creationsts drinking Kool-Aid

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
Well, I did not happen on these ideas related to time in consideration of creation but other issues. I just thought it may have some application here, especially when you consider the curse upon the land.
After God cursed the earth, and man was cast out of Eden, the earth it appears was immediately and radically changed in every way. How that change was effected is an interesting subject. I tend to think the even physical laws and principles were changed for the entire creation.

You post this to the right thread?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by flyingpenguin
If a person is truly a believer, or truly wants to be a believer, then the explanation that God created this wonderful world in a mature state should be sufficient I would think. I don't pretend to understand how creation happened, I just know that it did.

Why would God create the world in a "mature state" and thus obscure his true nature? Is God some kind of two-bit charlatan?

 

[flyingpenguin]

Alright, two questions here.

1. Since I cannot explain creation, why not accept evolution?

Jerry, you should know this by reading my previous posts. I believe the Bible in a completely literal sense. When you read Genesis literally it completely flies in the face of evolution (back to the Eve and Adam's rib problem).

2. Two-bit charlatan? That seems a little harsh. Why would God create the world mature? That is the question. I cannot speak for God (obviously), but to me it makes sense if you think of it this way.

If God created Adam as a baby, he would have died...no question. Same with most animals. Now take this concept to the planetary level. Maybe a young planet would have a tough time surviving and becoming the place He needed to support life. This is totally a guess, but it seems logical (to me anyways). Or simpler than that...maybe he was just in a hurry. If a planet would take umpteen billion years to become stable enough to support life, maybe God just didn't want to wait?

If you were the Creator of the universe and you got this great idea to create something really cool, would you want to wait?

It is kind of a silly notion, but you are trying to find the reasons why God did something, which is something that our minds cannot grasp.

David

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Flyingpen...

Do you beleive that rabits chew cud and that bats are a kind of bird?

 

[randman]

Lewis, we already covered this before. The Bible was written in Hebrew. "Bats" are indeed a kind of "bird" in the Hebrew.

As far as chewing the cud, go look it up and debate with yourself. Noone claims there cannot be small, insignificant translation errors.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by randman
Lewis, we already covered this before. The Bible was written in Hebrew. "Bats" are indeed a kind of "bird" in the Hebrew.

Good example of why the Bible should not be used as a science textbook. 

As far as chewing the cud, go look it up and debate with yourself. Noone claims there cannot be small, insignificant translation errors.

What's translated wrong,  "rabbit," "chew," or "cud?"  If translations cause such errors, why do creationsts insist that English versions be used as science textbooks?  (Although, there are some creationists who do look at the original Hebrew, in an effort to avoid that problem.)

 

[LewisWildermuth]

But even the smallest error in translation or transcription can make hugh differences in the book. If these errors have shown up how many more are in the bible that we have not found yet?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by flyingpenguin
If you were the Creator of the universe and you got this great idea to create something really cool, would you want to wait?

Wait?  If God's lifespan is eternal, a few billion years is nothing.  Think about that.

It is kind of a silly notion, but you are trying to find the reasons why God did something, which is something that our minds cannot grasp.

I'm not the one looking for why God did what she did.  I'd be happy just to know what.  (Unlike Nick who seems perfectly content to know nothing).

 

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Good example of why the Bible should not be used as a science textbook.

And few if any people advocate that.

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
What's translated wrong,  "rabbit," "chew," or "cud?" 

Just a guess, but probably "hare." As far as I can tell, the word only appears twice, and in the same context, so it could refer to just about any animal, most likely one that is now extinct. Nobody even knows what this particular word is derived from, so it's not even possible to trace it back to any original meaning to get any insights. At least one of the translations (or concordances, I forget) even indicates that this word should remain untranslated because its meaning is uncertain.

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
If translations cause such errors, why do creationsts insist that English versions be used as science textbooks?  (Although, there are some creationists who do look at the original Hebrew, in an effort to avoid that problem.)

Again, I don't know of any creationists who believe the Bible should be used as a science book. But the Bible is clear in both the Hebrew OT and Greek NT (which is much more exact and easier to translate) that G~d created all things. Nobody needs to resolve the issues about that "hare" animal to understand that much.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
Again, I don't know of any creationists who believe the Bible should be used as a science book. But the Bible is clear in both the Hebrew OT and Greek NT (which is much more exact and easier to translate) that G~d created all things.

So then there's no conflict between evolution and the Bible, right?  After all, evolution only deals with how life was created, not why or by whom.

 

[IBelieve]

I have a few questions:

What motivates those that are set in their beliefs that God doesn't exist to come to this site?

Do you get satisfaction from debating an endless argument?

If you're so sure that you're right, why bother trying to press your beliefs onto a group of people that you know will never see the big picture the same way you do?

I myself am a Christian but I don't see too much merit in using my time to try and "prove" God exists to either athiests or evolutionists. I would theorize that the athiests and evolutionists that come here are more insecure in their own beliefs and need to believe in God more than the Christians already here.

The social mannerisms in all of their posts seem to make that obvious...to me anyway. Typically someone becomes condescending and insulting in an argument when he/she isn't absolutely certain he/she is right in the first place. I see a lot of responses in this forum that are only insults. I'm not trying to insult anyone. This is just an observation and a few questions that I'd earnestly like to know the answers to.

