What creationists know

[rpenner]

What a sad day it is for Christianity when the idolatry of biblical so-called literalism is being promoted as an alternative to evidence and fact-based reasoning.

But, even with regards to Creationism, the bible has two creation stories. At least one of them must be untruthful.

World-centric, man and woman created at the same time, no garden of Eden, plants on the land created before lights in sky, Sabbath.
Genesis 1:1-2:3

Man-centric, man created first, man created before plants, garden of Eden created before other plants, no Sabbath.
Genesis 2:4-3:21

The rocks tell us the order was lights in the heavens, then plants on the land, then man and woman, which is a third story without evidence of divine action, magic or talking snakes. There may have been divine action and magic and talking snakes, but then apparently evidence for the above does not fossilize well. The rocks give a very detailed history and show that some species which flourished for very long periods of time are not with us, and that new species would arise, similar to preexisting forms but distinct. The rocks also show that rocks from the sky fall from time to time, like the thing that made the crater near the Yucatan.

The pattern of life we see today shows a great deal of relatedness. In fact the tool we use to solve the “Solomon problem” of true parentage is one of the same tools we use to demonstrate this common descent. Furthermore, all the tools, from rocks to DNA show the same pattern. And while rocks and DNA won’t give use exact dates like “The second Thursday of March, 24,040,288 BC” they agree roughly on the same timeline.

Just like the bible’s two different stories show that it contradicts itself, and is unreliable in some respects, the story of the rocks and the DNA could be proven wrong if it contradicted itself. If a human skeleton was found in rocks prior to the K-T boundary, if trilobites were found after the K-T boundary, if there was a fossil of a monkey with feathers or a mammal with a wholly exotic RNA transcription code, if any of these happened it would prove that common descent can’t be the end-all answer to the diversity of forms. But buried in the DNA of every creationist is a genetic mark which exactly resembles the ends of two different ape chromosomes spliced haphazardly together, demonstrating that ape and man had a common ancestor.

Matthew 5:30 strongly suggests that if biblical literalism is harmful to one, then it must be discarded.

(Thank you to the producers of Expelled for supporting this research.)

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

This thread is jokes, I don't have any input though sorry, I am above this level of debate.



peace.

 

[spidergoat]

So where in the bible does it say, "The sun revolved around the earth?" Creationists have always know that the earth is round unlike scientists who didn't know that until they Middle Ages.

...

So water is the life-producing source.

Actually, the pagan Greeks knew the Earth was round back to the 6th century BC, and the Indians possibly before that. There were no actual scientists in the Middle Ages, since the scientific method had not been invented. However, much of what people learned towards the end of the Middle Ages was derived from ancient Greek texts, preserved by the Muslims.

Also, scientists can use deductive reasoning to learn things beyond what they can personally witness.

I happen to agree with you that water is the life-giving source, but that doesn't leave anything for God to do.

 

[Anti-Flag]

Here's what creationists know about the earth and the universe:

1) That the earth was created from water and by water
2) That God created the earth
3) How long it took God to create the earth
4) Why the sun just happens to be positioned the exact distance away from the earth to sustain life on earth
5) The purpose for the stars and moon
6) How man was created and why
7) Why the flesh and bones of man decay into dust
8) How and why animals & humans each reproduce themselves and not other animals
8) How the earth and all living things will end
9) What happens after humans die
10) That there is a God and who He is

That's just the tip of the iceberg of what creationists know. Scientists know NONE of the above which is why they're constantly exploring and always will continue to do so.

Ok, so answer me this;

If I open my closet am I going to find my favourite shirt? Just thought I'd ask before I look because you seem to fucking know everything.

 

[Carico]

What a sad day it is for Christianity when the idolatry of biblical so-called literalism is being promoted as an alternative to evidence and fact-based reasoning.

"Fact-based" reasoning? So where has anyone ever observed a monkey turn into a human? NOWHERE. So not only is that not a fact, it's not even logical.

Where has anyone ever observed the world covered in ice? Nowhere. So you need to learn the difference between facts and the imagination.

 

[Carico]

Ok, so answer me this;

If I open my closet am I going to find my favourite shirt? Just thought I'd ask before I look because you seem to fucking know everything.

Sounds like jealousy to me. I don't get mad at scientists who claim to be omniscient enough to disagree with God on how the world was created and how man was formed and what happened billions of years before they were born. I don't get mad at them because I know they're not omniscient enough to know those things. So why do you get mad at me...unless you know I'm right?

