Creationism

Page 5 of 11 [ 166 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 11 Next

Jookia
Velociraptor

Joined: 7 Jan 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 410

05 Oct 2010, 7:57 pm

There's no proof of Creationism. The Bible doesn't count as it's been translated, edited and can't be proven.
However, there's proof of Evolution. Fossils, DNA, etc.

JetLag
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Aug 2008
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,762
Location: California

05 Oct 2010, 9:31 pm

Jono wrote:

JetLag wrote:

naturalplastic wrote:

Who were the "eye witnesses" to creation in Genisis?

I believe that God was the eyewitness to creation.

How do you verify that if you can't empirically test whether God exists?

Since I believe that the Bible is the Word of God, I can quite naturally presume that the Bible gives an accurate account of creation and that God logically had witnessed his own handiwork; and my atheist friends, on the other hand, can and do quite naturally presume that the Bible account of creation is inaccurate.

And so the main question then is which presupposition is more likely? I personally believe that God's eyewitness account of history explains the rock layers, fossil records, genetic variations, etc., better than the atheist's evolutionary account.

_________________
Stung by the splendor of a sudden thought. ~ Robert Browning

JetLag
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Aug 2008
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,762
Location: California

05 Oct 2010, 9:36 pm

naturalplastic wrote:

JetLag wrote:

naturalplastic wrote:

Who were the "eye witnesses" to creation in Genisis?

I believe that God was the eyewitness to creation.

So..are you proposing to call God to the witness stand to be cross examined?
Or what?

No.

_________________
Stung by the splendor of a sudden thought. ~ Robert Browning

Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

05 Oct 2010, 9:50 pm

Just because something can't be science doesn't mean it can't be true. Expecting religion to act like science is like expecting a neon tetra to live on dry land. that is not the nature of the animal.

relying solely of science for your answers is a fallacious way to live one's life.

Jookia
Velociraptor

Joined: 7 Jan 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 410

05 Oct 2010, 9:51 pm

Tensu wrote:

relying solely of science for your answers is a fallacious way to live one's life.

I rely soley on science to explain things like 'where did we come from' and 'how were we created' or 'how does the sun rise and set'. But I can't possibly think where I'd need religion to fit in to my life. To me, it seems useless.

JetLag
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Aug 2008
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,762
Location: California

05 Oct 2010, 9:53 pm

ruveyn wrote:

JetLag wrote:

naturalplastic wrote:

Who were the "eye witnesses" to creation in Genisis?

I believe that God was the eyewitness to creation.

One what evidence do you come to this conclusion?

ruveyn

I believe that the very first line in the Book of Genesis indicates an eyewitness account:

In the beginning - time
God created the heavens - space
and the earth - matter

And I don't think it was all that long ago that science affirmed what the Scriptures understood from the start about the time-space-matter universe.

_________________
Stung by the splendor of a sudden thought. ~ Robert Browning

Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

05 Oct 2010, 10:01 pm

Jookia wrote:

Tensu wrote:

relying solely of science for your answers is a fallacious way to live one's life.

religion is important for questions of morality. science is very limited in it's ability to explain where we came from. As has been pointed out already, the big bang theory can't explain the creation of the universe, as in order to explode, the universe must already exist, and abiogenesis contradicts everything we know about biology. there is also the inward aspects of our existence, something science has tried to explain with psychology, but psychology has merely become a tool bigotry and conformity and is little more than "the science of judging people". As religion is more open minded, I believe it a better way to explore our inner selves. I, personally,also have a desire to thank God for creating existence and what not, and religion is the only way to do that.

Jookia
Velociraptor

Joined: 7 Jan 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 410

05 Oct 2010, 10:06 pm

Tensu wrote:

I live by proper morals without religion, I don't need a book and a firey place to tell me not to kill, rape or harm other humans. However, some religions do tell you to cover women and murder people who don't agree, so I don't think religion should be considered a valid moral compass in itself.
We'll never be able to explain the creation of the universe as we weren't there. But I don't think a religion can as it just adds the question of where a creator came from and why they are bias and favouriting Humans and Earth out of the entire universe.
I'd say science is more open minded as we try to prove our fundamental ideas wrong and expand while religion just stays at a halt with ideas stuck.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Oct 2010, 2:47 am

JetLag wrote:

I believe that the very first line in the Book of Genesis indicates an eyewitness account:

.

