately proven?
- Quack October 14, 2008 1:04AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
include the transmission of the Biblical text. AiG's argument rests on accepting the text is perfect and their understanding is perfect.
I'd rather go with the "fallible" apparent age of the Universe given by cosmic background radiation and recesion of galaxies than the errors that accumulate in a human book.
- dvunkannon October 14, 2008 7:39AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
>>>dvunkannon:"I'd rather go with the "fallible" apparent age of the Universe given by cosmic background radiation and recession of galaxies than the errors that accumulate in a human book.
>>sologos: "cosmic background radiation" and "recession of galaxies" are measurements contingent upon the inherent limitations of our present technology and present concept of time and space
- sologos October 17, 2008 9:53PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
AIG: The age of the earth, as determined by mankind’s fallible methods, is based on unproven assumptions, so it is not proven that the earth is billions of years old
Anytime science is involved, there is a possibility of error. However the vast amounts of different methods applied, all leading to the same conclusion cannot be ignored.
As such AIG has fallen victim for what Augustine exposed as foolish Christian behavio
--
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
--
- PvM October 18, 2008 11:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Using logic to apply consistent artistry to the mass of Creation, we may assert the existence of The Artist, Almighty God!
If we exercise faith toward God, by believing that He exists in the very manner that He says that he does, then we may logically apply His consistent Character, including His Artistic Signature in Creation, to all things that God, the Artist, creates.
If we believe that Adam was created by God as The Bible asserts, then we may, also, presuppose that Adam was not created as an infant since, of course, there would have been no other humans avaliable to have cared for the needs of an infant.
The obvious need for Adam to be self-sufficient (along with the need for verbal communication with God during daily walks in the Garden of Eden, and enough creative intelligence to name all of the animals) would imply that Adam's creation required "apparent age."
Using other words, on the day that Adam was created, his "apparent age" could have been anywhere from 13 to 30 years of age.
Though these numbers may seem arbitrary, there is precedence for this range.
In various cultures around the world, a boy receives a rite of passage into manhood about the age of puberty. In Judaism, the Bar Mitzvah marks the beginning of a man's participation in the Law of God as a "Son of the Covenant."
Also, in the Jewish nation (it is my understanding,) that 30 years of age marks full maturity and the right to lead (if wise, as well) in the community of faith.
To relate this information to the literal Six Days of Creation, (and the lack of the allegedly millions of years of evolutionary development,) is a simple matter of applied logic.
If your world view can allow for the existence of apparent age in the creation of Adam (for multiple valid and utilitarian reasons,) then your world view can allow for the plausibility of the Earth being created with the appearance of having existed already for millions of years as well as having been created by The Omnipotent God in SIX literal DAYS! :)
- WinBro777JOT October 23, 2008 2:17PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Your argument breaks down if your audience rejects the notion that Adam was created ex nihilo with the "appearance of age." Did Adam have liver spots? Scars? Any accumulation of chemical byproducts? A belly button? Memories of childhood? These are all not just signs of maturity but also signs of specific events that occurred in the past. Would it not be deceptive for god to create something with the artifacts of a fake history?
Our planet and our universe are littered with artifacts of specific events occurring before six thousand years ago.
- Antimatter October 24, 2008 8:24AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
With all due respects, here is my Bottom Line, though I run the risk of being arrogan and "closed-minded," I only write for the Judeo-Christian World View.
This is mainly due to a time-factor...I only have one life on Earth in which to learn. Therefore, I don't have time to explore any other world views because there is still so much for me to learn from this one.
Your point is well-taken. My applied logic only works for those who see the world as I do...
However, I will address a couple of your concerns.
First, since it is impossible for God to sin, God would never be deceptive. Yet, THAT once given, we may now turn our attention to humans who do something similar. It is openly taught on HGTV!
It's the creation of faux surfaces, like faux rust and faux marble. For our discussion faux rust is the most germaine. These artists create rust and various apparently aged surfaces through chemical processes that could be expected to leave various types of residue.
If The LORD chose to do something, like that, He could do an infinitely better job than we humans can.
My point in my original comment was not to state some superior knowledge, but to explore a probable hypothesis that explains logically (at least to my mind) how the world works.
Thanks for just a little room for letting a guy "think out-loud." :)
- WinBro777JOT October 24, 2008 9:14PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"Therefore, I don't have time to explore any other world views"
In other words, religion is easy and science is hard. So you choose religion and ignore science.
- onein6billion December 7, 2008 8:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
scientific evidence do you need? I mean, we've got writing from before 4000 years ago, evidence of mankind's making things over 10,000 years old.
- quantummechanik July 17, 2009 6:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
If I were a 'believer' I would be SO embarrassed by the pathetic quality of this abject piece of 'reasoning'. Sorry.
- The Celestial Teapot January 26, 2010 11:27AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Speaking as a non-Christian, this argument that the days of creation could not be allegorical simply because the author used an ordinal and the phrase "evening and morning" is juvenile and unconvincing. Furthermore, big bang cosmology is not a necessary component of evolutionary theory in the Darwinian sense, yet AiG continues to conflate the two, much to the frustration of anyone who understands the difference.
If the fossil record isn't what it appears to be and AiG can demonstrate it, the scientists will listen. AiG should publish a compelling alternative hypothesis that better explains all observations. If the fossil record and all the death therein was indeed deposited within human history, why are there no mammals except the upper layers? How did layers of denser rock form above layers of light rock? These are just two of many very real and easily verifiable observations that traditional geology and evolutionary theory explains better than AiG geology.
This left me wondering about the motivation of organizations like AiG. Are they reaching out to non-Christians? If so, these childish arguments are the wrong approach. Are they defending cherished beliefs in the face of more progressive believers? If so, AiG needs to pick their battles more wisely. The evidence for an ancient earth is overwhelming. Everyone should be willing to accept the possibility that a cherished belief like "original sin" may be superfluous, unnecessary, and incorrect.
- Antimatter October 13, 2008 4:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: No
If you believe in god (which one?) and god gave you the brains to think, then use your brains and follow the evidence.
The universe is around 13.7 billion years old, our planet is about 4.7 billion years old, our current human species is somewhere around 150,000 years old.
Very primitive books written by humans for humans in the region of the world that around the current Israel that record how these primitive people viewed the universe is nothing more than interesting history.
Be aware that while these primitive books were written, highly sophisticated societies existed in other places of the world.
The reality is that we do not need a god to explain anything all the way to the big bang.
Here is an example of primitive thinking (as in lack of reasoning) that many apologists use:
1. The sun goes up in the morning
2. I can hear the cock crow every day before the sun comes up
3. It is the cock who makes the sun come up in the morning, no need to think anymore
Please use your brains, even if you think they are god given...
- gma December 15, 2008 7:13AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"Evolutionary theories (the “big bang” hypothesis, for instance)"
The Big Bang Theory is not an "evolutionary theory." Please learn about the things you attempt to talk about.
It's ridiculous that you are considered, "Expert Verified," when you try to use a misleading and false blanket term like "evolutionary theories."
- Apocalypse February 16, 2009 1:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I think you hit the nail on the head here. This entire argument is based on our limitations AND projections. Why do we have to be so arrogant as to think we could understand creation, or any of God's other activities, purposes, or ways? Romans 1 tells us that God reveals aspects of his divine nature--We witness the evidence, not necessarily comprehend it.
My basic problem with "science" on these matters is that it is not true science. Agendas are littered about.
- Jefe October 16, 2008 4:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"My basic problem with "science" on these matters is that it is not true science. Agendas are littered about."
Your premise is true, that agenda's (rather biases) are littered about, but I completely disagree with your conclusion. First, religion is far worse when it comes to having agenda's littered about. Second, the scientific process is specifically designed to weed out the agendas through the peer review process. A scientist publishes their findings with all the details of how they came to their conclusions. Other scientists then try to poke holes in the experiment or redo it to see if the results truly hold. This process is the best process we have for understanding the world.
- reckoner October 30, 2008 11:54AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Uncommitted
"My basic problem with "science" on these matters is that it is not true science."
I don't think you are qualified to be the arbiter of "true science". :-)
- onein6billion December 7, 2008 8:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
It is possible that both the six-days and millions-of-years theories are correct. Keep in mind that in the Bible, unfortunately the exact verse escapes me, it is written that to God a thousand years is like a day and a day is like a thousand years. This suggests that God's perception of time is in fact different than man's perception of it. One 'day' does not necessarily conote an actual earthly rotational period, but in fact a specific period of time. The first day could be the period of time in which God used the laws of physics, which He created, to form the star that would become our sun, hence creating light. Jumping ahead, the final day in which God created man could be the period of time in which God perfected the life form that would be His ultimate creation: man. If this theory is correct, than there would have been many years between the creation of lesser beings such as plants or animals and the creation of man, and therefore there is little evidence of man existing for millions of years even though we find fossils that date back hundreds of millions of years. We must remember that God is perfect, and has to be explained through human terms, and since humans are imperfect, the explanations are sometimes difficult to understand. So we do not need to decide between the Genesis version of the beginning and the 'millions-of-years' version, we must simply find how the two are in fact one and the same.
- bbqicecream May 26, 2009 9:33AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Agreed, 100 percent! This is my frustration with people who want to find every possible motive to discredit Creationism, they seem to want everyone to accept their viewpoints without question while they seemingly want to question and discredit anyone who does not see from their points of view. There are a number of people within the scientific community who say that the Biblical account of Creation can be verified, regardless of how many days it took to be accomplished. I believe in the 6-day Creation because our Heavenly Father is a perfect Being who can speak things into existence, He does not even have to raise a finger. Man did not exist for millions and billions of years, but the heavens and the Earth were around that long. As Scripture says, God is not man and His ways are not our ways. It is fruitless and futile, in my opinion, for us, such plain and frail mortal beings, to analyze supernatural events that are way beyond human thought and rationalize a supernatural Being into such minuscule humanity, a God who is bigger and more powerful than the Solar System and Milky Way that He created. "Vanity," says the preacher in Ecclesiastes, "Everything is vanity."
- camelcityman271 August 9, 2009 6:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
God created the universe therefore God created science . If science is a lie then God is a liar. Scientist have shown that the world was not created in six days. If you except the day age theory God and science agree and science has to explain how the writer of Genesis knew that plants came before the sun appeared in the sky.
- mike1948 August 9, 2009 7:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Once again we are attempting to split hairs over things that are beyond the frailty of the human brain. Creation as explained in the Scriptures is not a lie, true science has already confirmed what Scripture has explained. I will not split hairs with people over issues that are not worthy of divisive debate, such as the validity of science and the accuracy of the Bible. We are not God, God does not lie, and some things are better left alone, especially when people are seeking to disprove the existence of God.
- camelcityman271 August 9, 2009 8:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I am not disputing God and I hardly think the difference between a day and a billion years or so is splitting hairs. This is a valid discussion between two creationist groups. My question would be what scientific evidence is there that the world could have been created in six days?
- mike1948 August 9, 2009 8:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Mike, my apologies to you, but I am surprised at the numbers of people here who appear to be somewhat hostile towards the existence of a Supreme Being, namely God, Yahweh, Yahwah, YHWH, The I Am That I Am, and so forth. This is not a question, but if we are dealing with a Highly Intelligent Being who created everything that we hear, taste, see and feel, then why must we question the possibility that He may have precisely created the present Universe in six days, Hebrew etymology aside? I believe that there are some things that we were not meant to completely understand, and this happens to be one of them. Why can't we just be content in knowing that God created our present Universe and world in a series of 1-2-3-4-5-6 and rested on 7. It doesn't matter if the Creation happened in 6 days or 6 millennia, but I always choose the former. There are many passages in the Bible that are quite literal, so it could be a fact that the Universe as we know it was indeed created in six days. Again, this is what I call the hair-splitting approach: Like the disciple Thomas, we demand to justify everything, including the supernatural, unless we can see it ourselves. If you believe in God as I do, then some things we must accept because of our faith, any presence of doubt will show our absence of faith. There are simply some things that we will never be able to explain because they are far beyond the frailty of the human mind. No matter how hard people try, there will always be things that human beings will never be able to explain.
- camelcityman271 August 9, 2009 9:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
We have two different literal interpretations. One agrees with science the other doesn't. It seems more logical to take the literal interpretation that agrees with both. The added advantage is that with the old age interpretation non-believers have to deal with the fact that Genesis I is far more accurate then should be possible. They wrote things that they could not possibly known.
- mike1948 August 9, 2009 10:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob belonged to different tribes and were not related, but the stories grew together into a collection and the persons were tied together as members of the same family. Isaac became son of Abraham, with Esau and Jacob becoming Isaac’s sons. And Jacob became equipped with twelve sons, so the twelve tribes should be equal.
Into this storytelling old adventure stories also were incorporated, and they were told as being as credible as the heroic epics. The motif in the story about Joseph and the wife of Potiphar for instance is copied from the Egyptian fairytale “The two Brothers”.
Of old an enmity existed between the semi-nomadic sheepherders and the Bedouins. In the production of myths, the sheepherders therefore made a story about how the Bedouins were descendants of a farmer that had fled because of murdering his brother. We recognize the story about Cain and Abel. They then equipped Adam and Eve with a third son, Set, who was made god-fearing and straight enough to be the one they themselves descended from.
In Canaan, drought was the enemy; high summer was the death of nature. But with autumn the rains came, and nature awakened to life again. The creation myth of the Canaanites therefore speaks of the dry, arid land that their God bless with rain and wells breaking forth.
Thus life was created on Earth. Contrary to that, in Babylon floods were the dangerous problem.Their creation myth, that also became known by the Israelites and incorporated into their folklore, therefore tells that it began with waters all over, then with land rising out of the water. The two creation myths are placed side by side in the bible and they are both equally true and believable.
Most likely, people in those times believed those stories as more than just stories. For them, it was real history that earth and heavens, man and animals suddenly were created. They were aware of the existence of other peoples with other gods, but they were not part of their own history and how they might have been created was of no concern to them. So therefore, there was no problem for Cain to find a wife.