So since only God knows everything, then whenever I agree with God I'm always right. And if you want to be right too, then all you have to do is agree with God. But if you always want to be wrong, then all you have to do is disagree with God. It's that simple.

 

[spidergoat]

Since when has anyone ever observed God? Face it, it's not a fact, just your imagination.

 

[rpenner]

I wrote:

What a sad day it is for Christianity when the idolatry of biblical so-called literalism is being promoted as an alternative to evidence and fact-based reasoning.

Only to see a demonstration of the alternative to evidence and fact-based reasoning:

"Fact-based" reasoning? So where has anyone ever observed a monkey turn into a human? NOWHERE. So not only is that not a fact, it's not even logical.

Using that definition of "fact" nothing in the Bible is a fact. But it's a poor definition of "fact" that would require me to produce an eyewitness for every event in history. And the reasoning is nowhere to be found in your post, only empty rhetoric.

And while I didn't mention monkeys, I did compare your DNA to that of apes, which is a clear assertion of fact. That fact either has to be explained in the context of a comprehensive scientific theory or shown to be in error. You did neither.

Where has anyone ever observed the world covered in ice? Nowhere.

Well, I don't think anyone is asserting that the world was covered in ice in the roughly 2 million years of human presence. While certainly much of Europe and North America was covered with glaciers in that time frame, I neither brought this up nor did I confuse the greatly expanded glaciers to "the world".

But in those areas of Europe and North America (at least) are features which only the action of large ice sheets can explain.

So you need to learn the difference between facts and the imagination.

Well for one, the facts are immutable and self-consistent for we all live in the same universe. Facts exists independent of ones belief or acceptance of them. And the Bible is a work of the imagination which is why it is self-contradictory. And the Bible as it exists in many peoples minds is also imaginary since people disagree as to its core message and the details of that message.

But, you didn't even begin to address even an imaginary way in which those two different creation stories should be reconciled, thus my point remains unsullied:

At least one of them must be untruthful.

 

[Carico]

Using that definition of "fact" nothing in the Bible is a fact. But it's a poor definition of "fact" that would require me to produce an eyewitness for every event in history. And the reasoning is nowhere to be found in your post, only empty rhetoric.

Oh really? then what's the real history of the Jews? I'd love to hear your account of their history from your imagination. It appears that you believe that the Jews did nothing but sit on the ground all day and make up a fictitious history of their ancestors. Sorry, friend, but the history of the Jews is no different than the history of any other nation. So all you have to do is visit Israel to see that the same towns mentioned in the bible still exist today and they all have a history. So you need to base your claims on research rather than your imagination.

And while I didn't mention monkeys, I did compare your DNA to that of apes, which is a clear assertion of fact. That fact either has to be explained in the context of a comprehensive scientific theory or shown to be in error. You did neither.

So why don't humans ever breed baby apes? Or don't you know? Sorry friend, but claiming that we have ape DNA is as imaginary as claiming that we have alien DNA. So look at my last post in the evolution thread in Biology and genetics to see why animal and human DNA is similar and it has NOTHING to do with animals & humans being able to breed each other as offspring. Evolutionists are one of the most confused bunch of people that ever walked the earth.

But in those areas of Europe and North America (at least) are features which only the action of large ice sheets can explain.

Forests can explain that the earth was once covered with trees as well. So looking at ice-bergs and imagining they once covered the earth is as imaginary as looking at a forest and imagining they once covered the earth as well. The imagination is not evidence. Sorry.

 

[Anti-Flag]

Sounds like jealousy to me. I don't get mad at scientists who claim to be omniscient enough to disagree with God on how the world was created and how man was formed and what happened billions of years before they were born. I don't get mad at them because I know they're not omniscient enough to know those things. So why do you get mad at me...unless you know I'm right?

I don't see the point being mad at trolls. Although if you're actually serious I do pity you. After finding your nonsensical blissful ignorance highly amusing of course.

So since only God knows everything, then whenever I agree with God I'm always right. And if you want to be right too, then all you have to do is agree with God. But if you always want to be wrong, then all you have to do is disagree with God. It's that simple.

That's what every religion says, and yet they can't even agree amongst themselves. God seems a little confused. What kind of god gets confused?

 

[spidergoat]

Oh really? then what's the real history of the Jews? ...

