It seems to me that the creationist argument is just... silly.

[Audacious]

The topic I wanted to make was "It seems to me that the creationist argument is 'my Bible beats your mountains of empirical data!'", but it wouldn't fit.

Honestly, there's just so much evidence for evolution and an old earth and all that stuff; to be a creationist, you have to deny radioactive decay, half-life dating (e.g. potassium-argon or strobidium-brontium dating), relative dating, everything we know about astrophysics and the formation of the universe, and almost all of biology, including observed instances of speciation. In essence, you must deny the large majority of astrophysics, regular physics, biology, geology, archaeology, chemistry, medicine... a huge amount of observable facts that directly disprove the claims of those who believe that Genesis is a literal, historical account.

The thing is, it's up to the one making the positive claim to substantiate it*; science disagrees with the Bible, and since the Bible can't come up with anywhere near as many things as physical evidence of its claims than science can, in a contest of science versus the Bible, science wins.

*You have to prove the positive claim simply because you can't disprove something without a contradicting positive. I don't believe in an invisible unicorn because there is no evidence for such, and I don't believe in a literal Genesis account because there is both no evhttp://www.christianforums.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=143idence to support it and a great deal of evidence which contradicts it.

At this point, creationism has been virtually destroyed within the scientific community due to the vast amount of data. The Devil in Dover (about the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial re: teaching evolution in schools in '06), Your Inner Fish (about how we're all just evolved fish), and Dawkins' Why Evolution Is True all make really great arguments, if anyone wants to read them; I'm not a fan of his anti-religion stuff, but he makes some great arguments and is an evolutionary biologist, and he really knows his stuff when he's talking about the field he has a doctorate in.

I really love this quote from Pope Francis, though I am not a Catholic and disagree with a huge amount of their doctrines: "God is not a magician with a magic wand." He works within our universe; he may have created the world ex nihilo, but that doesn't mean that His works in the world after that were all done in a similar fashion. He doesn't have to create everything in such a fashion; rather, he seems to set up systems to work independently of him, such as the weather cycle, and because he interacts and changes things within the universe, we can see his effects on said universe.

I'm not a theistic evolutionist, per se, because I think that evolution and theology are completely separate subjects; rather, I think God put in place the system that caused humanity to be created, including the processes of evolution and abiogenesis.

Wikipedia has an absurdly good page on abiogenesis and how it occurred; I couldn't find anything nearly this solid on Google, though I typically look for non-Wikipedia stuff to link to people when discussing science.

The New England Complex Systems Institude has a great page on evolution.

Berkeley.edu has a fantastic page on speciation and observed instances of it.

You also may want to check out the Wedge Strategy, a strategy by the Discovery Institute which essentially is trying to "lie in the service of the truth". There's a reason that they refused to testify over the validity of creationism in science in the Dover trial: it's because they know it's a lie and they're just scumbags who make loads of money off of other people's ignorance and/or gullibility. (It was a really great chance to try to bring creationism into the main stream.).

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I am an 'old-Earth, science-based, evidence driven, yet fully committed to Creator God' sort. I tend to think of 'Young Earth Creationism' (YEC) as rather naive at best, and intentionally ignorant at worst.

But I have to disagree with the term 'silly'. (I've probably used it in this context and should not have.) Many Christians have been taught this concept since youth. In the teaching of the YEC faction, to deny the seven-day Creation is to deny the existence of God. To deny seven-day Creation is to abandon their claim on salvation.

Not silly.

I do appreciate and agree with your preferred topic title.

All I really wanted to say is we need to be nice to the YEC folks. They are (mostly) decent people. There are a couple who couldn't spot rain in a thunderstorm without an umbrella, but mostly they are well meaning and decent.

And put your scorn shield on. Many of them are very defensive about their position and background.

 

[Gottservant]

And you believe "Evolution becomes greed"?

 

[Willtor]

I'm not a theistic evolutionist, per se, because I think that evolution and theology are completely separate subjects; rather, I think God put in place the system that caused humanity to be created, including the processes of evolution and abiogenesis.

Would you expand on this, please? I'm familiar with people preferring the label, "Evolutionary Creationist", to, "Theistic Evolutionist", because they feel the former is more descriptive than the latter. But the connotations of "Evolutionary Creationist" are much more panentheistic (which, if I understand, is the idea). Are you going in the opposite direction? Do you perceive a more tenuous connection between God and natural processes? Do you see more of a machine that God built and then took His hands away?

