inconsistent Creationists

Post Reply New Topic

I don't mind anyone believing any ridiculous thing they want to believe, until they try to force it onto other people, especially children. If the fundies have their way and we raise a generation of scientifically illiterate kids, it could be disastrous for our country, our species, and our planet. So yeah, because fundies try to push their insanity onto everybody else including public education and public policy, yes it DOES matter.



True that, and yes science is a special interest of mine, not just evolution but molecular biology, quantum mechanics, relativity and string theory too. The guy I was corresponding with was polite so I humored him by checking out his suggested links for several emails. In my last email to him though I told him to not bother sending me any more such links because they are full of distortions and lies. I also told him it's not my job to educate him. Thanks for your input to this thread and your good advice.

NO I DO NOT. I don't really give a **** what nonsensical fantasy you hold as being self-evident.

Correct.

If it is so self-evident that there is no God, then this really shouldn't prove to be such a difficulty. If we are to accept unreasonable demands for evidence, we should feel free to ask the same of those who hold the opposite view.


That is a good starting point for believing. I'm not going to get into minutia here on Who that God is or His nature, but this is perfectly reasonable.


Again, reasonable. But you're overlooking the fact that not all Christians share that perspective. There are only two reasons I stand up for creationism and creationists: #1 I consider myself a creationist up to a certain point, that I believe that God created everything; what nature reveals as to HOW this happened is less important than recognizing that God made it, He owns it, He can do with it as He pleases. That's really the main point Genesis is trying to make. #2 While I do agree that many hardline, fundie creationists are WAY too inflexible with interpreting Genesis, I also feel that naturalists are guilty of the same flaws in their own thinking. You don't have to be so open minded that your head explodes, but we can ALL use a little time in reflecting on our own stubbornness.


You don't really understand the Bible, then. Not many Christians are even aware of the timeline gap in Genesis 1, or, well, at least the possibility of it. If you study the Bible enough, especially the Mosaic style of writing, you'll notice that the indication of time throughout the first 5 books are strikingly consistent. Only when a specified passage of time is important is it even indicated. The truth is no one but God knows for sure of the exact timing of the formation of the universe, when the cataclysm after 1:1 happened, how long it lasted, when Day 1 of creation happened, how long it took before Day 2, and so on. There are plenty of ways to harmonize Genesis 1 with empirical evidence and still claim literal interpretation.

What gets so many believers' hackles up is that critics too often go for what they think is the jugular on this one: Empirical evidence shows this couldn't have happened, therefore Genesis didn't happen, therefore the Bible in its entirety is WRONG. All this shows is that some people just aren't even willing to consider that the Bible might be right, even if we aren't entirely sure what made these things come about. All we know for sure, and all we need to know as Christian believers, is no matter how it came about or what caused it, it was always and continues to be at God's discretion.


Again, the YC downfall is maintaining an entirely too inflexible interpretation. This is more a danger to Christians than anyone else, though. The idea they'll put forth is "if you don't believe X, you don't believe the Bible and you're going to hell." And that isn't scripturally consistent, either.


Simple. So-called "Gap Theory." The earth pre-existed Genesis 1:1. Something happened...maybe a factional disagreement among the angels. God decided that given their behavior, a do-over was necessary. He brought about the conditions necessary for the arrival of mankind.

Speaking of the evidence of the physical world, one thing "evolutionists" will always struggle with is the geological age of the earth versus the timing of the first appearance of life. It is difficult to resolve the probability that life could appear anywhere in the universe, much less on a hostile planet AS A RANDOM EVENT given that geological evidence seems to show this should not have happened as early as we think it did. All we've proven is that it IS possible for RNA to spontaneously form under optimal conditions, but we haven't gotten them to form protein chains and cell structures yet. They (protein polymers) would have had to have formed somewhere else where the length of time would have permitted it to happen, found their way to earth, survived entering the atmosphere, survived a surface impact, and survived a long period time on a still-cooling crust. The presence of a Creator or "Prime Mover" at least would be one explanation of how the odds might be increased for something like this to happen. Or it could have been aliens. Evidence of proto-cellular structures elsewhere in our planetary neighborhood might serve as marginal evidence that a Creator is less likely, but even that would not prove the NON-existence of God. As far as I'm aware, what little exploration we've done of the moon and Mars haven't really turned up anything like that, and we ought to be able to find that kind of evidence even at our current level of technology. It just hasn't happened yet. But regardless of exactly how our planet got seeded with life, it seems more likely to me that that source could not have been a terrestrial source.


Well, you don't. You and I are ultimately looking for the same thing: truth. Obviously, we are seeking after distinctly different areas of truth, but it's essentially the same game. For what it's worth, I've encountered my share of lies about spirituality, so you do well to examine what you hear and discern whether you should believe it or not. Perhaps you'd be more willing to believe someone who DOESN'T quote mine?