It's all called history, but that doesn't make it all equally factual. Modern archeological research indicates that there was no exodus from Egypt. I think the Jews did sit around and make up stories about their history, remember, they had no TV.

So why don't humans ever breed baby apes? Or don't you know?

Science does not predict that they would. Humans are a rather special kind of ape with bipedal walking and a large brain. The transition between the common ancestor of both chimps and man, and modern humans took an estimated 5 million years.

Sorry friend, but claiming that we have ape DNA is as imaginary as claiming that we have alien DNA.

Our DNA sequence contains many similarities with that of apes, more than that of any other animal on Earth.

So look at my last post in the evolution thread in Biology and genetics to see why animal and human DNA is similar and it has NOTHING to do with animals & humans being able to breed each other as offspring.

They cannot produce viable offspring (at least, no one has tried it to my knowledge), that is the definition of separate species.

Evolutionists are one of the most confused bunch of people that ever walked the earth.

Projection on your part. You are ignorant and try to make up for it with arrogance.

Forests can explain that the earth was once covered with trees as well. So looking at ice-bergs and imagining they once covered the earth is as imaginary as looking at a forest and imagining they once covered the earth as well. The imagination is not evidence. Sorry.

Agreed, imagination is not evidence. But, evidence is evidence. Glaciers make distinct impressions on the landscape they travel over. Such indications are found where today there are no glaciers. The conclusion is that there was once a climate that could be called an Ice Age.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

My Uncle : Do you believe you came from monkeys?
Me : Do you believe you came from dirt?

 

[nova900]

Oh really? then what's the real history of the Jews? I'd love to hear your account of their history from your imagination. It appears that you believe that the Jews did nothing but sit on the ground all day and make up a fictitious history of their ancestors. Sorry, friend, but the history of the Jews is no different than the history of any other nation. So all you have to do is visit Israel to see that the same towns mentioned in the bible still exist today and they all have a history. So you need to base your claims on research rather than your imagination.
.

UNBIASED research is the key. In other words don't trust one source that claims they are a "chosen people" and believe their accounts to be completely truthfull.People who promote themselves as better than all else are apt to embellish their own history to make it appear more grandiose than it actually was.

 

[Michael]

Just fixing that for you

Haaa!

 

[Pandaemoni]

Then by your reasoning, Jesus is Lord because we say so since we don't have to have witnesses of his life and death.

Religion may have addled you, son. Logic does not require that you have seen things with your own eyes to accept them. Using logic to parse what that means though, you *cannot* conclude that we should believe in anything whatsoever. You don't need to see it, but you do need compelling evidence in order for it to be logical to believe in a thing.

Unfortunately I do not think the Bible's truth meets that test.

But we DO have witnesses!

The gospel authors, most scholars agree, were not witnesses. So what we have is not "witnesses" it's "hearsay" we know a guy who claims he knows a guy who saw Jesus alive after the crucifixion. That is evidence of His having risen, it's just not very compelling. The only evidence we have for the resurrection is hearsay, some of which may be hearsay. Eyewitnesses are notorious bad evidence, hearsay is a few steps worse than that.

But no one has ever witnessed an ape turning into a human,

No one witnessed the formation of the earth either, but I am reasonably confident it exists. Now, you may be thinking "God witnessed it" and from your perspective, right you are, but invoking an unwitnessed being (so far as anyone can prove) to witness an otherwise unwitnessed event is ludicrous. Or, better yet:

But no one has ever witnessed an ape turning into a human,

God did. So did Vishnu, so I have two witnesses. Case closed.

nor is it logical since each species reproduces itself

This is so illogical that I am now convinced you are not serious. This is a logical fallacy, a kind of "begging the question." Let's assume that you observe an ATM. You see the ATM spit out $20 bills over and over and over. One day you see a friend upset claiming that the machine shortchanged him by giving him a $10 bill. Would you claim that it is illogical for him to believe he received a $10 bill on the grounds that, so far as you've seen, ATM's only produce $20s? Apparently you would.

If you assume species only produce themselves, then it becomes impossible for them to produce anything else. But species do not produce themselves exactly. They produce something that is in general like themselves, but that if (at least slightly) different from the parent. That is even true of asexual reproducers, but it is obvious enough that you are not an identical clone of either of your parents.

Imagine that your parents were born into (and well adapted to) of hot and moist environment, but as an adult you find that you have been transported to the Arctic with your people. There it is cold and arid, and there is not much direct sunlight. Under selective pressure you'd have to be an idiot to think that your offspring would not better adapt to the cold. What changes about them are the relative levels of expression of different genes, and over long periods of time the genes themselves.