Most of the myths in Genesis are older than the immigration of the Israelites. They had been part of the tribal traditions for a long time. Their concept of God also was quite different. The patriarchs knew gods like El-sjaddai and Elohim, and neither Abram, Isaac or Jacob knew anything about Moses’ new creation, Yahweh. According to 2. Mos. 3, Moses asked the new god what he should be called, and the god replied: “I am who I am.” The story leaves no doubt that it is a new, hitherto unknown god that is being introduced, but history has made him identical with the god of the patriarch’s. While they had been more like family- or tribal gods, this new god was made the god of the Israeli nation, and theirs only. And in later history telling he became the god of the ancient myths and fairytales.
- Quack October 14, 2008 1:12AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I am a strong believer in the authority and inspiration of the word of God. But I do wonder about Genesis and how it refers to no bush or vegetation were around when God decided to make Adam. This is confusing considering land and vegetation was made on day 3 and man on day 6.
Does the hebrew transfer it differently? Is there possiblity that since Moses was the writer it was not a first hand account and things were not perfectly clear, similar to Revelations?
Again, the fact that we do not know I believe only gives more power to God and is a reminder we are finite and know very little.
- Evie October 16, 2008 8:10AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"the fact that we do not know I believe only gives more power to God"
YES! Our ignorance proves that there is a GOD! or maybe not.
We have come pretty far in the last thousand years - come back in ten thousand years and see if we have learned a little bit more.
- onein6billion December 7, 2008 8:44PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Imagine you found a grain of rice and you wanted to measure its length. Of a caliper, meter stick, and odometer, which instrument would you use? If by some stretch of incompetence you opted to use the odometer, you might conclude that our length measurement techniques are wildly inaccurate. How else could a grain of rice have a length of 0.001 kilometers?
This is the same technique that AiG's "PhD scientists" use to cast doubt on radiometric dating methods. The isotope potassium-40 decays with a half life of 1.25 billion years, so it isn't appropriate for measuring very young volcanic rocks. The margin of error with that technique is millions of years wide. Likewise, carbon-14 decays with a half-life of 5730 years, making it accurate only up to about 10 half-lives, or about 60,000 years. Past that point, the remaining carbon-14 is far too scarce to make any accurate age measurement. Yet AiG's professionals admit to using this approach to date diamonds? Incomprehensible.
As for the salinity of the oceans, AiG fails to consider any process that removes salt from seawater, of which many have been examined and documented. A full analysis will show that the salinity of the ocean is in equilibrium. The amount of salt entering the sea is almost exactly equal to the amount being removed.
- Antimatter October 13, 2008 1:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(8)
Side: No
Calling the ort cloud a "guess" is disingenuous at best. While no direct observational data confirms its existence, the statistically unlikely clustering of the aphelia (the furthest point in orbit away from the sun) of long period comets strongly imply its existence. And of course, most short period comets, the ones that matter to AiG's calculations, come from the Kuiper belt, which we have directly observed.
- Matthew Ackerman October 14, 2008 3:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
The scientific investigation into the question of the age of the Earth, and of the universe has been going on for hundreds of years. For the past two centuries, and with accelerating access to increasingly sophisticated and reliable methods and more data, there no longer is possible to be in denial about the results science have provided.
It is also worth stressing this simple fact: This is a vast scientific field of its own, involving so much detailed knowledge that a short 'debunking statement' like the one I am responding to now, is absolutely worthless. The question is so complex that it takes a lot of study to even begin to appreciate all the facts and evidence, and to properly evaluate the validity or lack of same of the results provided by science.
As a non-professional in geology, radiometric dating, dendrochronology, palaentology, glaciology and probably many other related fields of science too, I can only conclude that it is impossible for 99.99% of lay people to decide who is right or wrong regarding the question of the age of the Earth.
I think it would be more fair if AiG would just say "We do not know, except we believe the Bible says the Earth is 6000 years old, and here we stand."
You probably are familiar with paleontologist Kurt Wise's statement about this question, and it is my humble opinion that creationism would appear more honest and reasonable if it would adopt the same attitude: "We acknowledge the scientific data, but we stand by the Bible."
After all, isn't religion about spiritual matters, man's soul, and not about the material world?
- Quack October 15, 2008 12:45AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Maybe get someone to do your studies who doesn't pay a tithe? Someone who perhaps doesn't own a bible ?
- ikenovak March 26, 2009 11:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I would recommend that those perusing this post also consider reading Chance or Purpose by Christoph Cardinal Schönborn. It is an excellent book that might serve as a fantastic bridge for both sides of the debate.
- Joseph Amodeo October 14, 2008 6:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
"consider reading Chance or Purpose"
At any rate "chance" is an obviously derogatory word to try to bias the argument against evolution and "purpose" is obviously meant to imply that some "intelligence" is involved. But unless/until there is some way to establish that some intelligence is actually involved, "purpose" is not scientific.
From a review of that book:
"Cardinal Schonborn is clear that a literal interpretation of the Bible is not science"
So it would seem that he (like most Catholics) would reject an interpretation of six literal days.
From another review:
"It reads as a series of transcriptions from the Cardinal's catechism lectures
All around, the book is a great disappointment, leading one to conclude that the Cardinal is as flyweight an author of books, as he was an OpEd writer in the NYT."
- onein6billion December 7, 2008 9:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
First and foremost . . . Dr. Hurd, I'm glad to see you still being such a gadfly [sic].
But, not without purpose. I write this because purpose seems to be the argumentative qualifier--quantuvis. There is no proof that can be substantiated by any human senses to show, undeniably, that a sentient being or force created the earth, life or the universe. Not to say that experiential moments are disqualified from contemplation. Contemplation, but not hard data. The imagination is a petulant child that can force a person to forget rationality by means of frustration, adversity or just plain "it is what it is." There could be, at some point, a convergence of science and faith. Faith, or belief . . . odd conundrum. Six days to create a universe where if one were studying the redshift of the light from distant stars shows a sea of space that is expanding at a rate that could only be proven by billions of years of expansion? I don't think so. And, SPACE isn't empty (just because you can't SEE it). That takes a lot of explanation that religious texts can't, and don't, provide. Also, the amount of times all religious texts have been rewritten should speak to the obfuscation of their messages--pars pro toto.
Six DAYS? No. Six billion YEARS would be closer, but only about half. Then how to explain the closest star, in light years. No mention of that in any religious text. Also, I find it difficult to believe, as the LDS do (not to pick a fight with a single faith), that heaven is a planet next to the sun. Sounds like hell--no pun intended.
Dr. Hurd, Gary, please email me sometime. I would very much like to speak with you.
Cordially, Christopher Torri
- skedlo July 28, 2009 3:40AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
You get a gold star! There has to be a first cause, and within Chaos Theory there is a possibility of artificial intelligence, but self awareness? That is the real problem. Any ideas on how man became self aware?
- mike1948 July 28, 2009 10:39AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Since when, speaking to one of the other posters, did "chance" become a word to bias any argument AGAINST evolution ? Doesn't make sense, unless the poster is reading into something that probably isn't inferred and possibly feels an affront to his or her sensibilities.
-Christopher
/>ctorri@sycr.com
- skedlo July 28, 2009 3:53AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Why would a super being who created everything ex nihilo resort to the womb of a Jewish maiden, live there for 9 months, go through the trauma of birth, live as a man, die on the cross and become a super being again. What a fabulous work of fiction!!!!!!!
- Rashi18 December 9, 2009 1:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Just curious but what does the types of rock have to with ex nihilo.
Evolution also believes the that, "out of nothing" came everything.
The difference is how can life--mind, will, emotions come from inanament matter?
When it is more logical to think, just as a star collapses and creates another star, and we are intelligent, personal beings that must have been created by a greater intelligent,personal being.
- Evie October 16, 2008 8:17AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The young earth creationist dogma demands that the obvious features of the earth's geology can not exist.
But, we can see with our unaided eyes that there are rock features that could not exist if the young earth creationist cant was true.
The young earth creationists are promoting a false interpretation of the Bible, and refuse to admit this.
- Gary Hurd October 17, 2008 11:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
"The young earth creationist dogma demands that the obvious features of the earth's geology can not exist.
But, we can see with our unaided eyes that there are rock features that could not exist if the young earth creationist cant was true."
Yet you fail to give one example.
- BubbaCoop October 23, 2008 10:36AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You didn't read this Creation ex nihilo and the earth , did you?
- Gary Hurd October 23, 2008 1:18PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
1. Why is the earth the only planet that is sustainable for life forms?
2. Assuming you believe in the big bang theory, what caused the big bang to occur?
3. What is the purpose of life, is it just to be and then not to be?
4. Is this all there is in life? Bummer
5. Since people are all so different why arent we seeing planets with other types of life forms?
6. How do you explain archeological finds that validate Hebrew Biblical writings regarding Gd, Jesus, and then nullify it in the same sentence?
7. If the Bible is correct and one day is as a thousand to Gd is it possible that earth was formed in over a period of 6,000 years or 6 days in heaven...because as you know the farther away from earth you get the shorter time is...you did know that right?
- angelmama August 8, 2009 11:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The argument he is giving is that the day age theory works better then the 6-day creation. "A day is a thousand years" is no more literal then when Jesus said you have to forgive a person 7 times 7. The advantage to the day age creation is not only that it agrees with science but that there is no way to explain how the writer of Genesis knew that the plants were created before the sun appeared in the sky.
- mike1948 August 9, 2009 10:50AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"1. Why is the earth the only planet that is sustainable for life forms?"
Well the answer is that "as far as we have observed Earth is the only planet with life. It is quite possible that life existed on Mars at some point in the past, and it is also possible that life exists on the Jovian moon Europa. Since or exploration of other planets in the solar system has been quite limited it is far to early to discount. As for life outside of the Solar system, or exploration there is vastly limited (we have only been able to detect planets around other stars for a short period of time).
"2. Assuming you believe in the big bang theory, what caused the big bang to occur?"
We don't know... yet. The exact causes of the big bang is currently an area of great interest to Scientists who study it.
"3. What is the purpose of life, is it just to be and then not to be?"
On what basis do you assume that life has a purpose?
"4. Is this all there is in life? Bummer"
In what way? There is so much art, music, and science in this world to fill thousands of lifetimes. I'd also be remiss in not pointing out that if someone is dissatisfied with their life that does not somehow prove that there is something 'more'/
"5. Since people are all so different why arent we seeing planets with other types of life forms?"
This doesn't make a great deal of sense. Our exploration of the solar system is exceptionally limited, and our exploration beyond our own solar system is at it's earliest stages. Right now Mars and Europa are seen as the most likely candidates for harboring life (either now or at some point in the past). It is almost certain that Mars had liquid water at some point, so it was the right temperature for life to exist. Europa is seen as a candidate because it is believed that there is a liquid ocean under the ice (which would provide protection against radiation), and from our own observations here on earth we know that sunlight is not needed for life.
"6. How do you explain archeological finds that validate Hebrew Biblical writings regarding Gd, Jesus, and then nullify it in the same sentence?"
Which finds are those? One bit that has always stood out to me is the fact that the plagues and the Exodus are not recorded in Egyptian literature... or do you think that the Egyptians did not find it memorable that the oldest son in every family was killed in one night and that their entire army was drowned under the Red Sea?
"7. If the Bible is correct and one day is as a thousand to Gd is it possible that earth was formed in over a period of 6,000 years or 6 days in heaven...because as you know the farther away from earth you get the shorter time is...you did know that right?"
Not quite sure what you are getting at here. Yes time does travel slightly slower on earth then in orbit (the difference is so small that only the most accurate clocks can detect it) due to Gravitational Time Dilation. But that effect is very small. The difference in time between someone standing on Earth and someone outside of the solar system is only slightly greater. This effect 'flattens out' the further you get away from earth... so someone at the 5 light year mark and someone at the 10 light year mark would not be able to detect a difference in their measurements due to the presence of Earth.
Then there is the evidence that the Earth took more then six thousand years to form...
- MrBook August 9, 2009 11:15AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
AFAIK, the languages of Genesis are Hebrew and Aramaic. Both of these have continuous spoken traditions. I'm not sure that you are making your point very well.
AiG's point that 'yom' means a common sense day in Genesis 1 is valid. Certainly the Mosaic author of Exodus understood it that way when he used it to justify the creation of a 7 day week and day of rest.
- dvunkannon October 13, 2008 7:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Try reading Chaucer out loud in his language. Biblical Hebrew is considerably different from any language spoken today. But more important are the recent discoveries in Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Phoenician literatures.
Some fairly accessable books I can recommend are;
Cross, Frank Moore
1973 Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Boston: Harvard University Press
Dalley, Stephanie
2000 Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. Revised Oxford: Oxford University Press
Smith, Mark S.
2002 “The Early History of God" 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Wm B Eerdmans Publishing
___________
2003 “The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts” Oxford University Press.
The work by F. M. Cross is probably the most frequently cited text in the field.
The use of the work "yom" in Genesis 1, as well as in Exodus 16, 20 or 31, certainly does refer to a single day.
- Gary Hurd October 14, 2008 7:06AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
Wow. Why not stick to arguing against the Christian belief, instead of attacking Christians themselves???
- Jefe October 16, 2008 3:53PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
".... arguing against the Christian belief, instead of attacking Christians themselves?"
First it is obvious to the most naïve observer that creationist dogma is not honestly identified with Christian faith. Further, I have not attacked any individual because of their religious belief. I have exposed their false claims of truth.
Stop lying, cf Exodus 20:16.
- Gary Hurd October 17, 2008 10:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Isn't "false claims of truth" relative to your view?
In my book all you have proven is that you do not believe that it is possible that Creation could of taken place.
- justsomeguywithanopinion November 19, 2008 3:24PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
July, 1925 William Jennings Bryan, the leading fundamentalist in America, was questioned by Clarence Darrow on the accuracy of the Bible. Question after question he did not waver. But when Darrow ask him if the world was created in 6 days, Bryan said, no the Bible doesn't say that. You can believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible without believing in the 6 day creation.
- mike1948 July 26, 2009 12:26AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
If the bible is to be taken literally then wouldn't a literal interpretation include a literal interpretation of Genesis?
- MrBook July 26, 2009 8:06AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
By supporting the idea that the Bible stands or falls on a 6 day creation you have proven Dr. Hurd's point. I would be worried about any idea where atheists are in agreement with young-earth creationist.
- mike1948 July 26, 2009 1:26PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Dr. Hurd does not seem like a YEC... he is on the Earth not created in six days side.