 

[Quantum Paradise]

The topic I wanted to make was "It seems to me that the creationist argument is 'my Bible beats your mountains of empirical data!'", but it wouldn't fit.

Honestly, there's just so much evidence for evolution and an old earth and all that stuff; to be a creationist, you have to deny radioactive decay, half-life dating (e.g. potassium-argon or strobidium-brontium dating), relative dating, everything we know about astrophysics and the formation of the universe, and almost all of biology, including observed instances of speciation. In essence, you must deny the large majority of astrophysics, regular physics, biology, geology, archaeology, chemistry, medicine... a huge amount of observable facts that directly disprove the claims of those who believe that Genesis is a literal, historical account.

The thing is, it's up to the one making the positive claim to substantiate it*; science disagrees with the Bible, and since the Bible can't come up with anywhere near as many things as physical evidence of its claims than science can, in a contest of science versus the Bible, science wins.

*You have to prove the positive claim simply because you can't disprove something without a contradicting positive. I don't believe in an invisible unicorn because there is no evidence for such, and I don't believe in a literal Genesis account because there is both no evhttp://www.christianforums.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=143idence to support it and a great deal of evidence which contradicts it.

At this point, creationism has been virtually destroyed within the scientific community due to the vast amount of data. The Devil in Dover (about the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial re: teaching evolution in schools in '06), Your Inner Fish (about how we're all just evolved fish), and Dawkins' Why Evolution Is True all make really great arguments, if anyone wants to read them; I'm not a fan of his anti-religion stuff, but he makes some great arguments and is an evolutionary biologist, and he really knows his stuff when he's talking about the field he has a doctorate in.

I really love this quote from Pope Francis, though I am not a Catholic and disagree with a huge amount of their doctrines: "God is not a magician with a magic wand." He works within our universe; he may have created the world ex nihilo, but that doesn't mean that His works in the world after that were all done in a similar fashion. He doesn't have to create everything in such a fashion; rather, he seems to set up systems to work independently of him, such as the weather cycle, and because he interacts and changes things within the universe, we can see his effects on said universe.

I'm not a theistic evolutionist, per se, because I think that evolution and theology are completely separate subjects; rather, I think God put in place the system that caused humanity to be created, including the processes of evolution and abiogenesis.

Wikipedia has an absurdly good page on abiogenesis and how it occurred; I couldn't find anything nearly this solid on Google, though I typically look for non-Wikipedia stuff to link to people when discussing science.

The New England Complex Systems Institude has a great page on evolution.

Berkeley.edu has a fantastic page on speciation and observed instances of it.

You also may want to check out the Wedge Strategy, a strategy by the Discovery Institute which essentially is trying to "lie in the service of the truth". There's a reason that they refused to testify over the validity of creationism in science in the Dover trial: it's because they know it's a lie and they're just scumbags who make loads of money off of other people's ignorance and/or gullibility. (It was a really great chance to try to bring creationism into the main stream.).

I am amazed and how you apparently go out of your way to heavily misrepresent creationism. Why is that?

These things you mention pertain to only "some" individuals within the creationist camp, they are not in any way representative of the whole. And do not pretend as if dishonesty and shady practices are exclusive to any one camp.

Might I also point out that speciation does not automatically equate to evolution in the Darwinian sense, as speciation is simply reproductive isolation.

As for there being "so much evidence" for evolution, I would ask in what sense are you using the word "evolution" here. If you mean the biological narrative of bacteria-sized organisms "evolving" to present day biodiversity, then I would disagree.

Not to mention that the opening premise for your post is completely off the handle.

"It seems to me that the creationist argument is 'my Bible beats your mountains of empirical data!'"

You seem to have a very narrow and limited understanding on what creationism is, as well as the full scope of views it encompasses.

Hint: It is not exclusive to science denying fundies holding up signs on the side of the highway.

P.S. Creationism has not been "destroyed", wonder where you get that idea from? If you mean Kent Hovind's flavor of creationism, then maybe.

 

[Willtor]

Audacious is presenting the largest (and most vocal) creationist community. Ken Ham is a good example of a person in this category. If you disagree with such people, that's cool, and whatever it is that you think has to be considered independently. But if Audacious has misrepresented them, you might point to an example where, e.g., Ken Ham has said something contrary to what Audacious makes the community say. If you don't agree with Ken Ham, say what it is you _do_ think and in what way it is different from such creationists.