The first line of a book of mythology is not evidence. It is a quote.

Genesis was composed by human beings who did not know what an atom was.

ruveyn

Chronos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,698

06 Oct 2010, 3:20 am

Tensu wrote:

You all seem to have a huge misunderstanding of creationism. just because evolution deniers are vocal doesn't mean they are the end-all be-all of what creationism is. You're all making fun of an idea you know nothing about, and thus aren't really any different from evolution deniers yourselves.

Feel free to enlighten us.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

06 Oct 2010, 4:16 am

Chronos wrote:

Tensu wrote:

Feel free to enlighten us.

Obviously some people are sensitive to baloney and some are not. So it goes.

BigK
Velociraptor

Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 400

06 Oct 2010, 5:19 am

JetLag wrote:

Jono wrote:

JetLag wrote:

naturalplastic wrote:

Who were the "eye witnesses" to creation in Genisis?

I believe that God was the eyewitness to creation.

How do you verify that if you can't empirically test whether God exists?

How you know that God didn't just simplify the story to make it easier to understand?

How do you know God isn't just lying.

For all we know he may have bumped off the real God and taken credit for his work.

_________________
"It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door," he used to say. "You step into the Road, and if you don't keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to.

"How can it not know what it is?"

wavefreak58
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,419
Location: Western New York

06 Oct 2010, 6:35 am

ruveyn wrote:

JetLag wrote:

I believe that the very first line in the Book of Genesis indicates an eyewitness account:

.

The first line of a book of mythology is not evidence. It is a quote.

Genesis was composed by human beings who did not know what an atom was.

ruveyn

You do see your logical fallacy here, don't you? Basically you use circular reasoning. The bible is false therefore the bible is false.

You start from the assumption that bible is written by humans. Others assume it is written by God. The essential difference of this basic assumption leads to vastly different conclusions.

You cannot PROVE the origins of the bible. You can make a very strong case that it is not of divine origin. But that is not proof.

Is believing the bible divine rational? Of course not. Yet I regularly see attempts to undermine belief by pointing out its irrationality. How rational is that?

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Oct 2010, 7:42 am

wavefreak58 wrote:

s

You do see your logical fallacy here, don't you? Basically you use circular reasoning. The bible is false therefore the bible is false.

I did not say the Bible was false. I said if was a book of mythology. It is possible that a myth could be true (but highly unlikely if it contradicts known facts).

ruveyn

wavefreak58
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,419
Location: Western New York

06 Oct 2010, 8:32 am

ruveyn wrote:

wavefreak58 wrote:

s

You do see your logical fallacy here, don't you? Basically you use circular reasoning. The bible is false therefore the bible is false.

I did not say the Bible was false. I said if was a book of mythology. It is possible that a myth could be true (but highly unlikely if it contradicts known facts).

ruveyn

That doesn't change the nature of the problem. People that believe the bible to be divine in origin CAN cite it as proof because it is part of their core assumptions about reality. It may be irrational to do so, but it is consistent. Saying the bible is mythology and so is invalid as a source of proof is also based on a core assumption, albeit a different one. I see atheists run into this dilemma all the time. They beat a theist over the head with exquisite rational arguments, failing to realize that a theist's primary assumption about reality (God exists) is NOT rational. What follows from this assumption is decidedly different but should not be unexpected.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

06 Oct 2010, 8:49 am

To presuppose the universe had no creator is to say that the universe created itself. And then AG shall mention a philosophy of time in which causality is irrelevant.

Page 5 of 11 [ 166 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 11 Next

Jump to:

Creationism Post Reply New Topic

Creationism