My question is: How can you both believe in a literal Bible and at the same time NOT believe in a six day creation? Isn't the whole Genesis as six actual days idea A literal interpretation?
- MrBook July 26, 2009 2:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
A six day creation is a literal interpretation of Genesis, but it is not the only literal interpretation. You always pick the narrowest interpretation as if it was the only interpretation. It is not.
- mike1948 July 26, 2009 11:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
An appeal to one narrow religious text isn't very persuasive. Why should CCC be important to anyone not a Catholic? You should be bringing arguments that anyone who lives in the same reality can agree with.
- dvunkannon October 14, 2008 7:11AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Dvunkannon:
Thank you for your comment; however, I believe that you may need to consider how precisely the Catechism was developed. The Catechism is not merely the convictions and beliefs of the College of Cardinals, rather it represents the compilation and drawing upon of some of the greatest voices of theology and philosophy. The Catechism includes the theologies and philosophies of great thinkers including Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Anselm, Ambrose, Gregory the Great, and many others. To conclude that the Catechism is somehow a "narrow religious text," is not only inaccurate, but fails to consider the truly diverse modes of thinking that are incorporated into this exhaustive collection of two millenia of Church teaching. Therefore, I would argue the contrary to what you have asserted -- the Catechism although a compendium of Church teaching developed by the Roman Catholic Church, does in fact incorporate centuries worth of theology that has not only led to the development of the modern Catholic Church, but has also impacted neighboring Christian denominations. I would encourage you to consider a brief breeze through the Catechism to witness it's truly ecumenical nature and the multiplicity of voices included in the document.
Thoughtful regards,
Joseph Amodeo
- Joseph Amodeo October 14, 2008 7:37AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I do believe the world was created in 6 days. I believe EVERY Christian must believe this because without Genesis being a "fact," the bible would be useless. Let me explain why.
If God hadn't created Adam and Eve and given them dominion over everything on the earth, under his authority, the bible would not make any sense. Adam and Eve were created within those days, and were also given the chance to either choose to obey God or to choose to disobey and learn of the knowledge of good and evil. This is where SIN became part of this world: through Adam eating from the tree.
If Genesis is just a "myth" and the rest of scripture is to be taken as "fact," the bible just does not make any sense. We would have no idea what sin is, where it came from, why we need our relationship with God restored, why we are above animals, and how this world came to be.
- quiet4no1 October 16, 2008 10:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Are we really arrogant enough to think that a day to us equals a day to God? The thing is, the Bible never says how long a "day" is. I'm a fairly strong Christian (Episcopalian), but at the same time, I realize we need to read the Bible with a heck of a lot of common sense, and realize that a lot of the terms in the Bible are very metaphorical. Does that mean my interpretations are exactly correct? I'm not saying they are. I have to read it in such a way that I can make it all make sense to me. Do I pretend to know the age of the earth? No, nobody knows the age of the earth and we never will.
It also doesn't help that you have sleazy con-men like Kent Hovind (who has a fake doctoral degree, and is a tax evader and federal criminal) endorsing such an idea. That makes the whole thing seem even more ridiculous. If I'm going to believe something, it better not be the ideas of a criminal.
- bagpiper2005 October 17, 2008 10:24AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
In Genesis, we have no reason to believe that "one day" meant any more than "one day" today. Remember God rested on the 7th day, not for himself (because he didn't need it), but for us to rest. If that "day" was longer than a "day" in this present time, why would he have rested for us, so that we would have a day of rest.
I have no prediction on the age of the earth, a mystery that will always be unsolved. I do believe that God had the power, if he is the creator, to create thw world we live in called "earth" in 6 days. He is all-powerful, so why could he not just bring into existence - the Earth?
Don't use a straw-man argument to say we shouldn't believe God was being literal. Many atheists, professors, and people of high authority have been criminals. Does that mean we should not listen to anything they have said based on choices they made prior. Not always, no. So not a good point there.
- quiet4no1 October 17, 2008 12:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
"In Genesis, we have no reason to believe that 'one day' meant any more than 'one day' today."
The Bible wasn't written in English, it was written in ancient Hebrew. In ancient Hebrew, the word "yom" could mean a 12 hour day, a 24 hour day, or simply a long period of time. Who's to say that's not a couple of billion years? When it was translated into English in the Middle Ages, there was no reason to believe that it was anything other than a day. Now, however, as all fields of science point to a signifigantly longer period of time, it is time to reassess the translation, though the text is still valid. (please refer to my other comment on this topic titled "Think about this")
Also, the Kent Hovind thing was an ad hominem, not a straw man. It was a really good try, though.
- richardsonkr January 16, 2009 9:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I would not of chosen Hovind for this had I put it together. I called a friend of mine who is heavy into creation and he said that no one he knows counts Hovind as credible.
- justsomeguywithanopinion November 19, 2008 3:26PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
If scientific inquiry has shown conclusively that Genesis is at best allegorical, then Christians should reconsider beliefs that presume a historical interpretation of Eden.
Doctrines like original sin, substitutionary atonement, and the trinity are not described anywhere in the Bible. They're merely theories that theologians have created to make sense of the narrative. Much like a scientific theory, theology should be questioned if it contradicts new discoveries. It's time to rethink your particular theology if you find it in conflict with the conclusions of scientists, whose theories are much easier to conclusively test and verify.
Despite what you say, the Bible makes sense even to me, an atheist. The Bible as ancient folklore can teach us a great deal about ancient Hebrew society: their fears, their dreams, their iconic heroes, and their perception of the world. A document does not need to be a perfectly preserved dictation from the mouth of god to be useful.
- Antimatter October 17, 2008 6:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
Doctrines such as: original sin, substitutionary atonement, and the trinity are very well described in the Bible. It's actually not too hard to piece together if you read scripture as a "whole" since it is supposed to be about God and his will for this earth.
Evolution is merely a theory at best, and has more holes than swiss cheese ;). It is made to seem like it is "irrefutable," but that is not the case. It is actually "forced" to be taught in schools as fact, although it is only the closest science can come to explaining the origin of human existence and how things developed over time. What's more controversial is the other "separate" theory, which I have no idea why its separate, the "Origin of Life." That theory is so flawed that it has to be kept a separate theory, to make evolution seem "credible."
If you would like to discuss the trinity or etc, feel free to let me know. It's best to look at both sides like I have, not just one "presupposed" attitude towards the other.
So would you say that the those in the bible "lied" about Jesus doing miracles, and God showing himself through signs or etc. Because that doesn't exactly represent how they acted: Jesus followers were promoting honesty, truth, forgiveness, etc... and they died because of what they saw and believed in. It would seem crazy that they would just make things up, and die for thier beliefs... doesn't it. Just doesn't work logically with your theory.
- quiet4no1 October 19, 2008 10:36PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
First of all, I have no "presupposed attitude." I was a young earth creationist like yourself when I was first introduced to these issues. If anything, that was my presupposed attitude, and it took years for me to overcome it. If you think original sin, substitutionary atonement, and the trinity are obvious when reading the scripture "as a whole," then I highly suggest that you read the works of Christians who would disagree with you. I particularly enjoyed Tom Harpur.
I don't know how better to state this: The theory of evolution is the most extensively verified theory of science outside the mathematical precision of physics. No other theory has the same extent of converging, collaborative evidence from such a diversity of scientific disciplines over the past century. Paleontology, anatomy, biochemistry, genetics, medicine, psychology, sociology, geology, astronomy, and even computer science are just a few examples of the fields independently producing volumes of observations that validate the theory of evolution.
As an example, consider human retroviruses. An endogenous retrovirus is a virus that infects gametes and becomes part of the genetic makeup of a species. These fragments of DNA make up about eight percent of the human genetic code, and thousands of them are in the exact same locations in chimpanzees. If chimpanzees and humans were created separately then the probability that the same viruses would infect the same locations in our genetic codes is near impossible. The only two viable explanations are that (1) we share a common ancestral population with chimpanzees or (2) the creator pre-infected both species with the same viruses in the same genetic locations. Is the second explanation compatible with your god or your notion of original sin?
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/03/071203fa_fact_specter
That is just one example of thousands from genetics alone that validate the theory of evolution. Evolution is not irrefutable, but it has an incalculably high probability of being correct based on our observations. There is no controversy among professionals: evolution happened. The only disagreement that still exist are over the details.
Ambiogenesis is a separate theory because Darwin's theory never dealt with the first life. His theory presupposed the existence of life to explain the development of biodiversity. God may have created the first life, and the theory of evolution would still be correct. Ambiogenesis is an area of ongoing research complicated by the fact that the earliest life did not fossilize, but it appears increasingly likely that the earliest self-replicating molecules formed naturally. Most of the molecules required by the simplest cells are naturally occurring.
You suggested a conspiracy theory to force the theory of evolution into schools. There are thousands of scientists all over the globe from every creed, ethnicity, and nation relying upon the theory in their daily work. To suggest that all these individuals are complicit in a global conspiracy to force the theory onto school children is ludicrous. If evolution were indeed a lie, the whistle blower who could explain exactly how the theory is flawed would become a household name overnight. She would have more grant money than she could spend. In such a competitive profession, why hasn't this happened?
- Antimatter October 20, 2008 12:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(7)
Side: No
I wish my education in biology was better, I'm reluctant to engage creationists on evolution because I just don't have the knowledge. But I can tell a good thumping when I see one!
You go!
- Lazareus January 16, 2009 9:29PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
science always wants to separate that messy first cell from evolution theory..
and it's Abiogenesis... not Ambiogenesis.. - but anyway, yes evolution is separate from the explanation of the creation of the first cell.. but why does it matter? Science needs to explain all of the above. It needs to explain a universe which created itself, the first form of life that created itself and also a theory of evolution which operates with no actual mechanism except random mutation and survival. None of these will work without an intelligence to guide them.
Why hasn't evolution been proven wrong you ask? First off, it's not falsifiable!!! It's not even a proper scientific theory...because it has no actual means of being proven wrong. What's even more ridiculous is now science takes anything done in the various subjects like genetics as 'proof of evolution'.... The fact that someone found a chunk of DNA that was an old virus and pieced it back together is NOT PROOF of evolution... it's something we have learned simply by studying the genome. Of course genetics is related to other subjects like evolution... but it's not evolution.
Evolution claims that all the species descended from a common ancestor - and that they did so by mutation and natural selection. The problem is... if you feel that an animal changed in small steps without any guidance.. not all steps would be beneficial. The next problem is - the fossil record would NOT look the way that it does if this were the case.
Question: If an animal which has never had 'legs' evolved a new leg... how would it happen? Would it be in small steps or would it just sprout a leg?
If you are like most scientists I'd assume your answer is that it wouldn't happen instantly - that the leg would have to form in gradual steps.
So where are the fossils for the many gradual steps of this leg forming.. or for that matter every single change that every single species has gone through? Wouldn't you have to see at least one fossil with a partially formed leg?... no?... why not? We agreed that each step would be gradual... so why instead do we see nothing but fully functional animals in the fossil record? Why is it we see nothing of that sort living either? If you began the forming of a wing.. wouldn't there be tons of conspicuous transitions?
You have seen 'The Transformers' right? In between two stages there would be many odd forms that simply have no logical function... but the fossil record doesn't show that. - So far the fossil record has shown nothing but the vast variety of God's creatures... nothing more.
Where are the transitional forms leading up to the dinosaurs ? How about giraffes? Cheetahs? Woodpeckers?
How is it that for the first '3 billion' years nothing was on the planet but one celled organisms and algae --- and then once we came to the cambrian period '530 million years ago' suddenly at least 19 phylum appeared (most likely more).. not only phylum.. but many sub-phylum as well.. - including chordates - with not a single transition leading to them.. all appearing in a 5 million year span of time. Is that evolution? Nothing but an amoeba.. and then nearly every family of animal and plant appears in the equivalent of 1 minute out of the 24 hours of history? That's not logical if your only explanation is 'random mutation'... and it definitely destroys any idea of common ancestor unless you mean an amoeba.
Look at it and think about it... evolution is a lie.
- lux113 July 16, 2009 10:41AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
“ science always wants to separate that messy first cell from evolution theory..”
Yes, because the theories of biological evolution only apply to living things… if its not alive then it is chemistry.
“Science needs to explain all of the above. It needs to explain a universe which created itself, the first form of life that created itself and also a theory of evolution which operates with no actual mechanism except random mutation and survival.”
And that is what Science is working on, so far with an exceptional amount of success in comparison to the alternative of ‘God did it’.
“ None of these will work without an intelligence to guide them.”
Can you demonstrate this?
“Why hasn't evolution been proven wrong you ask? First off, it's not falsifiable!!! It's not even a proper scientific theory...because it has no actual means of being proven wrong.”
Sure it can be… just clearly demonstrate an organism that has no evolutionary links. No genetic similarities to any known creature, or no fossil record of ancestor species would do it.
And how is Intelligent Design falsifiable? Things like bacteria flagellum that were once held up as proof of ID have been shown to naturally evolve from other systems.
“ What's even more ridiculous is now science takes anything done in the various subjects like genetics as 'proof of evolution'.... The fact that someone found a chunk of DNA that was an old virus and pieced it back together is NOT PROOF of evolution... it's something we have learned simply by studying the genome. Of course genetics is related to other subjects like evolution... but it's not evolution.”
It’s not proof, but it is evidence to the existence of evolution.
“The problem is... if you feel that an animal changed in small steps without any guidance.. not all steps would be beneficial.”
Why not? The intermediate steps could be either beneficial, or neutral to survival.
“The next problem is - the fossil record would NOT look the way that it does if this were the case. “
Then how would it look?
“Question: If an animal which has never had 'legs' evolved a new leg... how would it happen? Would it be in small steps or would it just sprout a leg?”
It would be small steps based on existing biological structures. Tentacles can become limbs which can become legs after all.
“So where are the fossils for the many gradual steps of this leg forming.. or for that matter every single change that every single species has gone through?”
Fossilization is an uncommon process… so not every living thing will end up as a fossil. No Scientists has ever expected a perfectly complete fossil record.
“ Wouldn't you have to see at least one fossil with a partially formed leg?... no?... why not?”