The question is: why do you believe there is a magic and invisible line? Species can change this much, but no more? What stops them? God? He'd have to, as there is no know biochemical brake on the process on mutation and natural selection. Imagine that through this process our genes could change 0.2% different from our distant ancestors and never more...okay that likely is within the same species. What if the limit is 5%? How do you know it isn't? You know whose DNA is 95% the same as ours? Chimpanzees.

That no one ever saw it is irrelevant because the other evidence is compelling. Again it's not just wild speculation. Once upon a time it was just speculation, but the precise kinds of evidence that Darwin predicted we would find, like the transition fossils, have been found. Evidence that Darwin would never have dreamed of, like DNA, tracked what we would expect too. For example, chimps and man: very similar DNA. Man and monkeys: less similar, but still close. And you can cross compare with any species (including plants) and the level of variation lines up nicely with what you'd expect. Moreover you can do that between any two species and it lines up well.

Worse for your side, if God designed us, He sucks at designing. Women's narrow hips greatly increase the risks of death in childbirth because of our wide skulls. Our knees and hips are terrible and prone to injury because they are not well adapted to bipedal motion, in the sense that there are improvements that seem somewhat obvious to a number of people, and God missed them or built them in intentionally. (In that sense, i see modern humans as a transition fossil...not quite perfectly adapted to bipedal motion yet.) Our brains fail us as we age. Why? God couldn't design a better memory system? We are prone to countless genetic anomalies, many of which can kill us as small children, before we can possibly have accepted Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior. The human body is a marvel overall, but on an item by item level, you have to concede there's room for improvement.

So near as I can tell the only response to the infirmities of the human body and the illnesses to which we are subject is: "God works in mysterious ways." But that's a cop out. If you hired a roofer and he fixed up 95% of your roof, doing an amazing job, and let the rain leak in through the holes he put in the remaining 5%, you would not accept, "Roofers' work in mysterious ways," as an excuse for his bad work product.

Sure, apes don't give birth to men, that is irrelevant as no one ever said they did. Apes do give birth to *very* slightly more erect walking apes, those apes sometimes do the same, and their offspring may do the sale, over and over with each generation advancing the ball more than they backtrack (in certain lines of descent at least). In the course of eons, some ape who *very nearly* walks-upright give birth to an ape who walks truly upright, albeit it stresses on their hips and knee joints, as those may still not be perfectly adapted to bipedalism.

nor have any ancient peoples passed along accounts of our ape ancestors.

Ancient peoples did not see God's formation of the Earth, so I suppose that makes their account of it in Genesis a...a...

What are the words I am looking for? Where you write about something that you never saw and never happened, but sounded like a neat story to the author...it's on the tip of my tongue...

total and complete fairy tale

THAT'S it! Thanks so much.

since it can't be verified by logic

It can and has.

, witnesses

Neither can your God

or reality.

Says the man who believe in a magic boat that's big enough to hold two of every animal (where did Noah get polar bears and platypuses? Not to mention the 5 to 8 million different species of beetle...he must have had a separate ark just for the beetles)

In fact, it's an embarrassment to mankind that so many people can be so easily duped into believing a theory as bizarre and impossible as evolution is,

But carpenters who can turn water into wine and convert bread into his own flesh, you're cool with that? That's all true? A god who kills 42 small children because they sass his favorite priest by making fun of his being bald? No, no, not only kills them, but has them savaged by "she bears"? You are not embarrassed by that? Bible stories that expect a thinking human being to believe that Moses created a magical brass serpent that, if you just saw it rendered you immune to snake venom, or better, that Jonah was swallowed by and lived inside a whale, sitting and praying inside its stomach for three days?

How many Israelites wandered in the Sinai? You know we can find archaeological evidence of small encampments of groups as small as 10-20 travelers in that desert, and there is no serious physical evidence of a group as large as the Bible supposes ever having wandered there, let alone for 40 years.

You accept these stories on faith and that's fine, as logic and empiricism is nit the end all and be all path in epistemology, but don't pretend that the logic and evidence are on your side, because it makes you look dumb.

And that's precisely why no one knows who the common ancestor is, or the first speaking man because they're as imaginary as the fable itself it. Sorry.

Yes, I prefer my fable based on empirical evidence to yours based on faith in a Magic Story Book that is never wrong.