Christianity is a way of life. No Christian will be able to prove to you that God exists and I think you either in your heart want them to prove that He does but only within the confines and boundaries you've set for a god to exist in your mind or you're naive enough to believe you'll actually change a Christians mind....or wait, even better....naive enough to believe you'll eventually reach an end to this argument with answers and proof so profound that neither side can dispute it.

So...with that said, I ask again....what motivates you to come here?

 

[IBelieve]

Originally posted by food4thought
I would agree, but creationists bowing out of the debate has led to many young people having their faith destroyed by the suppossed "facts" of evolution as they had no one to refute the sometimes logical sounding arguments.

That is because the train of thought differs greatly in a Christian compared to a non-Christian.

Our answers must fit within the confines and boundaries you create for the answer to be acceptable to you. However, several of us Christians know God exists (for reasons that really are impossible to explain to a non-believer) and are still puzzled about the reasoning behind why things are the way they are. The truth is we can't provide you with an answer to why or how God did everything. As intelligent as we'd like to believe some of us are, we are incapable of fathoming the inner workings, thoughts and reasons God had for everything He did.

Back to my main point...there is another variable in our train of thought and that is faith.

Maybe one day, God will reveal Himself to you. If/when he does, you'll immediately see why He doesn't fit within your box.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by IBelieve

What motivates those that are set in their beliefs that God doesn't exist to come to this site?

This probably belongs in General Apologetics. I think a lot of the atheists come here because Christians are currently disrupting *their* lives, and they want to know more about us, or possibly just encourage us to think of them as people, much like ourselves, who have different beliefs, rather than as strange soulless monsters. On the whole, they're probably out of luck.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by IBelieve
What motivates those that are set in their beliefs that God doesn't exist to come to this site?

Simple.  I come here to defend the scientific enterprise against those who attack it on solely religious grounds.  I believe that scientific knowledge and the scientific method are noble pursuits that offer the only hope of improving the lot of humankind over the long term.

I also come here because on another level, it's just fun.  It's like chess in that way.

Do you get satisfaction from debating an endless argument?

Absolutely not.  But if I can persuade one lurker to think about and learn more about the science behind evolution, then  I have achieved my goal.  Unfortunately the lurkers never tell me when this happens, so the gratification level is very low.

If you're so sure that you're right, why bother trying to press your beliefs onto a group of people that you know will never see the big picture the same way you do?

Just to clarify - I don't think I am pressing my beliefs about God on anyone, nor do I criticize others for theirs.  I do press my beliefs about science because that's what this forum is for.  If nobody on this board will ever change their mind, then I guess I'm wasting my time.  But I don't believe that.

I myself am a Christian but I don't see too much merit in using my time to try and "prove" God exists to either athiests or evolutionists. I would theorize that the athiests and evolutionists that come here are more insecure in their own beliefs and need to believe in God more than the Christians already here.

The only insecurity I have is that the freedom of thought and worship that I cherish might someday be taken away from me by religious zealots.

Christianity is a way of life. No Christian will be able to prove to you that God exists and I think you either in your heart want them to prove that He does but only within the confines and boundaries you've set for a god to exist in your mind or you're naive enough to believe you'll actually change a Christians mind....or wait, even better....naive enough to believe you'll eventually reach an end to this argument with answers and proof so profound that neither side can dispute it.

Whether or not God exists is a topic for another forum.

 

 

[IBelieve]

Thanks LFOD, I appreciate your response.

I'd like to elaborate more but I have to get some work done for now.

 

[euphoric]

Originally posted by flyingpenguin

If God created Adam as a baby, he would have died...no question. Same with most animals. Now take this concept to the planetary level. Maybe a young planet would have a tough time surviving and becoming the place He needed to support life. This is totally a guess, but it seems logical (to me anyways). Or simpler than that...maybe he was just in a hurry. If a planet would take umpteen billion years to become stable enough to support life, maybe God just didn't want to wait? 

At the risk of nitpicking, "mature" and "aged" are two distinctly different concepts.  If we assume for the sake of argument that God created Adam in a mature state, we could assume that he was the size of an adult male with the features of an adult.  Adam would not in that case, however, have an appendectomy scar or worn teeth.  In geological terms, a young earth with a mature appearance would have mature geological features, but not ones that indicate an aging process.  For example, an earth that was simply recently created in a mature state wouldn't have four million varves in the Green River Formation.

-brett

 

(edited to fix a typo.)

 

[Sabbath]

God created the Earth when he created it, Im sure he will tell you when you ask him when you die.

 

[euphoric]

Originally posted by Sabbath
God created the Earth when he created it, Im sure he will tell you when you ask him when you die.

I'm sure she will, but for now I think we'll just keep on going with the scientific inquiry.

-brett

 

[AV1611VET]

In the spirit of "challenge", I offer the following to all creationists:

1. Tell us when the Earth was created.

2. Provide three scientifically sound lines of evidence to back it up.

1. 4004 BC

2. Science wasn't used to create the earth. You may as well challenge us to provide three scientifically sound lines of evidence to back up the fact (fact?) that Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, rather than in a chair.

 

[crjmurray]

I request the mods create a statute of limitations on threads.