How do you mean? Haven’t you seen the fossils of early amphibians? They were very fish like with flippers that also acted like limbs to drag themselves across the land.
“We agreed that each step would be gradual... so why instead do we see nothing but fully functional animals in the fossil record?”
Because evolutionary steps are not driven towards some future goal, they are adaptations to present conditions . The animals that we se are fully functional, and are transitional to later forms.
“ Why is it we see nothing of that sort living either? If you began the forming of a wing.. wouldn't there be tons of conspicuous transitions?”
Flight adaptations are very rare throughout history… though there are creatures like flying squirrels that may adapt to flight if the evolutionary pressures continue in that direction.
“You have seen 'The Transformers' right? In between two stages there would be many odd forms that simply have no logical function... but the fossil record doesn't show that. - So far the fossil record has shown nothing but the vast variety of God's creatures... nothing more.”
Transformers? Really?
“Where are the transitional forms leading up to the dinosaurs ? How about giraffes? Cheetahs? Woodpeckers?”
The dinosaur evolutionary chain is rather well documented. Spondylosoma is the seen as the closest ancestor to true dinosaurs (if not the earliest dinosaur)
“Look at it and think about it... evolution is a lie.”
And the alternative is “everything popped into being”? Objectively which ‘popped into being’ story is the correct one?
- MrBook July 22, 2009 4:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
You said 'tentacles could become legs'..
here's the problem - a good design for tentacles does not at the same time mean a good design for legs.... consider what I'm saying here -- look at a starfish.. or even a regular fish - the placement of fins have a different orientation than 'future legs'... good placement for fins does not make a good placement for legs... the two are entirely different designs.. one is not appropriate for the other.. only in rare occasions - thus it's ridiculous to assume one could morph to the other.. if you had to rely on previous developments.. future developments would be improperly placed - poorly situated.
- lux113 July 22, 2009 6:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
because you can't imagine a reason why both chimps and humans have a chunk of DNA that has the same viral code doesn't mean it's evolution . It also doesn't mean God infected them both.
I could easily see other reasons.. DNA is a code.. and follows rules in the manner it's formed. If both species had encountered a disease it's not hard to believe the viral code would be in the same location.
So called 'Junk' DNA is still quite a mystery... it was only recently that they began realizing it's not junk. Matter of fact they are considering the possibility that the so called 'Junk DNA' may be the actual information for constructing the organism.. while the regular DNA is no more than the bricks and mortar to build with - It's possible junk DNA is more important.
But since you shared your retrovirus story... I'll share a story with you.. How about the recent study on sea anemone's?
http://www.bio-nica.info/Biblioteca/Pennisi2007Anemone.pdf
''One of the big surprises of the anemone genome, says Swalla, is the discovery of blocks of DNA that have the same complement of genes as in the human genome. Individual genes may have swapped places, but often they have remained linked together despite hundreds of millions of years of evolution. . . Moreover, the anemone genes look vertebratelike. They often are full of noncoding regions called introns, which are much less common in nematodes and fruit flies than in vertebrates. And more than 80% of the anemone introns are in the same places in humans. . .
Finnerty and his graduate student James Sullivan also looked in the anemone genome for 283 human genes involved in a wide range of diseases. They will report in the July issue of Genome that they found 226. Moreover, in a few cases, such as the breast cancer gene BRCA2, the anemone’s version is more similar to the human’s than to the fruit fly’s or to the nematode’s. . .
This implies that even very ancient genomes were quite complex and contained most of the genes necessary to build today’s most sophisticated multicellular creatures. . . ''
Interesting eh? Why would the sea anemone have such complex DNA....? As they put it.. it possibly has the genes capable of building today's most sophistacted multicellular creatures.. So then - did it always have them? If it was a result of mutation.. why does it share so much in common with our own?
The point is... there's more than meets the eye - and simply because you find a virus in chimps that is also in humans - this is not a proof of evolution from chimps... it just means (guess what) the same virus is in both. Science is not science if it makes these kinds of assumptions.
Many people like to say that we have 98% of the genes of the chimp..
do you know we also have 78% of the genes of a BANANA!?
does that lead you to believe we are related to a banana?
question everything - science included.
- lux113 July 16, 2009 11:03AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
"this is not a proof of evolution from chimps... it just means (guess what) the same virus is in both. Science is not science if it makes these kinds of assumptions."
Lets start off with this... Humans did not evolve from chimps.. chimps and humans have a common ancestor.
Moving onward... the fact that the same gene sequences can be found in both humans and chimps is evidence that we share a common ancestor, which when combined with other evidence gives strong credence to the theory that humans and chimps are related. Science does not 'assume' that since chimps and humans are genetically similar that we have a common ancestor, it is seen as evidence supporting that theory.
"do you know we also have 78% of the genes of a BANANA!?
does that lead you to believe we are related to a banana?"
Yes, there is a common ancestor between humans and the banana... an exceptionally distant one to be sure.
"question everything - science included."
That's the point of Science... Science is there to be questioned, tested, and re-evaluated. That is why scientific theories are constantly being changed or discarded based on new observations.
- MrBook July 17, 2009 4:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Yes, I understand we didn't evolve from chimps from the position of evolution theory - and I'm sorry for saying it that way considering I truly don't want to encourage the misinformation and typical uninformed view.
You never addressed any of the sea anemone info.. my point is - if we have a 'common ancestor' the more we look at the info.. the only common ancestor we could have is an amoeba - and we would have lost common ancestry at that point. Why? Because of the cambrian explosion - which shows that at one moment (5 million years or so) nearly every phylum appeared.
'Geologically speaking, 5 million years represents a mere 0.11 percent of Earth’s
history. As Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen has explained, “compared with the 3-plus-billion-year history of life on earth, the period [of the explosion] can be likened to one minute in 24 hours of one day.''
''Cambrian rocks display about half (or more) of the basic body plans or architectural designs of the
animal kingdom.''
''Representatives of nineteen of the forty known animal phyla definitely make their first appearance in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion. Three phyla appear in the Precambrian. Six animal phyla first appear in the fossil record after the Cambrian period, and twelve more are not
represented in the fossil record.''
and my sidenote: Keep in mind that the six phyla that appear 'after' the cambrian could always be moved earlier in the record if we find earlier examples... This is the failure of fossils. - for example.. if I find a cat skeleton in the earth... It only tells me that they existed in this form at that time... it doesn't tell me that they didn't exist in that form EARLIER in the record.. Though we have found that roughly half of the phyla and many subphyla first appeared in the cambrian - that doesn't rule out that all of the phyla could with further research be proven to appear in this 5 million year period. A mere 6 phyla are currently shown to not...this concept is also stated in the paper as:
'many paleontologists think that almost all of these additional eighteen phyla may well have originated during the Cambrian explosion. As Valentine, Jablonski, and Erwin argue, “All living
phyla may have originated by the end of the [Cambrian] explosion.”
There are no transitional fossils leading up to these phylum -
a slightly exaggerated time line might appear like this:
3 billion + years --) singe cell lifeforms / agae
530 million years ago --) possibly every other family of animal and plant.
But this is only the original family... right? These creatures were possibly just very simple forms - so what's it matter?.... not at all. Let's take the example of Haikouella lancelota
According to Chen and his colleagues, Haikouella has many of the same features of the Yunnanozoon lividum, as well as several additional anatomical features including a “heart, ventral
and dorsal aorta, an anterior branchial arterial, gill filaments, a caudal projection, a neural cord with a relatively large brain, a head with possible lateral eyes, and a ventrally situated buccal cavity with short tentacles.”
Many of these phyla were in the same form as they are now seen.. in other words - they appear in the record.. with no transition up - and make no further adaptations. Many like Haikouella are extinct.
This does not support evolution.. it supports some form of scientifically unexplainable creation - it implies drastic immediate change that brings about every animal and plant family.. with no sign of transition - and then relatively low amounts of change afterward. the only thing left that disagrees with creation is the time line - which I feel is questionable due to the methods of extrapolation since it is built on assumptions.
- lux113 July 18, 2009 6:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"it is only the closest science can come to explaining the origin of human existence and how things developed over time"
Yes. Science courses are taught using the best known science. And religious myths are not taught in science courses. So science teaches that the universe is about 14 billion years old. I think you've got it!
"It's best to look at both sides like I have"
Or maybe it's better to improve our short lives with science and ignore silly religions.
"It would seem crazy that they would just make things up, and die for their beliefs... doesn't it?"
Yes, it does seem crazy. But religions breed fanatics and fanatics ...
- onein6billion December 7, 2008 9:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
"So would you say that the those in the bible 'lied' about Jesus doing miracles, and God showing himself through signs or etc."
See, right there, you set up a false argument for the opposition, which is easily cut down, and you then proceed to do so. That is a straw man. Do you understand the difference, now?
- richardsonkr January 16, 2009 9:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I wouldn't just go as far to say that those in the Bible lied about the miracles Jesus performed. I would go even further and state that they never existed. The Bible has some very valuable messages but if you are referring to anything from the Gospels to support your views, I would reconsider. It is well known that these books have been meddled with by "well meaning" Christian scholars over the centuries.
Strange that there are absolutely no references to Jesus from that period outside of the Bible itself... which has been, at best mistranslated and at worst completely fabricated.
- RedDragon June 5, 2009 11:29AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The bible is in fact useless.
Glad I could help you out with that.
Oh, and I could help you out with that "sin" misunderstanding too. There isn't any. Nor is there a choice of "obeying your God" or "acquiring knowledge". First, except for xians, acquiring knowledge is just what people do.
As far as "obeying God" goes, even if anyone but you was inclined, don't you think the old boy sets his standards ridiculously high? Just how does one avoid (without castration that is, cause you know he won't let you into heaven then) committing adultery on sight of a pretty girl, when it's supposedly the thought that counts?
From my reading of the bible, we're all doomed, if you give that nasty book any credence at all.
Thank goodness more and more people are putting that thing in the dustbin of history where it belongs.
- Lazareus January 16, 2009 6:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
At the risk of sounding like my mother, I don't know what happened to you that caused you to hate Christianity so, but it is evident that you absolutely hate it. This goes beyond lashing back when provoked, which as a proud non-Christian in a largely Christian nation, I sometimes do, this is targeting out people of faith and ruthlessly attacking them. There is no intelligent discussion, no reason or logic, just pure, unrestricted hate. You are just as hateful, illogical, and utterly disgusting as the shameful examples of the human race who have the gall to say that 9-11 and the deaths of our soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen overseas are punishment from god for homosexuals. I realize that I am attacking the messanger a bit here, but it is hard to attack the message when it is nothing but hate.
- richardsonkr January 16, 2009 8:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
But I can see she didn't teach you much. You didn't respond to a word of my post, just went straight to the attacking me, not anything that I said.
But I am indeed ruthlessly attacking faith. Not people. So, as a proud non-christian (proud of what, then, I wonder?) feel free to butt out.
Unless you'd like to explain the logic of believing that a person is born into a debt of sin, redeemable only by the nailing up of some other person? A debt earned, by the way, by yet a third party, for eating an apple of all things.
If you can explain that, then I nominate you to explain how believing some B.S. like that, gives anybody the moral high ground for all time.
If you can't explain it, then you are at least halfway toward understanding why I hate Christianity, and any other dogma with such power to harden hearts, and enslave minds.
- Lazareus January 16, 2009 8:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I didn't respond to a word of your post because you didn't give me a word to respond to that wasn't an attack itself. I have to question why you are so ruthlessly attacking faith, and why you feel the need to be so hostile.
You somewhat ridiculously demand that in order to be a part of this discussion, I must explain all of the pieces of Christian theology that you disagree with, even though, as a non-Christian, I don't agree with many of them myself. Furthermore, I don't believe that it is possible to gain the moral high ground, much less have it for all time, simply by believing something, whether it be Christianity, Global Warming, or even that all men are created equal. I do believe that hate is an excellent way to lose it. You need to take a long look in the mirror before you talk about other people's hardened hearts and enslaved minds. While I know you revile all things Biblical, I would nonetheless advise you to "fist take the log out of your own eye," that you may "see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. Now sir, if you do not have anything to add to this debate, namely "Was the world created in 6 days," I respectfully request that you "butt out." You have a glass house that needs tending.
- richardsonkr January 16, 2009 9:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
you've got it right. Just looking at a girl lustfully is sinful... You're also right that it's impossible to avoid... Which is an example of why we are all sinners.
A quick quiz -
What does random pre-marital sex lead to?
What about murder ? Good thing or not so much?
How about abuse of your own body.. smoking , drinking and such - what results do you get?
How about sodomy? Good thing? (nevermind.. don't answer)
the simple point is... every view put into place in the Bible if followed would lead to nothing but a better life..
oh.. and of course this is where the typical atheist jumps in with the stories about slavery and incest.. etc. Don't bother...first off it's just a symptom of not actually READING the Bible and/or quoting it out of context or with a lack of understanding. Anyone can quote mine a line to discredit the book.. but also we all know the message that is presented from the Bible - love your enemies, Judge not lest ye be judged, thou shalt not kill etc. etc.
Anyone claiming different is either lying or simply not educated in it's teachings.
It's a good book... matter of fact it's divine.
- lux113 July 16, 2009 10:10AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
"What does random pre-marital sex lead to?"
A number of possible outcomes based on a number of factors. If we are talking about a population where the number of people with STD's is small then the chance of getting and STD is rather small. If we are talking about a man having sex with a number or women then the chances of one of those women getting pregnant by him are rather small.
"What about murder ?"
Murder is considered wrong in non-Christian societies as well. It has been argued that a society that allowed individuals to randomly kill each other would be unstable, and would collapse... which is why none are seen today.
"How about abuse of your own body.. smoking , drinking and such - what results do you get?"
In excess that harms your body... but everything in excess harms the body.
"How about sodomy? Good thing? (nevermind.. don't answer)"
Why not? It's not my 'cup of tea' but Homosexual men seem to enjoy it.
"the simple point is... every view put into place in the Bible if followed would lead to nothing but a better life.."
Even the don't work on the Sabbath? Owning and selling of slaves? Stoning and maiming of criminals?
"oh.. and of course this is where the typical atheist jumps in with the stories about slavery and incest.. etc. Don't bother...first off it's just a symptom of not actually READING the Bible and/or quoting it out of context or with a lack of understanding."
