What is the evidence for creationism?

[Beastt]

You don't understand inspiration, do you? It is the act whereby God has His words put into writing, using human beings who write in their own words.

Then you agree that Allah inspired men to write the Qur'an, Jehovah inspired John Newbrough to write Oahspe and God inspired David Koresh to write his manuscripts?

All the same claim, all the same lack of consistency, all the same lack of compelling evidence.

IOW, it's a form of dictation where the boss (Boss) gives the "secretaries" latitude in using their own words.

Which says nothing for the validity, or lack thereof, for the claim that it was inspired.

The full term for this is verbal plenary inspiration, and it differs from mechanical inspiration, or straight dictation.

Which still says nothing for the validity, or lack thereof, for the claim that it was inspired. It's still just an unverified claim which, by virtue of the many erroneous and fallacious claims found in the writing, is substantially more likely to be an erroneous or fallacious claim. One might expect that if God were real and inspired people to write his message, he'd have made sure they got most of it right. The danger in allowing the scribes to get it wrong is that it gives compelling evidence to disbelieve the claim of divine influence.

The Bible is 66 books in one --- all written by men --- with God taking the credit (notice I said 'taking', not 'getting').

Do you see how completely blinded you are by your belief? Are you not aware that there are dozens of "bibles"? Are you not aware that the vast majority of these books all make the same claim of divine inspiration? I'm not just talking about the Bible or its individual books which were hand selected by men, not by God, for inclusion in the Holy Bible.

Would it be too much of an inconvenience to ask for an example of each?

You're thinking I'm talking about just the Holy Bible and while I'm not, certainly the Bible contains a great many contradictory statements. But I'm talking more along the lines of the claim in the Qur'an that Allah created the universe while the Bible claims the universe was created by the Christian God and Oahspe claims that the universe was created by still a different god who goes by the name "Creator".

You're the perfect example of Jannes and Jambres --- (except they learned their lesson).

Thank you but I assure you that I possess no secret powers or black arts. My "magic" is reason, logic and knowledge. And it seems to be very effective against ancient tales, traditional superstitions and demonstrably false claims.

What does omnipotence have to do with inspiration?

Are you not aware that the Christian God is said, (by Christians), to be omnipotent? You said that God is doing all he can do to convince people that he exists and is who the Bible claims him to be. Yet I sit here a feeble human and have no problem whatsoever convincing humans that I exist. Am I more powerful that the Christian God? I'm certainly so far from omnipotent that it needn't even be mentioned. So if I can so easily convince people that I exist and God is doing everything he can do to convince people that he exists, yet I'm so much more successful than God, it would appear that he is even further from omnipotence than I. And since I'm only a human and not really even a notable one at that, it stands to reason, does it not, that any god unable to do what I can do really isn't much of a god at all?

(Just for the record; I'm not saying your god is less than a god, just that by the evidence and claims you're presenting, you seem to be suggesting that he is less capable than a person at showing himself to exist.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Then you agree that Allah inspired men to write the Qur'an, Jehovah inspired John Newbrough to write Oahspe and God inspired David Koresh to write his manuscripts?

Absolutely not --- inspiration ended in 96 AD.

Which says nothing for the validity, or lack thereof, for the claim that it was inspired.

Not to mention 'confirmed' ---

[bible]Hebrews 2:3[/bible]

One might expect that if God were real and inspired people to write his message, he'd have made sure they got most of it right.

I'm sure Nadab and Abihu would disagree.

Are you not aware that there are dozens of "bibles"?

I'm aware of dozens of "bibles" --- are you aware of my signature?

You're thinking I'm talking about just the Holy Bible and while I'm not, certainly the Bible contains a great many contradictory statements. But I'm talking more along the lines of the claim in the Qur'an that Allah created the universe while the Bible claims the universe was created by the Christian God and Oahspe claims that the universe was created by still a different god who goes by the name "Creator".

What say we just 'narrow the field' for the sake of brevity? You might think these are on the same level as God's Word, but Christians don't.

My "magic" is reason, logic and knowledge. And it seems to be very effective against ancient tales, traditional superstitions and demonstrably false claims.

That's nice while the sun is out, but when the storms arrive, what will this magnificent house built on sand do then?

So if I can so easily convince people that I exist...

That's easy to do now --- see if 6000 years hence people believe in you (like they do God).

 

[Nathan Poe]

Absolutely not --- inspiration ended in 96 AD.

Wow, you've identified the exact year that God stopped speaking to people.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow, you've identified the exact year that God stopped speaking to people.

I'm good --- ain't I?

 

[theFijian]

Absolutely not --- inspiration ended in 96 AD.

But then started up again in 1611 eh?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'm good --- ain't I?

Indeed -- you've single-handedly nullified every single conversion to Christianity for the past 2,000 years.

 

[AV1611VET]

But then started up again in 1611 eh?

Inspiration and translation are two different ways God got His Word to mankind --- preservation is the third.

 

[AV1611VET]

Indeed -- you've single-handedly nullified every single conversion to Christianity for the past 2,000 years.

How so?

 

[Beastt]

Absolutely not --- inspiration ended in 96 AD.

According to you. Perhaps even according to the Bible. But not according to any of the other books claimed to have been inspired by "one and only" gods.

Not to mention 'confirmed' ---

Correct. The Bible has never been verified or confirmed to be the word of God. Most notable among the missing confirmations is that of God himself. He's never once confirmed a single word of the Bible to be his. If God exists and the Bible isn't his word, you might consider keeping a rather low profile. If he's as vengeful as is said, he might not take the misrepresentation lightly.

