Creationism vs. science

MRC_Hans

Skeptic
Registered Senior Member
Although this makes for a long post, allow me to present my

case properly:

As you will probably know, some people for religious reasons believe that life on Earth, including Homo Sapiens, did not evolve in the way that science has found. Instead, they believe that the explanation in the Bible (Genesis) must be taken literally.

This implies that Earth and all life forms, including Man, were created by God in six days. No evolution took place since. A close scrutiny of the Bible also reveals a more or less continous cronolgy, enabling scolars to date Creation. Most scolars agree that Creation took place a little over 6,000 years ago.

In a free world, anybody is entitled to his/her beliefs, so some people believing the above would really pose no problem, except for the fact that some are not content to believe; they also feel the need to try to convince others. For this purpose they, ironically, summond the science that they have otherwise denounced.They exploit the fact that, unlike religious beliefs, it is the nature of science never to be completely certain.

However, once Creationists (I use this term, somewhat incorrectly, to cover all who advocate a literal interpretation of Genesis) have moved into the realm of scientific argumentation, they naturally expose their own beliefs to the harsh light of Logic. Lets examine some of the allegations:

Earth with all its life forms were created more or less in its present shape in six days.

- Well it couldnt have taken much longer because, given the sequence of creation outlined, most ecosystems would have been unable to exist for long while being incomplete.

But the world is a strange construction if it must be viewed as an engineering feat. The complex and often fragile ecosystems seem to be an unsafe way to ensure the survival of life-forms. The unstable DNA system seems better suited for change than for preservation of species. The whole setup with food-chains, predators, parasites, harsh competition between life forms, etc. is surprisingly wasteful and cruel if its supposed to be designed as it is by a benevolent god.

Most plants, nearly all mushrooms and fungii, and numerous animals and micro-organisms depend on various dead material for nourishment. Did God create dead plants and animals for them to feed on in the beginning?

Man was created last and on the last day, but several parasites to man (including infectuous micro organisms) cannot survive for more than a few minutes outside the human organism. How did they manage till their host was created?

Earth was created 6.000 years ago.

Most geological structures have all indications of being vastly older, e.g. conglomerate rocks that consist of fragments of mountains that have been eroded down, sedimented in the sea (as shown by sea fossil inclusions), petrified, and can now be found high above sea level in the process of being eroded again. How can that have happened in 6.000 years? Or did God deliberately create them that way to lead scientists astray?

Fossils. Never mind the few spectacular hominids and giant dinosaurs, but we find whole mountain ranges built from the
fossil remains of near-microscopic sea creatures,
intersperced with fossils of billions of larger sea creatures, all extinct. How did these creatures manage to live, die, be sedimented, fossilized, and be pushed up into mountain ranges now in an advanced condition of erosion in 6.000 years?

How come we can see the stars? Most stars are more than
6.000 light-years from us. How can their light have reached
us yet?

--- I could go on, but this post is already far too long.

If Genesis is to be taken as the literal Truth, then the
world around us is filled with built-in deceptions and we
cannot believe anything our senses tell us.

Hans
 
Another interesting bit of trivia

It is estimated that of all the species of living organisms on Earth that ever existed, well over 90% (by some calculations, 99.9%!) are extinct. A tad wasteful, for a deliberate creation...
 
Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Most scolars agree that Creation took place a little over 6,000 years ago.

Just out of curiosity………How could they know?

1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Earth with all its life forms were created more or less in its present shape in six days.

- Well it couldnt have taken much longer because, given the sequence of creation outlined, most ecosystems would have been unable to exist for long while being incomplete.


So you are using the bible literally to expose the fallacy of the whole thing right?

How can that have happened in 6.000 years? Or did God deliberately create
them that way to lead scientists astray?


Where does it say in the Bible that the earth was created 6000 years ago?

If Genesis is to be taken as the literal Truth, then the
world around us is filled with built-in deceptions and we
cannot believe anything our senses tell us.


I think you should study Genisis, if you are prepared to look at it literally, it appears you have missed out some bits.

Love

Jan

Ardena.
 
First of all, I don't think the Bible stated that the earth was created 6,000 years ago. Simply, those are the words of asinine creationists. One day religion will fall and will society function better without it... Yes, but there will be certainly more crimes. Religion is a positive way to keep those who do not know what to believe in in a beneficial behavior for society.

I personally do not resent religion, let them believe what they want. Whichever makes them happy, I believe people should learn to make their own decision when they grasp the notion to choose what to believe in, when the mind is mature enough to comprehend instead of thinking in one direction.