Then what is the context behind the passages detailing how male slaves are to be freed after seven years, but female slaves are never to be freed?
- MrBook July 16, 2009 9:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
We are all doomed. If looking at a pretty girl and lusting is committing adultery , who is perfect? And isn't that the WHOLE POINT? God is not some ogre setting high standards to trap us. He is providing all the evidence in the world that we are not and can not be perfect, that we are sinners and we need Him to save us. He wants to make us perfect. The law was given not to show who was good and who was not, it was given to show that ALL have fallen short and ALL need a savior. He then gave us that savior so that those who humble themselves and acknowledge that they are in need of a savior, can be saved. The utopia that all of these new agers and environmentalists who worship the earth is actually a God given desire for heaven...only heaven is far greater than anything they have vainly imagined as their idea of utopia. And why not grasp onto heaven and forsake the counterfeits? Because heaven requires submission to authority outside of self...and self desires to be king.
- DareToBeConsistent February 2, 2010 1:52AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I believe that the first chapters of Genesis, including the ancient history of the Hebrew people, should be understood within the context of covenant. My friends, Tim Martin and Dr. Jeff Vaughn, have written a book, which can be purchased at their website: http://www.beyondcreationscience.com /
The basic premise is that the same symbolism which guides our understanding of Revelation should also guide it in Genesis. The 6-day creationists insist on a so-called "literal reading of Genesis" to come up with their fanciful notions of "the end times." This literalism includes a woman who sits on 7 hills at one time, and various dragons etc. The literalists understand these symbols in MODERN terms: locusts are helicopters, etc.
When understood in covenant, we see that the Hebrew people were called out of darkness into His marvelous light. We know from Genesis that the Sun and Moon and stars represented Jacob, Rachel, and the 12 sons. We know that throughout scripture, trees and beasts are used to describe humans, both clean and unclean, fruitful and unfruitful. Darkness and light were separated, as were the land and seas in that first chapter of Genesis. Even in the New Testament, we have revealed to us that the children of light were "called out of darkness," i.e., the old covenant, into the covenant of light.
It is a remarkable study of covenant, and I highly recommend that anyone interested in the subject buy it and read it. Even if you don't agree with it, you'll be challenged to expand your thinking. Even the idea that Noah's flood covered the whole planet is challenged - and all of it from a biblical hermeneutic, long ago confirmed by Milton Terry, the great Methodist expositor.
Beyond Creation Science: From Genesis to Revelation
by Tim Martin and Dr. Jeff Vaughn
available: http://www.beyondcreationscience.com /
- Big Dog October 21, 2008 9:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
You skewed whatever argument you were wishing to present by quoting from the Cathoic Catechism. Any sincere New Testament bible studdent knows that there is only one one reliable and true book, the bible, and any other man written book, such as the Catechism, is not God-inspired, thus false.
Going a bit further, Catholicism itself is pretty much proven to be a false religion, and that statement is made based upon sound New Testament exegesis of Revelation 13 and Paul's second letter to the church at Thessalonica, in particular the second chapter where he talks about the "man of sin". Sound, competent biblical scholars have identified both the "man of sin" and the two beasts in Revelation 13 as the Roman Catholic church and the papal dynasty.
Go back and study the history of the papal dynasty. Then read what God has to say about a "falling away", forbidding to marry, abstention from eating certain meat, etc,. This refers to none other than the catholic church. The pope (notice I did not capitalize the P) regards himself as God on earth, and equal to God, and says he has power to forgive sins. No one but God can forgive sins. We're also told to call no one on earth "Father", but do the catholics abide by that? No.
With regard to the age of the earth, let the bible be its own best interpreter. You either believe what it say in its entirety, or you don't.
- garybarb1 November 17, 2008 12:14PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"Any sincere New Testament bible studdent knows that there is only one one reliable and true book, the bible..."
Any honest student of theology also knows how the Bible came to be, and it's anything but handed down from god himself. In reality, humans who claimed no divine inspiration cherry picked which texts ought to be included in the compilation! What criteria did they use to filter the heresy from the canon? We don't know.
- Antimatter November 17, 2008 12:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(5)
Side: No
I really feel sorry for you.
- garybarb1 November 17, 2008 1:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"I really feel sorry for you."
I feel sorry for our world. Everyone should be willing to question what they believe.
- Antimatter November 17, 2008 1:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: No
The history of the Bible, including it's compilation by the early church, is quite well known. Books were chosen to be added and others were chosen to be left out (Enoch, Mary, and Thomas all spring to mind). You can then look at it's history of translation, from Aramaic and Hebrew to Greek... then to Latin... then to the various European languages.
To say it is divinely inspired is a reasonable stance to take (it is how I view the Bible), but to say that it is a word for word transcription seems quite unreasonable given it's history.
- MrBook May 1, 2009 7:00AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I could answer that for you but am choosing to remain the "Devils Advocate" on this because it is much more fun.
- justsomeguywithanopinion November 19, 2008 3:30PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I didn't realize how crazy some people were. I don't even know where to start on this one. We'll start with your fallacious claim that there is only one reliable and true book. You do realize that every book of the Bible, Old and New Testament, were written by people, right, not spoken word for word by the Angel Gabriel to Mohammad? You also realize that it was the early Catholic Church that decided which books would be included in the Bible and which would not, right? And even if the Bible were the only god-inspired book out there, that still doesn't make any human ponderings on it automatically false. Otherwise this whole conversation would be false. Just because a couple of preachers out there who can't validate themselves without attacking an older, more established, and larger organizations who you claim are "soud" and "competent" have two or three passages that could be interpreted as being negative about the Church if you squint your eyes and cock your head to the side a little bit doesn't "prove" anything, much less that Catholocism is a false religion. The Bible itself says that the devil can quote scriptures for his own purposes. Furthermore, the Pope doesn't and never has claimed to be a god on Earth, but rather to be a representative of Yahweh on Earth. Furthermore, the Pope doesn't claim to be able to forgive sins, but rather cites Matthew 16:19, which reads "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven," to justify interceding as the successors of Peter and the Apostles on behalf of the one Confessing that Yahweh will forgive the sins. And where does it say to call no one on Earth "Father?" Finally, who are you to tell people how they can interpret the Bible? It didn't come with instructions! If I think it has no religious value at all, but has a few nifty stories that I think are entertaining and have a good message, then that's my business, not yours! If someone thinks that it shouldn't always be taken literally, and that it often uses metaphor, that's their business! I'm sure your hand has cause you to sin before, but I bet you still have both of your hands. There is no doubt in my mind that you have beheld another human and lusted, but I bet you did not pluck out your eye. Surely the passage that prescribes such treatment of your body is metaphorical and hyperbolic, so why can't others be the same?
PS. Please don't go and cut off your hands and pluck out your eyes. It would make it very difficult for you to type, and you amuse me way to much for that.
- richardsonkr January 16, 2009 8:51PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
This idea that incomprehendable aspects of the Bible must be reduced to figurative language is quite misleading. Figurative language is not used to mislead readers so as to confuse them on what really happened. It is used to provide a better understanding. Science tells us that no new matter is coming into existence, and no matter in existence is becoming non-existent. The amount of matter in the universe is constant. At some point God began to create matter, and at some point he stopped. Six days should not be the sticking point. It is the fact that God, out of nothing, spoke all that is in existence. He spoke it. Why would He then use figurative language to explain how LONG He chose to speak it into existence. The hard concept here is that He spoke it into existence. It didn't exist before. None of it. He speaks, it exists. Why not use figurative language to explain that part of it? Then, when talking about how a woman was brought into the picture, He verified that this was not figurative language. Adam was put into a deep sleep , God took one of his ribs and created woman. Was this figurative as well?...or were all the references to woman being created out of man in the New Testament completely false and misleading as well? You sir, need to be consistent. If six days was figurative, then so was speaking anything into creation out of nothing, and so was the creation of woman, and so were all the references to that creation in the New Testament...and by then, you have just reduced the entire Bible to one big piece of meaningless figurative language. This is a slippery slope you are sliding down. The logical conclusion is to interpret figurative language as such only when the context makes it obvious.
- DareToBeConsistent February 2, 2010 1:34AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I wish I could express my support for your comment more fully. Well said.
- Matthew Ackerman October 13, 2008 1:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Not only do I think the Young Earth Creationists are wrong in their opinions, I think their teachings should be regarded as blasphemous to God Himself. Those teachings imply that God made the Earth and universe to look billions of years old when they are not, thus making God to be a liar. And so they might as well believe in no God at all. Based on my own experience, I can state that the lies and unsupported claims of Creationism will do far more damage to the faith of Christians than evolution ever will.
- Dale Husband October 17, 2008 12:27AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
quite so well as Christians themselves. I would say Ted Haggard is an excellent case in point.
I can't help but laugh that Palin, a young earth creationist, was so eager to "Drill, baby, Drill", when the search for oil is so intensely related to a deep understanding of how the earth was really formed, and how long it really takes to create big pockets of oil underground.
- Lazareus January 16, 2009 1:29PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The christian faith is a mockery to humankind.
All religions are a detriment to humans and the earth.
We need to call out people making these insane arguments whenever we see them in order to STOP the religious from destroying earth and its inhabitants.
- Enlightened1 September 4, 2009 1:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
First, even as a Bible-believing creationist, I want to say thanks for bring attention to Genesis 2. I am surprised how many Christians have not noticed this chapter. The Hebrew used it not thought to be figuaritive, but this brings attention the order and matter of time we have grown to think. I do think that in the 2nd chapter of Genesis it is referring to time as a "period" or "era", just as we would say, "I lived in California for a time". There are no specifics.
I would also like to point out that Job is recorded as the oldest and thus first book of the Bible written, between Job and Psalms we see great awe and majesty described by the writers.
Thought we have learned so much through science and technology, there is so much we do not know. It is amazing to me to think of the beauty, creativity and perfection that is made in space and here on earth--which to me point to a God with intelligence, morality and emotion--similar to ourselves. The study of science is intriguing but it shouldn't get in the way of ruling out the Creator.
- Evie October 18, 2008 11:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"The study of science is intriguing but it shouldn't get in the way of ruling out the Creator."
Ruling out any creator(s) is a philosophical question. There can never been any scientific evidence to "rule out" a creator.
Creation in six literal days is a scientific question and it is clearly ruled out.
"there is so much we do not know."
I assume you are speaking for yourself. At any rate this does not seem to be a good basis to "point to a God with intelligence, morality and emotion--similar to ourselves". That seems be be quite a non sequitur. Our ignorance implies a supernatural being similar to ourselves? I don't think many people would like this "argument".
- onein6billion December 7, 2008 9:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
In a literal translation, Genesis 1:31 and 2:1 state that God created the heavens and the earth in six days. Genesis 2:2 states that God finished his work on the seventh day. Genesis 2:4 begins an account of the day in which the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
Interpret this literally and the creation accounts dissolve into nonsense, with creation happening in one, six and seven days. To make any sense of it, both creationists and others are forced to take at least some of these accounts figuratively and not literally. If you want to take the Bible seriously, you can't take it completely literally, even if you are a literalist!
- Michael Glass November 14, 2008 4:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
as has already been covered... the different stories of creation are in perfect agreement - you simply are misunderstanding them. At the risk of repeating what was already said - Genesis 2:1 is the 6th day and the creation of man...it's not the story of creation - it's a focus on that day of creation in particular... I don't want to be rude.. but I'm quite shocked that people can't read these two passages without thinking they disagree... It shows to me there's no way God COULD write the story without people disagreeing with it...
Seriously... can you imagine a version of the Bible being written that some portion of the world wouldn't say 'That's not God's word... he wouldn't say that' .. or some version that no one would claim that there are contradictions? I sure can't... man is incredibly faulty.. It's been my opinion that when God created the heavens and earth - and the animals .. he had a good thing going. Then he created man... it's been downhill since.
- lux113 July 16, 2009 11:45AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Genesis 1:31 and 2:1 say: "And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
[The heavens and the earth finished in six days.]
Genesis 2:1 says: "And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done."
[God finished his work on the seventh day.]
Genesis 2:4b-7 says: "In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up- for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground - then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."
[the day of creation]
A one day creation, a six day creation and a seven day creation. That's what you get if you interpret the Bible literally.
- Michael Glass July 17, 2009 12:03AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I can see how it would be interpreted as a contradiction.. but it really isn't
First off the statement 'And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made' only at first appears that he took 7 days... just read the sentence again - he rested on the seventh day... just the same as in the other verse... no conflict - it's just the wording of 'On the seventh day God finished his work'.. If you worked 6 days of the week - on the seventh you would have finished your work... The creation was a week - with the last day resting.. same in both.
as far as verse 2 it is an entirely different type of story...It's mainly dealing with the creation of Adam but also the naming of the various generations of animals and plants by him. Verse 2 is not an actual step by step story the way the first verse is -- you can tell by the wording itself
2:4 begins
'These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens'
He's telling us right off the bat.. that what we have is a telling of the generations of animals and also man that was created 'in the day that the lord made the earth and the heavens'....
The 'creation of the heavens and earth' was the entire process... not day 1.....same as it says 'in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' in verse 1..this is not simply the first day.. but an introduction to the process. Although I had never considered the interpretation you are describing.. it seems you are saying that it contradicts because of the use of the word 'day'? Just like in hebrew - our word day has a double meaning.. it can either mean a time.. or an actual day - like the phrase 'back in the day' =) What separates this day from the days in verse 1 is most importantly the lack of the mention of 'evening and morning'.
But back to the point - Verse 2 is a telling of how he created the animals and also man.
Let's look at the verse once more - ' These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.'
As I said... this part is not a 'step by step' of creation.. it is just as it says 'the generations in the day that God made them (heaven, earth, plant and herb)' It is a special verse devoted entirely to the telling of the process of making man - and later Adam naming the animals. The purpose of this verse in not to simply retell the creation story a second time (there would be no point to that).
With that in mind.. this is why the statement of God 'having not caused it to rain upon the earth' is not an issue... simply because this is not a retelling of a creation.. but used to express a different idea..
I'll try to state it the verse in more of a plain english.. rather than Bible english -
' This is the story of the making of all the living things on the Earth (generations), and how it occurred ... to witness the process we return to the point just before their making - the point before God had made it rain upon the Earth and before there were a man to work the ground.'