 

[rpenner]

Ancient peoples did not see God's formation of the Earth, so I suppose that makes their account of it in Genesis a...a...

What are the words I am looking for? Where you write about something that you never saw and never happened, but sounded like a neat story to the author...it's on the tip of my tongue...

total and complete fairy tale

THAT'S it! Thanks so much.

Suggested correction: "their accounts of it in Genesis"

I have no problem with a book having two different stories depicting the same event if they are allegorical and meant to teach a lesson, but you can't have two factual stories telling about the one-time creation of men, plants and lights in the heavens and tell them in a different order. Since they are happening in the same place, order is immutable. So the problem which is unique to the biblical literalist is how can both be true at once?

I submit that they can't both be true and this is an intentional warning sticker not to fall into the anti-intellectual trap of beliving that the Bible is literally true.

 

[Carico]

I have no problem with a book having two different stories depicting the same event if they are allegorical and meant to teach a lesson, but you can't have two factual stories telling about the one-time creation of men, plants and lights in the heavens and tell them in a different order. Since they are happening in the same place, order is immutable.

There aren't two different stories. There's only one story. genesis 1 tells us that God created men, women and animals and Genesis 2 tells us how God did it. So all you have to look at is the order in genesis 1.

 

[spidergoat]

Nobody saw God write that, so it must be someone's imagination.

 

[rpenner]

There aren't two different stories. There's only one story. genesis 1 tells us that God created men, women and animals and Genesis 2 tells us how God did it. So all you have to look at is the order in genesis 1.

Unlike a novel, the author of Genesis did not supply the chapter marks you speak of. Catholics, Protestents and Jews chop up these books in various manners, because their orginal form is not interrupted. http://documents.fuller.edu/ministry/berean/chs_vss.htm But reading, the Genesis 1 story continues into first verses of chapter 2 and the the second story flows seemlessly into chapter 3 and both discuss the order of these things. (Links are active if you don't have a Bible nearby.)

But, even with regards to Creationism, the bible has two creation stories. At least one of them must be untruthful.

World-centric, man and woman created at the same time, no garden of Eden, plants on the land created before lights in sky, Sabbath.
Genesis 1:1-2:3

Man-centric, man created first, man created before plants, garden of Eden created before other plants, no Sabbath.
Genesis 2:4-3:21

 

[Pandaemoni]

Oh really? then what's the real history of the Jews? I'd love to hear your account of their history from your imagination. It appears that you believe that the Jews did nothing but sit on the ground all day and make up a fictitious history of their ancestors. Sorry, friend, but the history of the Jews is no different than the history of any other nation. So all you have to do is visit Israel to see that the same towns mentioned in the bible still exist today and they all have a history. So you need to base your claims on research rather than your imagination.

There is plenty of evidence that the Jews are, in fact, an offshoot of the Canaanites that developed in that region rather than emigrating there. I think you need to do more research, and outside the Bible this time.

In fact, well before the archeological record established that the Hewbrews esisted at all, the Ugarit Canaanites worshipped the god El (also known as Eloah) who had 70 sons, each of whom rules a nation. Eloah and his many sons were called Elohim. One of the sons of El was a deity named "Yahweh". (Other sons of El included Baal, Dagon and othes who made appearances in the Bible.) Eventually the Canaanite tradition split and Yahweh rose to prominence in certain regions (as a sort of patron deity), while El retained his overall rulership in the Ugarit patheon.

Not only is biological evolution true, but so is cultural evolution. The monotheist Jews did not arise through some divine inspiration of a single person, but show clear development from the pre-existing Canaanite traditions, especially those derived from Ugarit.

See, e.g., http://phoenicia.org/ugarbibl.html or search around, as there are no shortage of sources on the topic.

As for town names being the same as they were in the Bible...wht does that prove? I mean when Washington Irving wrote his A History of New-York from the Beginning of the World to the End of the Dutch Dynasty, under the pseudonym Diedrich Knickerbocker, there was no doubt to anyone that he was making up a fictional history of New York out of his imagination but OMG HE GOT THE STREET NAMES RIGHT IT MUST BE ALL TRUE!!!!11!!! He even got some details right about the city before he was born, part guess-work, part knowing the city well. If the Jews were constructing a mythological past for themselves, as the Greeks did with the Illiad, the Romans with the Aeneid, and the Finns did with the Kalevala, of course they'll use real place names that they know and names that they have heard in legends (that may be based on real names or not).