A while back, I've debated with some 14-18 year olds about religion. I was the only one by myself against all these believers. It was a good experience actually, but to them, it was horrendous for a person like me to have no faith in religion. I've tried to persuade them, heck, I even asked each of them for their beliefs, and most likely they differ from one another. But in the end, a 15 year old girl said she would never stop believing no matter what. She even stated I was unreasonable along with many others. I even said you can't claim your conviction to be right over mines. I proved to them they were being close-minded. But still they did not listen. I used to be like her, very strong believer, but once you get in touch with science and logic, it all will change. And I told her it will for her also, but she didn't listen. That's my experience and I refuse to ever challenge others again on religion unless I have some aide also, or unless they challenge me or speak crap of religion, such as many creationists that say the earth began 6,000 years ago. If you're the minority, people will speak vilely of you since your conviction and sentiment are different from theirs. And that is basically the immature status of the human mind.
 
hey, I'm with you.

we can go together and support eachother during a hot debate

just be careful you are not converted:D
 
Jan Ardena:

On the 6.000 year chronology: Well, through Genesis runs a "family three" -- Adam had a son at such and such age etc. I have not studied it in detail, but lots of theologists have, and apparantly it adds up to a little over 6.000 years.

So you are using the bible literally to expose the fallacy of the whole thing right?

No, I'm challenging exactly those that claim that the Bible should be used literally.

Most Cristians feel that the Bible should be understood on a grand level, not in literal detail. I'm not challenging that.

I think you should study Genisis, if you are prepared to look at it literally, it appears you have missed out some bits.

As I have said, I am arguing that it should NOT be taken literally. I've studied it, and there are lots of other things I might bring forward in the discussion, like various contradictions, omissions, etc.

I know some people want to take the Bible less literally, but still adhere to the Creation bit: Six days for God might be millions of years to us, etc. but by the time that begins to hold logic, it has also become virtually indistinguishable from evolution.

I dont consider myself an atheist, I dont deny the existense of a creator, I just believe that creation was done by creating the framework for Life to evolve in.

Hans
 
Originally posted by Avatar
hey, I'm with you.

we can go together and support eachother during a hot debate

just be careful you are not converted:D

haha they'll never convert me back. You could just see through it all with logic.
 
Where is this 6,000 year old earth crap derived from?

This number derived from the almost pattern like dates in the bible. Also this number is commonly thrown around by preachers, and preists.

A close scrutiny of the Bible also reveals a more or less continous cronolgy, enabling scolars to date Creation. Most scolars agree that Creation took place a little over 6,000 years ago.

With some indepth research online you will be able to find some information on the orgins of this number!
 
Adam and Eve

Simple enough, Adam and Eve have a lineage that some priests have combined with known dates of supposed relatives. This stuff is all pretty intuitive. Trace them all from Adam to Abraham on and you get 6,000 years. That's just a guess, but I cannot think of any other way.
 
Originally posted by MRC_Hans
On the 6.000 year chronology: Well, through Genesis runs a "family three" -- Adam had a son at such and such age etc. I have not studied it in detail, but lots of theologists have, and apparantly it adds up to a little over 6.000 years.

Genisis 1:27 God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them,
male and female he created them.

In chapter 2, it says,


Genisis 2:7 The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

If you read the first two chapters of Genisis, it appears that God had formed mankind before He formed Adam..

Could they be 2 different times?

It also says,

Genisis 2:1 The heavens and the earth were completed with everything that was in them. 2:2 By the seventh day God finished the work that he had been doing, and he ceased on the seventh day all the work that he had been doing. 2:3 God blessed the seventh day and made it holy because on it he ceased all the work that he had been doing in creation.

Then,

Genisis 2:4 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.

This is why you cannot take the word of scholars, because they do not understand the nature of God, and only calculate from their own relative percpective.
Before any calculations begin, some understanding of God’s nature should be taken into account. Unfortunately the Bible does not go into that too much. But the bible is not the only scripture.

It say’s,

Genisis 1:26 Then God said, "Let US make mankind in our image, after our likeness,….

Here we can see that God is not alone, he has already created. You see it is very difficult just understanding God, never mind His creation, so I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on what so-called experts say. :)

No, I'm challenging exactly those that claim that the Bible should be used literally.

Its very hard to use it literally if it is not understood, the best method is to try and understand the nature of God. :(

Most Christians feel that the Bible should be understood on a grand level, not in literal detail. I'm not challenging that.

What do you say? :)

As I have said, I am arguing that it should NOT be taken literally. I've studied it, and there are lots of other things I might bring forward in the discussion, like various contradictions, omissions, etc.