The supposed 'contradiction' arises when you assume that 'God not having caused it to rain' is in chronological order to Genesis 1.. or that this is a step by step piece. It is an introduction to Genesis 2 in the same way that 'In the beginning..' is the introduction piece for Genesis 1.
That is the way it reads for me... and believe me - it was difficult for me to try to put this into words for you.....understanding the verse and explaining it are two entirely different things - but this is the interpretation I've always got from this verse.. In genesis 1 we tell the story of how it all was created - in Genesis 2 we go back a step.. and tell the story of animals and man. The verse serves to separate Adam from all the other beasts and make clear man's importance.
Hey... I'm no Bible scholar.... I value the fact that you've pointed out the 'contradictions' because I've never understood what people meant by a contradiction in Genesis... I feel it's in the reading that it sounds like a contradiction...
- lux113 July 17, 2009 2:06AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
My point was not that Genesis contradicted itself but that if you took it literally it contradicted itself. The problem is not with Genesis so much as a literal interpretation of Genesis. You have to get away from literalism to make sense of the two creation stories, with their different orders of creation. You have proved my point by showing how a less than literal interpretation of the passages gets round the problem of a literal interpretation.
- Michael Glass July 17, 2009 6:22AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
6
2
4
3
3
0
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Was the World Created in Six Days?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
WTF?
Debates like this do nothing more but cause problems for people who are trying to pursue LEGITIMATE alternatives to Neo-Darwinian theory.
Six day creation isn't even biblically sound:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creation.html #youngearth
- F2XL
October 13, 2008 4:31PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
People STILL believe in this BOGUS???
You have GOT to be kidding me. 6,000 years old?!?!?!? Wow, some people are still stuck in the stone-age I guess.
When we've got nothing but huge amounts of evidence to the contrary, and about a dozen different interpretations of Genesis (which, if you do your research, "yom" can mean a day or an indeterminate period of time), why do people still believe this?
Quite frankly I find it extremely embarrassing that people believe this. We're smarter than that now. Good grief.
Now, I'm a Bible believer, however, I read the Bible with a heck of a lot of common sense. You need to use common sense while reading the Bible...if you don't, you get sucked into traps like this, and you'll get sucked into paying money to conmen like Kent Hovind, who conned the IRS out of $800,000 in taxes. What a low-life.
- bagpiper2005
October 13, 2008 8:42PM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Which Bible creation story?
There are two, and they are fundamentally different. They both seem to be Hebrew adaptions of earlier creation myths. The value of them is not their historical accuracy, but the way they redefine the nature of God. Before, God (gods) were caught in the web of circumstance as surely as man. By taking God as an outside force creating all, the Hebrews set a new tone.
The authors of the Bible never imagined themselves to be writing history in the modern sense. They were trying for a more fundamental truth. They wished to illuminate the human condition and its relationship to God. They were artists, not photographers.
- AlibiFarmer October 16, 2008 6:59AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
GOD's 6 days
SIX days on GOD's terms not man's terms...GOD is not subject to Quantum physics, HE controls the rules....AND the EARTH was recreated at some point in the kingdom of HEAVEN's time line...ETERNITY is one & the same DAY in terms of GODs existance...HE speaks things into existance ,how ever that may happen I do not presume to know...NORE can you...GOD said 6 days I believe him over you or SCIENCE ..END of STORY...
NOBODY
- nobody October 16, 2008 9:50AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
My reply to you and another is posted
feel free to respond.
- AlibiFarmer November 19, 2008 11:30AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What?
You say this, and yet you use a computer.
(by the way, using capital letters for emphasis detracts from the overall argument. Just sayin')
- notarealperson
September 21, 2009 5:18PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Can you expound
Can you expound on your theory here of two creation stories for those of us who are Bible dummies? I have never heard that there were two Creation stories in the Bible.
- justsomeguywithanopinion
November 19, 2008 4:44AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
My reply to you and another is posted
feel free to respond
- AlibiFarmer November 19, 2008 11:30AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
To reply to both nobody and just someguywithanopinion
To start with with, I think the Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_according_to_Genesis
has a good summary of the stories. Nobody, you can say you believe in the literal words, but you didn't answer the question of which words. I didn't use science or philosophy - just the plain Biblical language. In one version, man is created last. In the other, man is created far earlier - and the rest of Eden is created for him. Both put man in a primary position, but they have different orders. So if you can please resolve the difference for me without ill-mannered yelling and accusations, I would appreciate it. And if you could spell properly, that would be good also. Faith is not inconsistent with learning.
As for the argument that somehow God's measurements are different form our own, why would God do that? If you follow that argument, then you need not believe ANYTHING in the Bible since it could be that God meant something beyond our understanding. If God speaks to us, then he must use the words we can understand or we cannot be expected to heed them.
However, if there is one consistent thing in faith, it is that everybody who has experienced God puts it beyond words or human comprehension. When Isiah cried 'Holy, Holy, Holy', perhaps a better translation would be 'Other. Other, Other'. He was using holy as the opposite of profane - the day to day versus the beyond human understanding. To accept this though is to accept that the Bible is a human - not divine - creation.
But again, if you are to believe the Bible literally, another question is, which Bible? I have two in my house, and the modern translation is different. At the start of John, the King James speaks of the darkness not being able to comprehend the light while the other says it cannot overcome the light. Those are very different to my mind. One is conflict, the other is a separation. As I try to divine God's will, which should I use as a starting point?
Of course both use the English 'word'. That is a translation from the Greek 'logos', a word for which there is no true English equivalent. Once again, Wikipedia has as good a summary as any:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos
Without some scholarship, no cursory reading of the passage can convey all the meanings it would have had for the author. But then much of John is different from the other gospels. Each was written for a different audience and emphasizes different aspects of Jesus. John's timeline for the events in Christ's death is factually inconsistent with the other synoptic gospels.
But more important is the tenor of John. Written after the fall of the Temple, I believe John's main purpose was to establish Christianity as the legitimate successor to the only other Jewish branch to escape the 'cult of the temple' - the Pharisees. The scorn and derision heaped upon the Jews, particularly the Pharisees, seems more appropriate for discrediting a foe than loving an enemy.
I am always willing to learn more. But please spare me the yelling, the putting words in my mouth, the anger that is totally inappropriate to discussing the divine. There is a Buddhist quote, "My teaching is like a finger pointing to the moon. Do not mistake the finger for the moon.". Too many Christians have mistaken the Bible (the finger) for the moon (the will of God). Irenaeus taught that all that was needed was faith. The laity to have faith in the deacons, the deacons to have faith in the bishops. At the same time, he declared the gnostics - who believed in finding their own truth - heretics.
The Bible does have Truth in it. But I believe it is the truth of art, of emotion, and of the human condition. Fact and history as we accept them didn't even exist when the Bible was written. For a very interesting commentary on the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament to us Christians), you might go to: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies
The course looks at the Hebrew Bible from the standpoint of what it meant to those who wrote it. It provides context and depth. And it does cover some of the creation story in addition.
- AlibiFarmer November 19, 2008 11:29AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I see
I am no theologian, but I can say this about Wikipedia. Wikipeida is a culmination of information posted by multiple different persons. It is not always accurate and has not always been verified.
That said:
There are not two creation stories in the Bible, only one. (that is if you are referring to the creation of the earth and the creation of man). I saw some on this at a creation siminar I went to once. According to the Institution of creation Research, Man was created on the 6th day of creation. I will look up the specifics on what they said on their web site and post the link later.
Any way, from what I have heard and read from them is that the complete creation was done by the end of the 6th day because on the 7th day God rested. From what I read on the couple of sites, they said that God created all between the 1st and the 5th day and on the 6th day he created Adam and Eve.
I posted the links to those sites on another post.
If you are referring to the "earlier" Babylonian reference, I have no Idea about that as I have never heard that one.
- justsomeguywithanopinion
November 19, 2008 2:32PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Chapter 2 has a pretty clear account.
7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8: And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9: And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
15: And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
16: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17: 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.
18: And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Clearly God made man, then planted Eden, then made animals. To take another interpretation would be to say the Bible listed things out of order.
- AlibiFarmer November 19, 2008 6:18PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Time in the Torah is not Sequential
The stories in the Torah were inspired by God, recorded by and assembled by man, into their current order. The events did not necessarily occur in the order in which we now read them.
- Michael Monheit Esq
November 20, 2008 7:30AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
But is the Bible (or Torah, etc) literal, historic truth?
If it is, then only a malicious God would tell it out of order, use terms we cannot understand, or have other 'traps' while holding us to its words. I believe the term many use is 'inerrant'. They believe every word was overseen by God. That view is inconsistent with two accounts where clearly things are happening in a different order.
'Inspired by God' is a good phrasing. Clearly much of both stories was 'borrowed' from earlier creation myths. The question is not whether it is literally true, but what did those early Jews change that enabled them to find a faith that has lasted 1,000s of years? Two things seem to stand out - God as outside nature, and man as His highest creation.
If you can get past the historical accuracy problem, you find the stories both telling the same tale. God is separate - inhabiting a another sphere. And that God created man, has cared for him, and has given him a special place in His order.
- AlibiFarmer November 20, 2008 9:28AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why Malicious
Why do you say that?
There are not two accounts of the creation. One is simply a giving of the generations of the earth. If you go back to the 1st chapter and read verse 29 and following to verse 31 you see where what he is saying in chapter 2 fits in.
Besides that, it was not God that chose the division of the Bible. It was the Jewish Scribes that were responsible for its writing down and passing on when the texts began to wear out.
- justsomeguywithanopinion
November 23, 2008 6:06PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why not?
The order of events in Genesis I agree with science .
- mike1948
August 9, 2009 7:36PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Usually
Usually, I choose to stay the "Devils Advocate" on religious stuff but I am going to answer this one.
Go back up a few verses to verse 4 and you will see the answer. Verse 4 says "4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field... and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." You cannot read verse 7 and following without beginning at the beginning of that section which began in verse 4. What is happening here in Chapter 2 is an expounding on the day that God created man.
How do I know this? That is where I will choose to stop.
- justsomeguywithanopinion
November 23, 2008 6:02PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
One book, narrow view ...
Certainly, there is value in the documents from which human culture has derived the Christian Bible; the value of which is to be determined individually by the reader. Let us not forget the context in which these documents were written and remember that they represent merely the views of those who wrote them. They may or may not reflect the truth. Whatever truth they may or may not contain must be determined by other facts and argument from facts.
The "Book of Genesis" is one book and a narrow view. It is grossly insufficient to answering the question - how long did it take for the universe, this galaxy, this solar system, this planet and life on the Earth to form. It is terribly insufficient to answer what is ultimately an unanswerable and incomplete question. The Christian Bible and the question itself both miss a higher truth - none of the above is finished forming ... nor are we.
The natural processes that created the Earth and its life in the past are not finished. They continue to create and we each too are instruments of that continuing creation.
- Naumadd
October 16, 2008 8:29PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Adam and Eve's children would have to practice incest
How can anyone believe that the human race began with just one pair, Adam and Eve, and refuse to face the logical consequence that the human race would have to have with brother-sister incest? If God wanted to start the human race with just one pair of biological ancestors, then He must have ordained incestuous marriage for at least the first generation of humans. However, books like Leviticus in chapters 18 and 20, incest is clearly condemned. This includes incestuous brother-sister marriage! That's the main reason why I have embraced theistic evolution instead of the Genesis creation accounts.
- barbrainey
November 16, 2008 1:54PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Again, Can you expound
Can you expound on this? If Adam and Eve came thousands of years before the Jewish Law, and the reference you give, how, then, would of it been against the Levitical Law?
What about what the Institution for Creation Research claims about a "Purified Gene Pool"?
I will not claim to know a great deal about the Bible, but, I do know quite a bit about the Jewish Traditions and history. I will have to look up the reference, but I saw in one study that in those days, incest was only considered incest if the children had the same mother and father. However, if the children had only the same father, the Jews did not consider that incest.
- justsomeguywithanopinion
November 19, 2008 4:54AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A More Thorough Explanation
Actually I meant to say that if Adam and Eve's children had to practice incest in order to "go forth and multiply" then it meant that God ordained it. And the same God condemn it centuries later. Does this mean that incest is forbidden only for Jews, Christians, etc. who regard the Bible are their authority?
B. Rainey
- barbrainey
November 19, 2008 6:33AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Adam and Eve
weren't covered under Mosaic law .
- quantummechanik
July 20, 2009 9:38AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Cain and Abel
I recall somewhere in genesis when god banished and marked cain, some sort of reference to other people being alive other than just the "first" family (ie adam,eve,cain, and abel) and that the only reason that he would have marked abel was to protect him, but protect him from whom if they are indeed the only other people? so that logically leads to the assumption that there were other people living along side the "first family".
- camdaddy09
August 19, 2009 1:01PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Devils Advocate
I am going to take the "What if" side of this one:
What if there was evidence to support the Creation side? What then?
For example, ICR claims that have evidence. http://www.icr.org /
What if they had real scientists too? http://www.creationresearch.org /
What if the there was another side than Darwinism?
http://www.parentcompany.com/csrc /
If you have never been to one of the Creation Research Museums or one of their siminars, you should go. They too present some very compelling evidence to their side of this one.
Darwin wrote his theory in the book "Origin of the Species" in 1859, but that was not even near the beginning of the study of the question "Where did man come from?" This question is age old and is one that will never be settled by these debates like this.
- justsomeguywithanopinion
November 19, 2008 4:43AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Making up nonsense is not evidence
"They too present some very compelling evidence to their side of this one."
Shirley, you jest. The word "evidence" does not mean what they think it means. It means "scientific" evidence and they have not any.
- onein6billion
May 9, 2009 11:47AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
6 Days
Only someone who does not beleive in God would have to ask how the world was created in six days. So then, is he the intelligent designer? The one who could creat reality from nothing? Scientist have it hard only having to work with what is already made. Trying to play God is never an easy task. Science will only have more questions and more discoveries but will still find more dead ends. It all started when the devil told man he could be like God. Even now the curiosty still beckons like an unopened door. They say the new face transplants are a huge success. They can now reproduce ear organs off a rodent and now are finding more planets. Aww man, now it's not 9 any more. Another thing my son is going to hold over my head. Bottom line you cannot disprove 6 day creation.