While I hold to the truth of Genesis 1, I do NOT deny evolution outright. But I will also admit that learning evolutionary science and the whole of science in general would not allow me to effectively do what I do. If you are completely "sold out" on evolution, then you know what "survival of the fittest means" and why I have to devote more of my time showing myself competitive in what I do in my own daily life--same as you. If that means I don't absorb all that science has to offer, that's ok. I dabble a little in things I enjoy like astronomy, I'm well-aware of what scientific reasoning skills are, and I'm aware that there are available resources for digging deeper should I have the need or desire to. And, quite frankly, my spiritual path is much more important to me than the finer points of the physical world. I'm not an evolution denier, but I do have a few doubts. And I SHOULD have doubts according to your way of thinking, just like you have doubts about the Bible. Do you agree that it would be foolish to just accept someone's word on something? Should we not stand our ground if something doesn't make sense, or if the person putting forth the idea seems to have an agenda? Neither one of us wants to feel lied to.


Yes it is.


Yes it is.


Replace the word "story" with "interpretation" and apply it to scientific hypotheses and theories.


See? You just agreed that it IS evidence. Moving on...

People are more likely to believe multiple witnesses speaking about the same thing from their own experiences. The early church was made up of people who were present when the things Jesus did happened. What is really telling about the early Christians is that they felt comfortable believing what those early witnesses told them. They had to have at least felt that what they were told was plausible.


Might there be a reason that historians of the time would not have wanted to legitimize those writings? Either they were false writings, or the person had something to gain or lose in even gracing the life of Jesus with a mention.

Also, if the life and ministry of Jesus had really had such a tremendous effect on those who witnessed it, it's not likely they'd have so soon forgotten. The gospel of Luke is apparently a compilation of numerous accounts that existed at that time. Luke also reports that he was not the first to make a history of Jesus' life and ministry. Apparently some reports had been found to be inconsistent with what apostolic witnesses knew to be true. Luke attempted to sift those out and leave what he believed was the truest and most correct account of Jesus' life.

Also, evidence shows that these writings happened before 70 AD, so we have good reason to believe that they are accurate and likely more so than other writings of that period.

And we're not talking about "20 or so" witnesses, but at times 4,000 or 5,000 or so persons present to hear Jesus.


This is a biased assumption if you're implying that Christians are by necessity deluded. Is this something you are able to empirically prove? And if you're just going to flippantly dismiss it, why should we even bother trying to convince you?


Then don't believe them. If you KNOW something to be false, the good sense thing to do is not believe it. But at the same time, you are remiss if you fail to consider any grain of truth to what they say. Maybe they're wrong about the physical world. Fair enough. You know more about something they don't. Do they know something YOU don't about God? If you are right about what you know, and if they are right about what they know, don't they deserve just as much a listening ear as you believe that you do?

Look, I'll be the first to admit I'm not very good at framing my own arguments. I tend to stick with things I know something about, so maybe eventually I'll get better about it. I'm not going out of my way to speak out against evolution except to simply say "I have some doubts." That's it. And I don't think I'm being blatantly dishonest, and I haven't used quote-mined sources against evolution in a LONG time--in years, actually.

All I can say is that evolution does not change central Bible truths--that we are all sinners in need of salvation, Christ died to save us, and Christ rose from the dead to give us hope for eternal life beyond the grave. If you get nothing else from the Bible, at least get that much.

Last edited by AngelRho on 05 Aug 2012, 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

A priori nonsense as usual.

AngelRho, you are so wrong in all your posts and say so many strange things that I can't bother to quote which of my points relates to which of you statements. Therefore, I will just make a list of thoughts your posts have sparked in my mind.

1- I don't claim that God does not exist. This cannot be proven. In the same way, I do not claim that God exists. It cannot be proven either. Any proof would require access to or insight about what exists beyond the material world, which is the only one we can access.

2- So far, science has done a very good job at explaining physical reality. This explanation does not require any divine intervention. This is not a proof that God does not exist. It is simply a proof that God is not required to explain reality.

3- You make very many jumps in your reasonning. First, the fact that God has not been disproved does not mean he is proven. Second, even if the existence of a supramaterial entity creating influencing physical reality were to be proven, this would not be a proof that a) there is only one such entity, b) that this framework of supramaterial-material interactions conforms in any way to the model posited by Christianity and c) that this entity indeed created all the animals, plants, etc. Proving God is proving God, which is a prerequisite of creationism, but it is absolutely not a sufficient for creationism.

4- On the "empty tomb" as a proof... In the 17th century or thereabouts, the Russians succeeded to have three different persons recognized as Dmitri, the very dead heir to the throne. By "recognized", I mean that at least one of them actually became czar. I don't see why any Jew vaguely ressembling Jesus could not have impersonated him -- preferrably after hiding the former body, if he were to lead Jesus's followers to his tomb. A careful reading of the Gospels as a primary source can probably dispel any divine intervention in 1st century Judea.

This is kinda the point I'm trying to make, actually. I mean, it's really not about WHETHER God exists or not, but rather whether someone believes it. The Bible informs us that at different times people had direct experience of God and STILL rejected Him. One always has a choice as to what one finds believable.