Try and understand God’s nature first, it will be a lot simpler. ;)

Six days for God might be millions of years to us, etc. but by the time that begins to hold logic, it has also become virtually indistinguishable from evolution.

Which creation though, it appears there are 2 creations?
Don’t worry about evolution, it is only a theory, and a poor one at that. That thought is probably holding you back from the truth.

I just believe that creation was done by creating the framework for Life to evolve in.

As in the “theory of evolution?” :bugeye:

Love

Jan Ardena.
 
Jan Ardena wrote:

Try and understand God’s nature first, it will be a lot simpler. ;)
God, who? A gentleman named Stephen Roberts made a rather insightful observation when he wrote:
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

-- Stephen Roberts, quoted from Rob Fenton, in a letter to Cliff Walker (September 29, 2000)
Jan Ardena wrote:

Which creation though, it appears there are 2 creations?
You might find The Documentary Hypothesis: Evidence to be of some interest. The referenced book by R. E. Friedman is also quite good.
Jan Ardena wrote:

Don’t worry about evolution, it is only a theory, and a poor one at that. That thought is probably holding you back from the truth.
You are, of course, kidding I trust. :D
 
She?

Is Jan Ardena a girl?

Why do I always think I am talking to men??

Avatar, what's your favorite brand of make up? :D
 
Jan is one of those unique individuals who believes she and she alone holds the ultimate truth and it's some odd mix of the few religions she has studied in depth. Don't bother giving her actual evidence of anything contrary to her view, it's useless to her unless you have a personal relationship with her god and understand entirely her god and accept unquestionably her god. Such is Jan.
 
Jan is one of those unique individuals who believes she and she alone holds the ultimate truth and it's some odd mix of the few religions she has studied in depth. Don't bother giving her actual evidence of anything contrary to her view, it's useless to her unless you have a personal relationship with her god and understand entirely her god and accept unquestionably her god. Such is Jan.

She (?? :) ) is not.

I've had long talks with her (!!?), and she (stop it!) is really open to all kinds of stuff.

She doesn't force anything, she just asks questions and considers the value of scripture.

It is very open minded of her to study different scriptures and comparing them.
 
Avatar, what's your favorite brand of make up?
do I look girlish inmy photo/avatar?:bugeye:


She is not.
I very well remember A4Ever
particullary one discussion at religion forum long ago (don't remember the title)
I thought I was going mad

you haven't touched the right string yet
 
ohhhhhhhhhhh my (too bad there are no expletives without "holy" references...)

Well,
I don't exactly want to debate with "believers". I consider people who take the bible literally to be, bluntly, idiots and fanatic dumb@s$es.
But before we use the bible to debate anything, where did the bible come from anyway? Obviously it was not written by god, or was it. I am no theologist, so why dont you believers tell me where YOU think (or in your case probably, know) where the bible came from.
It is my -belief- that the bible has been writen by many many people and passed down by many generations and changed and translated. Who authorizes the bible to be any sort of historical truth?

Anyway it is sort of pointless to argue with belivers because the whole point of literal religion is to believe without proof (which to many people is insane) while science is about prooving and understanding rather than taking things for granted (although many people who think they know science DO take things for granted and things that teachers say for truth).

But for "creationalists" who dont believe in evolution, that is just sad. Im sorry, but saying that evolution is just a theory (which it is), but saying that it is a poor theory is a nieve thing to say.
Anyone that thinks evolution is not a feasible theory is definately not educated for more than 10 minutes worth of evolution theory and research and facts and proof.

As part of my extremely open-minded yet critical beliefs, I do believe that there can be a god, but with the only circumstance that "H"e set up this world with many fossils and false clues to lead us astray. Or that "H"e made earth long before bibles creation and set it up so that it turns out with fossils and evolution on its own.


But as for those sad folks that have no evolutionary understanding, you MUST know that evolution is happening right now.
NO, not at incomprehensibly slow speeds, but quickly. Where do you think all these viruses with immunities come from? They arent a batch that survived the virus killing chemicals we swallow! They are the natuarally genetically altered one that could live long enough to multiply into millions and billions of evolved viruses.

Im not going to go much further, but I do know that there is not much PROOF that god exists. Faith is just a different way of thinking about it. But when faith comes up in contradiction to proof, we have problems.

BiTe Frencheneesz
 
Originally posted by Tyler

Jan is one of those unique individuals who believes she and she alone holds the ultimate truth and it's some odd mix of the few religions she has studied in depth.
I assume that "the few religions she has studied in depth" do not include the Judeo-Christian ones. :)
 
Back
Top