- sidneyc1976
December 17, 2008 9:26PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Good Viewpoint...And...
Several scientists have already admitted that the account of Creation as described in Genesis has definite validity. Imagine that! Science and the Scriptures agreeing on something - that's because the same God who created our Universe also created science and mathematics. That is also how I feel about this issue, and I would appreciate everyone's respect on my opinion. But Sidneyc, I am all for the scientific reproduction of body parts like ears, noses, and limbs, not as a means of mass production, so to speak, but rather as a genuine procedure to restore quality of life to millions of survivors. Think of the enormous benefits and psychological improvements to people whose faces have been disfigured, workers who have lost their fingers, feet, or other limbs in serious accidents, or children who were born blind or with some other birth defect. Not all of what researchers are doing in this field for future generations is evil or bad: God gave them the knowledge and ability to pursue these goals and make them a reality. I look forward to the day when science and medicine will finally be able to restore a person's sight or hearing without the help of permanently-embedded artificial devices. To that I say, Hallelujah, Amen!
- camelcityman271
August 9, 2009 4:49PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
CREATIONISTS ARE WRONG
Dear Creationists fellows...if you suscribe textual in the Bible, that means you suscribe Bible both parts, and you don't.
Slavery was normal.
More than one wife too.
Women discrimination too.
Extremely forms of physical punishment too.
...so?
And if you answer this considerations based on any kind of cultural realtivism, you are appealing to an interpretative argument, and please remember you defend Bible text "as is".
- Ricardo
January 17, 2009 12:39PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Real
Ricardo,
The Bible was definitely written as is. All those horrible things you wrote were correct and they definitely happened. I think it was put there on purpose because it was meant to show to the world/readers the cause and effects of sin , of rebellion against God, and that the reason God came to this earth (Jesus) was to save each one of us. Had the Bible were written with only beautiful and perfect sceneries or stories, I wouldn't have believed it. But millions throughout the centuries could then relate to the events written in it because they had been "there" as well.
Suppose you are reading an Owner's Manual for a car or vehicle, etc. I copied and pasted the following from a Camry Owner Manual:
[Seat belts must also be worn by expectant mothers: the risk of injury in the case of accident is much greater for them and their unborn child too if they do not have a seat belt on....]
[Placing a cradle child seat's in front during inflation could cause serious injury...]
If all you focus is on the negatives and if you are not seeing the big picture, you probably will never be driving a car in your life. The Bible was written as is, because otherwise it will be one-sided, no one believes a one-sided story.
I suggest you to read the Bible in its entirety. The bestselling book in the history of the world that brought changes into people's lives. It is a love story that God came to this world to save us from the destructive sin.
- as310884
April 18, 2009 9:42PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
some things meant literal - others not.
it's not that cut and dried.. some things were meant to be literal - others.. clearly not.
Revelations is an example where clearly symbolism is used. No fundamental christian could discount that symbolism is used alot... and metaphors.. and analogies...and parables.. etc. etc.
So that leads us to the conclusion that you can't rule out symbolism in any other passage. - so really the question comes down to 'If you feel the Bible was divine in origin.. do you feel 6 day creation was meant literally'. -and really - I assume it was meant literal.. largely based on the reference to 'evening and morning' repeatedly.
So just because you have an 'as is' Bible doesn't mean cultural relativism isn't the case in some aspects - 'an eye for an eye' - was the old law .. for example.. turn the other cheek was the law when Christ came.. other parts are documentation of jewish law - others the genealogical line of Jesus...
each section has to be interpreted individually for it's given intent... it's simply not an 'all or nothing'.. either literal or metaphor concept.. a full understanding is necessary.
- lux113
July 21, 2009 11:16AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
literally or symbolically
“it's not that cut and dried.. some things were meant to be literal - others.. clearly not.”
How can you objectively determine which things are to be taken literally and which are not?
“Revelations is an example where clearly symbolism is used. No fundamental christian could discount that symbolism is used alot... and metaphors.. and analogies...and parables.. etc. etc.”
Why is Revelations ‘clearly symbolism’ when the parts about burning bushes and massive floods are not? Many fundamentalists take Revelations as being the literal truth, how do you demonstrate that they are wrong. More importantly, how can a third party determine which view is correct?
“So that leads us to the conclusion that you can't rule out symbolism in any other passage.”
Yet there are those who take the entire Bible as the literal truth… that there is no symbolism present. How can the literal and symbolic parts be objectively verified?
“ - so really the question comes down to 'If you feel the Bible was divine in origin.. do you feel 6 day creation was meant literally'. -and really - I assume it was meant literal.. largely based on the reference to 'evening and morning' repeatedly.”
And for those who do not find the Bible to be of divine origin? I’ll grant you that from a Christian perspective it claiming that the Bible is of divine origin is an important part of the Christian faith… But the same does not hold for those who are not Christian.
“each section has to be interpreted individually for it's given intent... it's simply not an 'all or nothing'.. either literal or metaphor concept.. a full understanding is necessary.”
At what objective point is ‘full understanding’ reached? How can intent be objectively verified?
- MrBook
July 21, 2009 5:40PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Depends how you define literal
Look at it like this.... first off, words are metaphors - they are symbols of an object.. some more exact than others. From this starting point we can see that language always only approximates an idea.. language is not math.
From here we can see that the Bible already is going to not have any sort of 100% exact meaning.. because language itself is always open to interpretation.
Intent can NOT be 100% verified... it's simply not possible. Any line I write is up to individual interpretation -- it's unavoidable.
When the Bible says the inhabitants of the earth are to God like grasshoppers... well, that is a metaphor - and yes, the Bible is full of them. Does that mean it isn't true? Not at all.. but the poetic nature of the statement is unavoidable.
This problem of language, it's nature, is part of why we debate like this... It's semantics.. When I said a 'full understanding' of the Bible is necessary.... it suffers from the same problems any statement made in a verbal language does - it suffers from not being 'completely correct'. You can't technically have a 'full understanding' of anything... No one has a full understanding of chemistry.. or even english.. or even gravity. - Your questioning of my phrase 'full understanding' gives a perfect example of the problems with interpreting the Bible or any book. Language is faulty.. there is no 'true' definition for any word.... especially since it is only defined by other words - which in turn are defined by other words......
Given this concept we can see that the meaning of anything isn't precise - and the Bible will always be the subject of interpretation. Parables and the like can be considered literally 'true' but yet metaphors. If I say that stars are like pin pricks in the curtain of night... the statement is true - but entirely metaphor... and given another viewpoint one could say false as well - -since one could argue they are nothing 'like' pin-pricks in a curtain.
Do you see my point? People can see the Bible as literally true - and still understand it is full of metaphors. The question remains.. which are true metaphors.. and which are meant without poetics.
By reading the Bible for understanding it helps you determine which parts are meant in a poetic sense and which is meant as metaphor. Can anyone insist that they are correct in their interpretation? nope. But with study.. people tend to have better understanding - that's all I mean.
Can someone 'prove' the Bible means a literal 6 day creation.. nope. like all of language.. it's up to opinion. I stated my opinion.. that it appears a literal 6 days was the intent - I cited the repetitive use of the words 'evening and morning' as one reason for my opinion - but it's still opinion and cannot be 'proven'.
And as far as your question about what merit the Bible has to non-Christians.... well obviously little - else they would be Christians =)
- lux113
July 22, 2009 5:09AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
literally speaking
“From here we can see that the Bible already is going to not have any sort of 100% exact meaning.. because language itself is always open to interpretation.”
True, however you have stated that some verses in the Bible are literal truth and others are symbolic. How can the literally true lines be separated from the symbolic ones? Christian archeologists have been searching for verifiable evidence of the supernatural claims in the Bible for centuries now… and so far they have either found no clear proof, only contradictory proof.
“When the Bible says the inhabitants of the earth are to God like grasshoppers... well, that is a metaphor - and yes, the Bible is full of them. Does that mean it isn't true? Not at all.. but the poetic nature of the statement is unavoidable.”
Sure, but objectively many religions from that time period placed their deity in the heavens. The same could be said for Zeus, Horus-Re, Rannma… Why is the Bibles statements valid and their statements are false?
“By reading the Bible for understanding it helps you determine which parts are meant in a poetic sense and which is meant as metaphor. Can anyone insist that they are correct in their interpretation? nope. But with study.. people tend to have better understanding - that's all I mean.”
Even following study people cans still reach different meanings, which is reasonable if are not taking parts of the Bible literally. Once you have claimed that a part of the Bible is a literal description of what has happened then anyone who tells you that that part is symbolic is verifiably wrong. If I have a passage in a book that says “A tree grows on North Hill” and I say that there IS a tree growing on North Hill and you say it is a metaphor I can take you to North Hill and show you the tree. Any metaphorical meanings aside the text is literal.
“Can someone 'prove' the Bible means a literal 6 day creation.. nope. like all of language.. it's up to opinion. I stated my opinion.. that it appears a literal 6 days was the intent - I cited the repetitive use of the words 'evening and morning' as one reason for my opinion - but it's still opinion and cannot be 'proven'.”
Except for the mountain of evidence against a literal 6 day creation… If you want to say ‘I believe that in a six day creation’ then I cannot argue with your beliefs…. Any more then I can argue with someone who claims that the queen of England is a shape-shifting lizard man from outerspace.
You’ve stepped beyond that, claiming that there is evidence to back up your beliefs. My challenge is to that evidence.
And as far as your question about what merit the Bible has to non-Christians.... well obviously little - else they would be Christians =)
Which represent a significant portion of the world’s population. If it is literally true that the world was created in six days then that fact is independent of a persons belief, just like fact that the world is round and orbits the sun.
- MrBook
July 22, 2009 4:37PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
God created science.
In 1925 when questioned by Clarence Darrow, William Jennings Bryan stood by the Bible. But when ask, was the world created in six days, he said no, the Bible doesn't say that. There is a difference of opinion here. Bryan, who took almost the entire Bible, very literally, didn't in this case. The danger is that when the Bible is made to stand or fall on this one point against established science it often looses.
- mike1948
July 27, 2009 10:31AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Wanting and eating the cake at the same time
Creationist want God to be both all powerful and outside the physical forces he supposedly created. They never realize that to participate in "our" reality he would have had to relinquish his "outside sphere.
Creationists want the bible to be the literal word of god but anytime a contradiction is brought up it gets attributed to the human scribes. Couldn't a god find better help, or even give a quick proofread of what he dictated. The real question is why didn't he just write it himself instead of depending on people who make mistakes.
Finally, they want God to be so mysterious that no one can understand him. Yet they fail to see how futile their own beliefs are based upon a being that they cannot understand and then expect everyone else to accept what must be a human interpretation of a divine mystery, which in the end can be understood by no one.
Personally, I think you can believe what you want but it is very foolish to try and find some kind of scientific backing for these religious belief and mysteries. You either have faith or you don't. Science can't help you with your faith, since it is by nature the antithesis of faith.
- mangueken
April 6, 2009 9:22AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Six Literal Days
Genesis is very clear that the evening and the morning were the first day.
Genesis is very clear, God made the vegetation on the third day and He did not make the sun, moon, and stars until the fourth day. Well, you can have the vegetation survive twenty-four hours without the sun, but you cannot have it survive a thousand years or sixty million years without the sun. And so the ones that try to stretch the creation into a long period of time—they just have to throw the Bible out because the Bible is very clear. New Testament, Old Testament, Jesus Himself said it was six days that God made the world. Also, if you think six days are six years or six million years, then do you worship the Sabbath day (Fourth Commandment) for millions of years as in Sabbath centuries? Ridiculous. This very argument will either support the entire Bible, Ten Commandments, and all that, or go against everything that the Bible says.
You know, the reason that so many people are trying to fit evolution into the Bible someway is that they’re just sure that all these scientists are saying this, that we must respect this, that we must respect this, and it’s true. Friends, listen, the foundation for evolution, for evolutionary philosophy, is their dating system. If you prove that they’re building on the sand, there’s nothing left.
Their dating system is terribly flawed and all you have to do is look at their own reports regarding the dating system, get your encyclopedias out, look up carbon 14 radioisotope dating; it will say right there that it is unreliable. And it is based upon the premise, because no one was around six thousand, seven thousand years ago to record these things—written history goes back 4000 years, 5000 years. And so they’re doing it all in the premise that the environmental deterioration has been consistent, and my Bible says the environment went through a radical catastrophic change 5000 years ago during the flood.
And the fossil record tells us that there’s been a tremendous change. The fossil record is very clear that these animals all died suddenly and were covered with deposits of mud instantly. They used to say that the dinosaurs died off slowly because of climate changes, but they’ve had to come back and say “Well, it must have been an asteroid that hit the earth because it was a cataclysmic flood and an asteroid hit the ocean.”
Well, friends, my Bible has said that for thousands of years. It was a flood, but it wasn’t an asteroid that did it. There's a free book from the AmazingFacts.org 1-800-835-6747. Ask for “How Evolution Flunked the Science Test”.
Six Literal Days.
- as310884
April 18, 2009 9:51PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
carbon 14 dating is not the only evidence
Carbon 14 is not the only method of dating used to determine the age of the universe. We can look out into the cosmos and see structures that have come about via billions of years of action, or that are so far away that they would have had to be in place billions of years ago for the light to have reached us by now. There is also the ice core data that goes back more then six thousand years.
It's also important to note that Carbon 14 production is statistically uniform over a geological time scale, since it comes from cosmic ray interactions in the upper atmosphere. As such it cannot be used to pin down an exact date (February 8th, 1,245,984 years ago) but is still useful for estimating a date range .
"And the fossil record tells us that there’s been a tremendous change. The fossil record is very clear that these animals all died suddenly and were covered with deposits of mud instantly."
Is it? Though some fossils have come from creatures being covered in mud that is not the explanation for all of them. One can also ask why the levels cluster creatures as they do. If people lived along side mammoths and stegosauri then why are mammoth and stegosauri fossils not intermingled? And why are there no fossilized humans in the mix?
"Well, friends, my Bible has said that for thousands of years. It was a flood, but it wasn’t an asteroid that did it."
The bible is just one of many religious texts explaining the history of the world.
