0
   

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

 
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2007 04:51 am
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=86967&start=1910

Here you go. Go and dribble your trash to your heart's content.
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2007 07:17 am
rosborne979 wrote:
But in general, the term 'creationism' typically refers to the fundamentalist interpretation of biblical creation, ie, seven literal days, Adam and Eve, talking snake, man from dust, etc.


I prefer not to get caught up in many of the 'fundamental' details that both neo & RL cover quite well. I enjoy studying many of those issues when time permits, but do not consider myself to be a scholar.

rosborne979 wrote:
...If the only evidence you find for a creation event is what we find in nature, then you are essentially agreeing with science, the Big Bang and Evolution, and you're just proposing that God started it all. And that's a very different form of creationism than strict biblical fundamentalism.


Your description above is mostly accurate as to my thoughts on creationism. I have minor disagreements with your description, however in the big picture - this is my position.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2007 07:48 am
baddog1 wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
...If the only evidence you find for a creation event is what we find in nature, then you are essentially agreeing with science, the Big Bang and Evolution, and you're just proposing that God started it all. And that's a very different form of creationism than strict biblical fundamentalism.


Your description above is mostly accurate as to my thoughts on creationism. I have minor disagreements with your description, however in the big picture - this is my position.

Ok. Fair enough. That helps a bit. Your belief seems to be closer to theistic evolution that fundamentalist biblical creationism.

You mentioned differences on "The Big Picture", can you be more specific?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2007 08:54 am
rosborne979 wrote:
. . . fundamentalist biblical creationism. . .
This is another problem with the original post. Not only are there many acceptable forms of evidence, ranging from laboratory grade scientific to hearsay, but there are also many definitions for creationism.

Wilso's demand for evidence seems to fall into the most strict 'laboratory grade' variety, for which it is known that correlations of less than 100% are often considered acceptable. So, even the most carefully controlled experiments will produce less than certain results. Add to that the caveat that correlation does not imply causation, and even the most dearly accepted facts of evolution become tenets of faith.

I do not consider myself a believer in "fundamentalist biblical creationism", whatever that is; and I am willing to accept hearsay and anecdotal evidence that I may personally test against my observation of the world.

In this respect, all I can offer to this thread is my service as gadfly.

Which I offer gleefully. :wink:
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2007 09:02 am
Wilso wrote:
. . . This thread was started because one of your deranged lunatic creationist brethren refused to provide his evidence of creationism on a thread discussing evolution. So why don't you take your worthless trash to that thread, and spend your time on this one providing some evidence for poofism you pathetic f@cking loser.
Wilso wrote:
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=86967&start=1910

Here you go. Go and dribble your trash to your heart's content.
We loves ya Wilso:
http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/cheekkiss.gif
0 Replies
 
theMadJW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2007 09:18 am
neologist wrote:
Perhaps it senses your madness


That's IT!
0 Replies
 
theMadJW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2007 09:28 am
OOOOOOOOOOOO, the truth about the Fallacy of the Evolution THEORY hurts!

But he also is correct concerning the Ridiculous CHURCH version of Creation, which is seriously ignorant of the details found right there in Genesis:

1-The Earth already existed when the Creative Days began. (Supported by science's guesses as to the age of the planet)

2-The "Day"s were NOT 24 hour days (the sun is formed on the 3rd Day- the previous light coming from another source), as shown below:

Gen 2:4-These are the histories of the heavens and the earth, when they were created, in the day that Jehovah Elohim made earth and heavens. (Darby)


http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x161/theMadEntity/earth-1.jpg
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2007 09:39 am
So I assume you agree that the trees and plants were created before the sun, moon and stars.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2007 09:57 am
xingu wrote:
So I assume you agree that the trees and plants were created before the sun, moon and stars.
Add the words 'became apparent' to that sentence. I wasn't there, but I have heard that the earth's atmosphere was originally opaque. To any observer, the sun and moon would appear to have been created.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2007 10:04 am
neologist wrote:
xingu wrote:
So I assume you agree that the trees and plants were created before the sun, moon and stars.
Add the words 'became apparent' to that sentence. I wasn't there, but I have heard that the earth's atmosphere was originally opaque. To any observer, the sun and moon would appear to have been created.


As I have mentioned before the only possible observer would be God. Man was not yet created. So I ask you; God didn't know when he created the sun, moon and stars?

I may also mention the the human author of Genesis, and there may be more than one, wasn't there and had no science background what so ever. So we have to ask ourselves where did he or they come up with this story about creation. For that manner where did any tribes creation story (and there are hundreds of them) come from?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2007 10:18 am
xingu wrote:
neologist wrote:
xingu wrote:
So I assume you agree that the trees and plants were created before the sun, moon and stars.
Add the words 'became apparent' to that sentence. I wasn't there, but I have heard that the earth's atmosphere was originally opaque. To any observer, the sun and moon would appear to have been created.


As I have mentioned before the only possible observer would be God. Man was not yet created. So I ask you; God didn't know when he created the sun, moon and stars?