If you want someone to believe there is no God, you have to evidence your case (burden of proof). So far, I'm not seeing any evidence of -God, so I feel no need to change my beliefs.

Christians believe that it is self-evident from all of creation that God exists. We believe the evidence that leans in favor of God. Not only that, but our experiences confirm it for us. If there is no God, first of all there should be no evidence of God and no sense of confirmation that our beliefs are justified. Second, we should be easily swayed in believing otherwise if God is false. If you cannot prove -God, you cannot convince a Christian to suspend belief.

That's all you had to say.

But there COULD be.

But it COULD.

But it COULD.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

First off, I'm not trying to prove God exists or prove Christianity is true. Second, the above points only mean that if God COULD be proven, then it is possible that Yahweh is God and the God of the Bible created the heavens and the earth. So the next step is discussing why Yahweh is the God who should be believed. The final step would be discussing why Jesus' atoning sacrifice is necessary and why someone should put their faith in Jesus.

I don't see how this is relevant...

Not really. Jesus appeared to those He spent the most time with, so they could have confirmed or denied that the Jesus they saw was the Jesus they knew before the crucifixion. At least one skeptic among Jesus' inner circle was convinced he'd seen the risen Savior.

Erm, no, it's very clearly a posteriori, and it isn't nonsense. Do you even know what a priori means?

See? See this, people? This is why nobody takes creationists seriously. They can't even get the basic facts of the opposition's arguments right.

I'm going to explain this one, just for everyone else's educational purposes: Evolution is not at all concerned with abiogenesis. What the creationist there doesn't realize, is that the first appearance of life is the realm of abiogenesis, not evolution.

Let it be soundly demonstrated, folks, that AngelRho is hugely ignorant of what evolution is, so debate at your own discretion.

AngelRho- amino acids have been synthesised in recreations of the Earth's early atmosphere. We have a basic understanding of abiogenesis.

I'm well aware of the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. But if you want creationists to believe an alternative origins theory than what they already believe, you're going to have to confront what it is they're really arguing against. Abiogenesis would be a remarkable piece of evidence in favor of terrestrial evolution and quite possibly against creationism. Without addressing origins, you cannot even have evolution.

Let me put it another way. No life=no evolution. If all life evolved from common ancestors, there had to be some event that kicked it off. There are a few credible hypotheses as to how this could occur given the geological age of the earth, the one I find most credible being extra-terrestrial origins. But I'm afraid that whatever would have seeded the planet would have needed to be more abundant for life to appear shortly after the earth's formation. We have yet to find evidence of randomly-formed protein polymers that could even have served the purpose of containing reproducible cell structures for the most primitive life forms. Maybe we'll find something on Mars or on Saturn's moons, or something...

But they have never been demonstrated to spontaneously form protein polymers.

Incorrect. RNA has been found to form from amino acids as a natural chemical reaction without supernatural intervention. RNA is the producer of protein polymers and the basis of DNA. Where is your problem exactly?

The isse will be settled definitely when someone produces a replicating complex structure which operates at far from equilibrium thermodynamic states all from non-living material. That will not necessarily establish how it happened in nature but it will show life from non-life is possible.

Craig Venter's recent work shows we are not far from that.

ruveyn

Why? Which evidence? Which experience?

Examples, quick.


Do not cut my quotes to make them suit your purpose.


Stop!

Please stop!


Stop! Don't do that, please, I implore you. Do not disfigure what I say!


Thank you for stopping that.

I meant to say that proving that a supreme being exists is not to proving creationism.

Actually, there is one wrong "could" in all the ones you applied to my post. God did not create the animals, etc., because all that is accounted for scientifically.



I guess it is technically possible, or rather not actually disproved (because it is impossible to know), but certainly not plausible. Why is this tale more faithful than any other creation tale?

Let's assume, for a moment, that science is wrong. Hypothetical exercice, no evolution, no Big Bang, nothing. Okay? Then, technically, God could have created everything in six days. He could have done so in thirty-seven days, too. He could also have delegated his creation duties to a unicorn subcontractor. He could have created two sub-gods which would each create their own universe, and then each would create two others, etc., creating an infinite series of creators and creations. This is basically all at the same level of possibility as any single claim in the Genesis creation story.

If I am to believe fanciful origins to the world, I would rather have Tolkien's Ainulindalë, which has the benefit of being very poetic -- unlike the Genesis myth, which is full of a cruel and wanton God creating stuff for no reason at all, then gratuitously punishing it periodically, all described in such dullness to make me consider reading fiscal documents for a change. I mean, if it's a question of choosing between untruths...


It's basically the same bogus claim as that of post-resurrection Jesus. "Hello everyone! I am this guy whom you know to be dead. Has anyone got my keys?"


The people he spent the most time with were also those who had the most advantages to recognized Jesus II as the same person. Also, that is obviously what would be said by those who wrote the story afterwards. The Gospels weren't writen in a vacuum.

Last edited by enrico_dandolo on 06 Aug 2012, 7:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

No container for cellular material has ever spontaneously formed. No cell membrane.