 

[Doveaman]

Honestly, there's just so much evidence for evolution and an old earth and all that stuff; to be a creationist, you have to deny radioactive decay, half-life dating (e.g. potassium-argon or strobidium-brontium dating), relative dating,

We deny the dating because of the silly assumptions on which the dating is based.

everything we know about astrophysics and the formation of the universe,

Which is practically nothing. Scientists cannot account for 96 percent of the universe, and they are still struggling to understand the other 4 percent. There is nothing there to deny.

and almost all of biology, including observed instances of speciation.

Observed instances of speciation do not contradict a literal Genesis account.

In essence, you must deny the large majority of astrophysics, regular physics, biology, geology, archaeology, chemistry, medicine... a huge amount of observable facts that directly disprove the claims of those who believe that Genesis is a literal, historical account.

Frankly, I don’t see how any of these contradict Genesis as a literal, historical account if Genesis is viewed as the re-creation of new earth life on an old earth planet.

 

[KWCrazy]

Frankly, I don’t see how any of these contradict Genesis as a literal, historical account if Genesis is viewed as the re-creation of new earth life on an old earth planet.

Jesus was a Creationist. He, who was there at the time, said that the writings of Moses were accurate. In fact, he was critical of those who doubted the words that Moses Recorded. John 5:46. "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." Jesus spoke of the accuracy of the Scriptures, mentioned Noah by name and confirmed the stories of Adam and Eve as well as Jonah and the "great fish." If Jesus said that the Scriptures are true, then they are absolutely true.

Genesis is the most quoted book in the Scriptures, referenced 200 times in the New Testament alone. It is the foundation of man's relationship with His creator. Without it nothing makes else makes sense.

Genesis in the New Testament

 

[Willtor]

Jesus was a Creationist. He, who was there at the time, said that the writings of Moses were accurate. In fact, he was critical of those who doubted the words that Moses Recorded. John 5:46. "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." Jesus spoke of the accuracy of the Scriptures, mentioned Noah by name and confirmed the stories of Adam and Eve as well as Jonah and the "great fish." If Jesus said that the Scriptures are true, then they are absolutely true.

Genesis is the most quoted book in the Scriptures, referenced 200 times in the New Testament alone. It is the foundation of man's relationship with His creator. Without it nothing makes else makes sense.

Genesis in the New Testament

I talk about Adam and Eve, too. I don't think they were historical individuals. When you hear someone say they take Genesis figuratively, be sure you don't confuse "figurative" with "untrue."

 

[KWCrazy]

I talk about Adam and Eve, too. I don't think they were historical individuals. When you hear someone say they take Genesis figuratively, be sure you don't confuse "figurative" with "untrue."

So far, NOBODY has been able to demonstrate how it could be "figurative" with the Scriptures. They can only reject what is clearly written. And why? To believe that the science of man has supremacy to the will of God? No, sorry. God could create another identical universe tomorrow.

 

[Willtor]

So far, NOBODY has been able to demonstrate how it could be "figurative" with the Scriptures. They can only reject what is clearly written. And why? To believe that the science of man has supremacy to the will of God? No, sorry. God could create another identical universe tomorrow.

If that were so, why would anybody before modern science think that Genesis was figurative? No, it's figurative because it was intended figuratively.

 

[Doveaman]

If that were so, why would anybody before modern science think that Genesis was figurative?

Scientists were not the first to be ignorant about the scriptures, and they are certainly not the last.

No, it's figurative because it was intended figuratively.

Even the Jews through whom the scriptures originally came had no clue of its intended purpose. Hence their rejection of Christ.

"You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." -- (John 5:39-40).

 

[Willtor]

Scientists were not the first to be ignorant about the scriptures, and they are certainly not the last.
Even the Jews through whom the scriptures originally came had no clue of its intended purpose. Hence their rejection of Christ.

"You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." -- (John 5:39-40).

I think some of these people knew the Scriptures a lot better than you. It doesn't mean they were right to take it figuratively, but it does mean that you're wrong to write off the interpretation with such flippancy.

 

[BobRyan]

The topic I wanted to make was "It seems to me that the creationist argument is 'my Bible beats your mountains of empirical data!'", but it wouldn't fit.

Honestly, there's just so much evidence for evolution and an old earth and all that stuff; to be a creationist, you have to deny radioactive decay, half-life dating (e.g. potassium-argon or strobidium-brontium dating), relative dating, everything we know about astrophysics and the formation of the universe, and almost all of biology, including observed instances of speciation. In essence, you must deny the large majority of astrophysics, regular physics, biology, geology, archaeology, chemistry, medicine... a huge amount of observable facts that directly disprove the claims of those who believe that Genesis is a literal, historical account....