I may also mention the the human author of Genesis . . . wasn't there . . . and had no science background what so ever. . .
Nothing is said about how Moses received the stories of Genesis, but if God had dictated the information, he would have said so. We are left only with Moses own words, beginning with Genesis 1:1 which says "In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth." All this was in place before day 1.

Interestingly, the bible speaks again of this early time in Proverbs chapter 8.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2007 10:25 am
All right so I guess your going to make me read the Bible. Have to do it later; got to work on the garden.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2007 10:36 am
xingu wrote:
All right so I guess your going to make me read the Bible. Have to do it later; got to work on the garden.
Interesting that one of our greatest sources of relaxation is the garden, don't you think?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2007 02:38 pm
neologist wrote:
xingu wrote:
All right so I guess your going to make me read the Bible. Have to do it later; got to work on the garden.
Interesting that one of our greatest sources of relaxation is the garden, don't you think?

We evolved in a natural environment, not in buildings and houses, so its not surprising that gardens would be pleasing and relaxing to our senses.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2007 05:35 pm
real life wrote:
hi Wilso,

I guess the first question I would have is --

---what type of 'natural' evidence would you accept of (what is supposed to be) a 'supernatural' event?

Isn't this the same old 'show me a miracle, and then I'll believe' ?

xingu,

Why are you afraid of using the Bible as evidence?

If your position is 'well , it's in the Bible', let me remind you that NONE of the books of the Bible were 'in the Bible' when they were written.

The practice of publishing the separate books under one cover was not until many years later.


The bible is the word of God; therefore, you believe it. You believe in God because the bible tells you so. This is kind of the ultimate in circular reasoning.

Skipped 9 pages of this stuff, so someone surely already mentioned this.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2007 06:08 am
roger wrote:
real life wrote:
hi Wilso,

I guess the first question I would have is --

---what type of 'natural' evidence would you accept of (what is supposed to be) a 'supernatural' event?

Isn't this the same old 'show me a miracle, and then I'll believe' ?

xingu,

Why are you afraid of using the Bible as evidence?

If your position is 'well , it's in the Bible', let me remind you that NONE of the books of the Bible were 'in the Bible' when they were written.

The practice of publishing the separate books under one cover was not until many years later.


The bible is the word of God; therefore, you believe it. You believe in God because the bible tells you so. This is kind of the ultimate in circular reasoning.

Skipped 9 pages of this stuff, so someone surely already mentioned this.


Very circular reasoning.

The Bible is not the word of God. It is the word of many different people from different times and different religions. Why would God want to show himself as a barbaric, cruel and unjust entity; one that believes killing is the one best solution for all problems. When humans behave this way we condemn and vilify them. When God behaves this way we praise him.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2007 06:16 am
Reallife" wrote:
Why are you afraid of using the Bible as evidence?


Back to your question again; there is no evidence for what the Bible says. All we're asking of you is to supply some evidence to back up the Bible.

For example, what evidence do you have to suport the Bible's position that the sun, moon and stars were created after plants and trees?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2007 08:12 am
xingu wrote:
Reallife wrote:
Why are you afraid of using the Bible as evidence?


Back to your question again; there is no evidence for what the Bible says. All we're asking of you is to supply some evidence to back up the Bible.

For example, what evidence do you have to suport the Bible's position that the sun, moon and stars were created after plants and trees?


hi xingu,

Let's look at your proposition: that the Bible is man-made.



If you were going to write an authoritative religious work, would you prohibit behaviors that you might want to engage in?

Lots of no-no's listed in the Bible that go cross-wise to man's natural tendency to want to do them.

These range from sexual prohibitions, to what can and can't be eaten, to what one may or may not do on certain days (Sabbaths, feasts, etc), prohibitions from engaging in lucrative business (usury) , commandments NOT to utilize the full harvest of one's field, etc.

-----------------------------------

If you were going to write an authoritative religious work that established you as 'God's representative' (i.e. a priest or prophet, etc) , would you tie yourself down to requirements to perform hundreds of petty regulations concerning washings, specific types of garments, foods you can or cannot eat, time consuming butchering and offering of animals?

In other words , wouldn't you make it easy and fun for you?

-------------------------------------

If you were going to write an authoritative religious work that established you as 'God's representative' , would you consistently portray God's representatives as backsliding, slimy characters of low morality, two faced, weak willed, unbelieving, etc ?

Wouldn't you whitewash the priesthood and portray all the virtues and none of the vices?



In short, your idea that the Bible is man-made just doesn't seem very likely , xingu.
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2007 08:42 am
you do realize that the logic you just used to show that the bible is divinely inspired, could just as easily prove that a weight watchers cookbook was written by god?

as long as it didn't have shellfish or pork recipies, obviously...
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2007 08:49 am
tinygiraffe wrote:
you do realize that the logic you just used to show that the bible is divinely inspired, could just as easily prove that a weight watchers cookbook was written by god?

as long as it didn't have shellfish or pork recipies, obviously...


Hardly.

The cookbook lays out a plan whereby the user, by his own efforts, can solve a perceived problem.

The Bible teaches that man is completely incapable of solving his primary problem (sin) , which is the source of all problems in the world.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/11/2025 at 12:02:58