- MrBook
April 29, 2009 6:31AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
In six days?
To the 23% currently voting "Yes", that raises six immediate questions:
1) I assume this means the sun was created first (how many days did that take?) to even have a "day"?
2) How long did creating the rest of the universe take? Or, if it took six whole days to create the earth, would the creator have had time to create all the rest, I mean, some of these galaxies are awfully huge and with a lot of intricatekly moving interstellar dust and radiation that had to be started off precesly right to fool modern astronomers?
3) Why did the creator go to all this trouble to conceal the evidence behind a massive cover-up of radiological datings, cosmic radiation and, well, essentially the entire findings of geology and astronomy as supported by chemistry and physics?
4) Why create all the "kinds" of animals during these days, and then conceal this astounding fact behind what to evolutionary biologists and paleontologists seem an amazingly consistent set of interlocking facts from genetics, behaviour, morphology, biogeography, extinctions, speciations, fossils records, epidemiology and immunology that fits with life evolving according to rather well understood processes?
5) Why were so much of this omitted from the Bible? I mean, a few hints about geology to predict earthquakes, or the germ theory of disease would have been rather handy to thwart the devil's work, and a description of relativity would have been impressive. Why, in fact, conceal everything not already known to the iron-age people of the Middle East who wrote the book?
6) Are you serious?
- Kyrre
May 12, 2009 9:53AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Im Sure..
As one commenter has already touched on..
I'm sure of one thing... I trust the one who made the Geologist... - not the Geologist.
Even a skeptic or atheist should be able to admit: The wisdom of the Bible is quoted more than any other book... even by the secular community. Is that simply because the authors were 'really good writers'? It's no accident.. the book is clearly divinely inspired.
So many people are willing to pass off the stories as simply having 'good morals' or some type of poetic worth... I was an atheist at one point and saw the book through such a lens. Now, with an understanding of God's existence.. I look back at the book and wonder how I could have ever interpreted it this way.
If you believe there is a God... then I can't see how you would accept the idea that he is allowing lies to be spread in his name - It may be difficult for you to accept the 6 day story.. but that's understandable.. you are human after all.. and prone to misunderstanding (myself included of course).
If you accept a being created us.. the stars.. and all we see. A being that defined the elements and set in place the physical laws, yet you draw the line at a 6 day creation, well that seems awfully faithless.
As far as a young earth or a old one, there's so much information pouring out from both sides of the argument that I've found myself shifting back and forth.. one moment I believe one side.. and then I read more and switch to the other. Honestly I haven't made a complete decision and possibly never will. I'm truly not sure that a 6 day creation is hindered by an old earth anyway.. The lord does work in mysterious ways indeed. Consider for example Answers in Creation's 'Plausible Deniability' argument: Simply put.. if we ever were to confirm a young earth it would push the idea of God to an area where it was probable even from a skeptic's perspective. If that were the case then it would destroy the necessity for faith. It's obvious God has avoided there being anything which unquestionably points to his existence.. and for good reason. We must commit to his existence on our own... science isn't going to give us that holy grail we are looking for.
But no matter which is true - 4.54 billion years or a handful of thousand... this doesn't change the fact that if God said it.. I trust him - not his flawed creation. If you believe the Bible is only metaphor.. then you obviously believe God had no hand in it. This means you believe in a God which has allowed his name to be trampled from the dawn of time. That is a belief I will never subscribe to.
- lux113
July 16, 2009 5:45AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
quotations
The Bible is the most published and most wide spread book of all times... which does not mean that it is true... and was also an important part of education (in some cases the only source of education) for centuries. However that does not make it correct, or even overly wise.
"If you accept a being created us.. the stars.. and all we see. A being that defined the elements and set in place the physical laws, yet you draw the line at a 6 day creation, well that seems awfully faithless."
And if you don't accept that? What physical proof can be offered to back up those claims.
"Simply put.. if we ever were to confirm a young earth it would push the idea of God to an area where it was probable even from a skeptic's perspective. If that were the case then it would destroy the necessity for faith"
So God is deceitful? Laying false evidence about to ensure that people go wrong?
- MrBook
July 16, 2009 5:00PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I have to add..
People tend to focus on the trees.. and miss the forest entirely.
Such simplistic arguments like 'How could you have a day if there wasn't a sun yet?'...
*sigh*
Such a limited creation we are... so lost in the details.
If you really must have an answer to such a question... simply put - God invented the very concepts of day and night... and even if there were no sun yet, a day was still a day.
Or maybe he did it just so that you would ask the question I suppose.. There is some truth to that as well.. I know that much of what God has done was deliberately intended to cause debates like this. Atheists absolutely hate that response, they maintain that a loving God would never want to confuse us. I agree, he didn't want to confuse us.. but he did want to leave plenty of room for you to not believe in him. It's completely your choice - your free will. Faith is not suppose to be easy.
- lux113
July 16, 2009 6:02AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
choice?
"I agree, he didn't want to confuse us.. but he did want to leave plenty of room for you to not believe in him. It's completely your choice - your free will"
So it's follow an idea that contradicts all rational logic and evidence, or suffer for eternity in a fiery pit?
That does not sound very benevolent to me.
- MrBook
July 16, 2009 5:23PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Evidence?
You are exactly right - evidence is all around you, mountains of it in fact.
Consider the observation of a solar eclipse. The sun is 91 million miles away (or so), our moon is 238,000 miles (or so) - to spare me the looking up of the exact ratios - can we agree they are VASTLY different in size... yet during a solar eclipse they line up exactly. What do you feel are the chances?
The moon is necessary to our life for a wide number of reasons - light during night time, tidal forces, the affect on the tilt of the earth's axis, and also for measurement of time.
Everything in the universe has the same situation.. a conspicuously planned appearance which defies logical explanation by chance. I've argued about this subject enough that I truly don't have the interest in going further - the evidence is all around you. You have chosen a materialistic option as the cause... a universe that popped into being by random accident from no known source.. DNA that appeared full of information.. my accident as well.. and the vast varieties of life.. also by accident.
When I was an atheist I saw no evidence for God... once I believed - I looked again and realized 'how could I have been so blind... everything is evidence!'
To choose to ignore the designed nature of the universe is willful ignorance. But yes, he is a benevolent God.. because all who seek him will find him if they do so earnestly.
- lux113
July 16, 2009 6:50PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
orbiting?
"Consider the observation of a solar eclipse. The sun is 91 million miles away (or so), our moon is 238,000 miles (or so) - to spare me the looking up of the exact ratios - can we agree they are VASTLY different in size... yet during a solar eclipse they line up exactly. What do you feel are the chances?"
You do realize that a solar eclipse is the shadow of the moon on the earth when it's orbit takes it around the front side during the day. They line up because the earth is circling the sun and the moon is circling the earth... that's all.
"The moon is necessary to our life for a wide number of reasons - light during night time, tidal forces, the affect on the tilt of the earth's axis, and also for measurement of time."
The moon is not necessary for light during the night... because it is there creatures have adapted to it's light and use it. The same with tidal forces and the axial tilt (in which the moon's action keeps the earths axis relatively stable. The measurement of time using the moon is rather arbitrary, though it was used in ancient times because it was something that everyone could see and reference. None of those things prove that the moon was placed there by an entity of cosmic power.
- MrBook
July 16, 2009 8:59PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
you completely missed it..
Yes I'm fully aware what a Solar Eclipse is.. the point was that not only do they line up - the sun and moon fill each other precisely. This would not happen by chance... for example if it were possible to stand on the surface of Jupiter I highly doubt that any 1 of it's 63 orbiting bodies would exhibit the same effect. The point is that the moon to sun ratio causes them to appear the exact size... got it?.. What are the odds? The only planet where life exists is the only planet where this spectacle can be enjoyed....
And the moon is essential to life since it stabilizes our tilt on our axis.. without it the earth would wobble causing massive climate change . These things show design.. not accident - which is the point. I'm afraid you are completely missing that point though...
Also, it's silly to assume our eyes would adapt to the pitch black of night if there was no moon... half the day we would still be in sunlight. Even nocturnal animals require light at night to see.. they just make better use of it by it reflecting off the back of the eye.
Anyway.. the list of things in this world which reveal that they were designed for our habitation is as long as the list of things in this world.... if you can't 'see' that... I guess I can't change it.
- lux113
July 16, 2009 11:15PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
another star in the sky
"Yes I'm fully aware what a Solar Eclipse is.. the point was that not only do they line up - the sun and moon fill each other precisely."
except during partial eclipses...
"This would not happen by chance..."
Why not? Is it impossible or just extremely unlikely?
" for example if it were possible to stand on the surface of Jupiter I highly doubt that any 1 of it's 63 orbiting bodies would exhibit the same effect."
The moons of Jupiter are much further away, so they are would appear significantly smaller... but yes it would be possible... if the moons cast a shadow on the Jupiter then beneath that shadow it would appear to be an eclipse (though it is important to note that the Sun is just an exceptionally bright star when seen from Jupiter).
"The only planet where life exists is the only planet where this spectacle can be enjoyed...."
That would be somewhat of a jerk move... putting the moon there knowing that people were going to freak out during eclipses and kill each other to drive away the 'monster' eating the sun?
"And the moon is essential to life since it stabilizes our tilt on our axis.. without it the earth would wobble causing massive climate change . These things show design.. not accident - which is the point. I'm afraid you are completely missing that point though..."
I'm afraid that more evidence is needed to show that the moon was placed there deliberately. Yes it does balance out the earths climate... which makes our lives possible. That does not mean that the moon was placed there to do so. I could say that America was created by a supernatural power so that I would exist... because if American was not here then I never would have been born.
The conditions on earth lead to our creation, but that does not imply that those conditions were set just so that we would evolve here.
"Also, it's silly to assume our eyes would adapt to the pitch black of night if there was no moon... half the day we would still be in sunlight. Even nocturnal animals require light at night to see.. they just make better use of it by it reflecting off the back of the eye."
The moon was there before life evolved... way before there were nocturnal animals. That is why they evolved into nocturnal animals. If there was no moon, and life evolved then it would have adapted to the conditions found on earth.
"Anyway.. the list of things in this world which reveal that they were designed for our habitation is as long as the list of things in this world.... if you can't 'see' that... I guess I can't change it."
You are looking from now backwards... with the knowledge of what is to come it is easy to think that what we have is inevitable. That is rather illogical.
- MrBook
July 17, 2009 7:07AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
the neccessity of a title is annoying...
actually I'm not simply looking backwards... I'm looking at it statistically.. in the case of the moon it is not only a necessity for life - the eclipse that I've mentioned is statistically ridiculous. You say is it 'extremely unlikely'... no... that is putting it ungodly lightly. If you look at it as simply being 'improbable' but so what.... then that's your choice. We have no real choice but to 'look backwards' - so in other words any evidence is not evidence for you. DNA could be called 'highly unlikely'.. and so could matter spewing out and forming entire universes..... this is 'the gamblers fallacy'. If you simply think that all the species of life and the universe itself is no more than a very lucky flipping of infinite coins... be my guest - but the reasoning is not sound.
- lux113
July 17, 2009 4:52PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
mechanics of a solar eclipse
Today (July 22nd 2009) the 'best' solar eclipse of the century took place from India to Japan. Reading about this I have again read over the mechanics of what exactly a solar eclipse is... and that it causes eclipses is in no way indicative of intent behind it's size and position. During a solar eclipse only a tiny fraction of the earth is actually fully covered...
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/07/the_best_eclipse_of_the_centur.php
- MrBook
July 22, 2009 4:34PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Open to interpretation
This is open your interpretation of the Bible.Study for your self!
- countryboy
July 17, 2009 9:04PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Conclusions
And what of those who, having studied the Bible and the physical world, determine that the Bible has no basis in fact... being allegorical at best?
- MrBook
July 18, 2009 5:45PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
no
some people see it as a day to the lord is a 1000 years.Some save it was 6000 years.
- countryboy
July 18, 2009 5:53PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
but?
Isn't one of those choices objectively true?
- MrBook
July 23, 2009 8:28PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
True
Yes it is.
- countryboy
July 23, 2009 8:34PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
so.....
Which one is it. Either God created the Earth 6k yrs ago or God did not (either not creating it or creating it at some other time).
- MrBook
July 24, 2009 5:55AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
6K
6K
- countryboy
July 24, 2009 5:15PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ridiculous Debate
Why do we even ask this question? PEOPLE, Evolution is a fact, science measures facts. The world is neither 4,000, 6,000, or 37,000 years old. It is 4 Billion years old. We can use math to estimate the time of the big bang, it is all FACT. Gravity is fact, Evolution is fact, Creationism is so ludicrous and moronic that it is not worth even discussing. Providing a debate makes these people think that there is a debate to be had. YOU CANNOT DEBATE A FACT.
- remeadial
August 2, 2009 10:53PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Shouting
is often confused for rhetoric.
- quantummechanik
August 3, 2009 2:06AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Setting up Creationist.
The point of the debate is to set up a straw man, that the world was created in six days, that anti-Christians can knock down. The Bible doesn't stand or fall on that statement. Creationism doesn't stand or fall on that statement. God did not create the world in six days, but he did never the less, create it.
- mike1948
August 3, 2009 3:14PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
then
Then why does this argument always seem to come from the creationists? AiG was not founded, and is not funded by the Scientific community.
I also question your use of the term 'anti-Christian'... Supporters of the ToE are not anti-Christian, most don't care what Christians believe as long as they don't try and push it into the realm of Science.
- MrBook
August 4, 2009 7:04AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Where are the creationists?
This thread has been kept going by three people who have voted no to the question of a six day creation. AIG has tried to defend Genesis using the weakest possible argument, and then left. They didn't even hang around to defend their position.
- mike1948
August 4, 2009 1:11PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Guess what?
There are two possibilities about the origin of the universe: It blinked into existence. Evidence says this still happens today. It was never created. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
- Memo213
September 22, 2009 10:40PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Get the Facts
Fact: Genesis is a 5,000 year old MYTH.
Fact: Evolution and the Big Bang are scientifically proven FACTS.
Fact: The Bible is ALLEGORICAL, not LITERAL (most Christians other than fundamentalists believe this).
- K in Newfoundland
February 11, 2010 12:34PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.