I'm not a theistic evolutionist, per se, because I think that evolution and theology are completely separate subjects; rather, I think God put in place the system that caused humanity to be created, including the processes of evolution and abiogenesis.

.

And so you do not need to "imagine" that the Bible is hawking blind faith evolutionism in the form of the darwinian flavor in Genesis 1-2?

No "Moses was teaching evolution it just 'looks like ' creationinsm" in the Bible - for you??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by Audacious

Honestly, there's just so much evidence for evolution and an old earth and all that stuff; to be a creationist, you have to deny radioactive decay, half-life dating (e.g. potassium-argon or strobidium-brontium dating), relative dating,
​

We deny the dating because of the silly assumptions on which the dating is based.

everything we know about astrophysics and the formation of the universe,
​

Which is practically nothing. Scientists cannot account for 96 percent of the universe, and they are still struggling to understand the other 4 percent. There is nothing there to deny.

and almost all of biology, including observed instances of speciation.
​

Observed instances of speciation do not contradict a literal Genesis account.

In essence, you must deny the large majority of astrophysics, regular physics, biology, geology, archaeology, chemistry, medicine... a huge amount of observable facts that directly disprove the claims of those who believe that Genesis is a literal, historical account.
​

Frankly, I don’t see how any of these contradict Genesis as a literal, historical account if Genesis is viewed as the re-creation of new earth life on an old earth planet.

That won't make sense to a blind-faith evolutionist.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Wikipedia has an absurdly good page on abiogenesis and how it occurred; I couldn't find anything nearly this solid on Google, though I typically look for non-Wikipedia stuff to link to people when discussing science.

.

oops - that is where the "religion" in blind-faith evolutionism is pretty glaring.

That article includes this bit of smoke and mirror propaganda

Hypotheses about abiogenesis can be divided into three main stages: the geophysical, the chemical, and the biological.[7] Many approaches investigate how self-replicating molecules or their components came into existence. On the assumption that life originated spontaneously on Earth, the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments demonstrated that most amino acids, basic chemicals of life, can be synthesized in conditions which were intended to be similar to those of the early Earth. Several mechanisms have been investigated, including lightning and radiation.

Notice that they "failed" and call it "success"???

Who gets away with that stuff "in real life"??

The entire article is devoted to trying to "make you believe" that life really can arise from nothing -- "err... umm... except...errr....ummm we can't actually force that to happen in the lab".

What is 'supposed' to happen on its own - cannot be observed to happen AND can't be forced to happen!!???

And of course among blind-faith devotees "nobody is supposed to notice".

So they promote their case as a matter of religion, faith, orthodoxy.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Willtor]

BobRyan, perhaps I'm wrong (and I want to be deferential), but I can't help but think that this last argument is a smokescreen for something else. Let me put it in the following form:

You observe that scientists have not been able to make life appear in the lab, and you say this is a weakness of abiogenesis as a principle. But every field has had to surmount that learning curve. Every one. Is this something where, if they successfully demonstrate it in the lab, your faith is going to be shaken? I hope your faith is not founded in scientists' present inability to make life in the lab. So, what really is the issue?

 

[Doveaman]

I think some of these people knew the Scriptures a lot better than you. It doesn't mean they were right to take it figuratively, but it does mean that you're wrong to write off the interpretation with such flippancy.

A figurative interpretation is completely unnecessary and makes no sense at all in light of scriptures as a whole, except for those who recently came to believe their grandparents were apes.

 

[Doveaman]

BobRyan, perhaps I'm wrong (and I want to be deferential), but I can't help but think that this last argument is a smokescreen for something else. Let me put it in the following form:

You observe that scientists have not been able to make life appear in the lab, and you say this is a weakness of abiogenesis as a principle. But every field has had to surmount that learning curve. Every one. Is this something where, if they successfully demonstrate it in the lab, your faith is going to be shaken? I hope your faith is not founded in scientists' present inability to make life in the lab. So, what really is the issue?

The isssue is that it takes more faith to believe in evolution theory than it takes to believe in God.

 

[Willtor]

A figurative interpretation is completely unnecessary and makes no sense at all in light of scriptures as a whole, except for those who recently came to believe their grandparents were apes.

... and great theologians like St. Athanasius and St. Augustine. Them too.

Again, maybe they were wrong, but flippancy does more harm than help when you argue against taking Genesis figuratively.