I'm sure Nadab and Abihu would disagree.

But I'm not discussing this with Nadab or Abihu. And again, this is only according to the Bible which, while claiming to be the word of God, has never offered any confirmation for the claim. When someone offers me something I don't care for, I tend to respond with, "No thank you". How is it that God responds with instant and violent death and you see nothing wrong?

Tell me, if someone offered you a copy of the Qur'an to read, would it be more appropriate for you to politely turn down their offer, intended as kindness, or to strike them dead?

I'm aware of dozens of "bibles" --- are you aware of my signature?

Again you seem so blinded that you're unable to consider that there are many bibles other than the many versions of the Holy Bible. The Qur'an is a bible. The Book of Mormon is a bible. Oahspe is a bible. These are some of the books of which I speak. Your signature shows your devotion and willful blindness to other possibilities but from a position of objectivity, shows nothing of a compelling nature. Anyone could proclaim that anything in contradiction to the Qur'an is wrong but that would make it no more so than the statement in your signature.

What say we just 'narrow the field' for the sake of brevity? You might think these are on the same level as God's Word, but Christians don't.

So you're suggesting that all other possibilities of gods and their words simply be tossed out because it makes the discussion more brief? Is that how one goes in search of truth?

You're using a euphamism to mask that which you cannot confirm. You mean the Holy Bible but instead you say, "The word of God". As this has never been confirmed, you're placing a mere assumtion in the place of a confirmed fact. It is a book with a claim, much as many others. None have ever been confirmed as the word of anyone but the authors who wrote them. What say for the sake of accuracy, we say "the Holy Bible" or "the Bible" when we're talking about the Bible and leave those things which are unconfirmed as inappropriate euphamisms.

That's nice while the sun is out, but when the storms arrive, what will this magnificent house built on sand do then?

Perhaps where you live the sun is always out. Where I live it tends to spend about half of every 24-hour period blocked by the Earth from my location. Yet, no matter when I post, logic, reason and knowledge always seem to present a very clear obstruction to the blind faith and assumption which appears to be the primary argument for Christianity, Creationism, YEC, etc. The weather seems to present no greater a challenge.

That's easy to do now --- see if 6000 years hence people believe in you (like they do God).

If in 6,000 years anyone proclaims that I still exist, people will be perfectly correct to demonstrate that I do not. And so it is with God. While you proclaim that he exists simply because it says so in a book, I appeal to the evidence and demonstrate that there exists no evidence consistent with God's existence.

Meanwhile I do exist and have no difficulty demonstrating that fact. You also exist and seem to have no difficulty demonstrating that to be true. God, on the other hand, is said to exist but doesn't seem to be able to demonstrate that to be true, especially if one is to believe your former statement that he's doing everything he can do to try to show that he exists. One must conclude that either he doesn't exist and therefore, by doing nothing, is truthfully doing "everything he can", or he simply is less capable than you and I and indeed, everyone on the board, of demonstrating his existence. Which do you suppose is the case: he doesn't exist and is doing everything he can do or he does exist and is doing everything he can do but is highly unsuccessful, or he exists but isn't doing everything he can do to prove he exists?

 

[theFijian]

Inspiration and translation are two different ways God got His Word to mankind --- preservation is the third.

The Incarnation is the way he got the Word to mankind. (At least you agree that the KJV isn't inspired, that's a step in the right direction)

 

[USincognito]

What does the history of the KJV have to do with evidences for Creationism?

 

[AV1611VET]

According to you. Perhaps even according to the Bible. But not according to any of the other books claimed to have been inspired by "one and only" gods.

If the Quran was correct, I would think that we should all be Islam by now; or, at the least, the Islams should be winning their wars.

I love what I heard a guy on the radio once say. He said if Hinduism is correct, then India right now should be a literal paradise on earth.

No --- I'd say a book (the Book) should be judged by its contents.

Correct. The Bible has never been verified or confirmed to be the word of God.

There's where you're wrong. The Bible has already been verified by those living when it was written. There comes a time when time, itself puts an end to the verification process of some things. I should point out, though, that the Bible's prophecies kept the verification process going for thousands of years. Most notably to us though, the rebirth of Israel --- a major prophecy fulfilled in our time - (okay, just before our time).

Most notable among the missing confirmations is that of God himself. He's never once confirmed a single word of the Bible to be his.

You really need to study more.

If God exists and the Bible isn't his word, you might consider keeping a rather low profile. If he's as vengeful as is said, he might not take the misrepresentation lightly.

Indeed --- when The Last Temptation of Christ came out around the same time as Robert Mapplethorp's and Andres Serrano's trash, people were screaming why God didn't do something --- like zapping the actors of the movie, or zapping Mapplethorpe's exhibit --- until someone pointed out that when God does act, He starts with the house of God first:

[bible]1 Peter 4:17[/bible]

If you read the book of Habakkuk, you'll see that the thing that bothered Habakkuk the most was why bad things didn't happen to bad people --- until God pointed out to him that if he knew what was in store for those people if they didn't repent, he'd think differently --- it convinced him.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then you agree that Allah inspired men to write the Qur'an, Jehovah inspired John Newbrough to write Oahspe and God inspired David Koresh to write his manuscripts?

Why would he agree to these? He did not say that because God inspiried the Bible that Allah inpired the Qur'an nor would he. You are again generalizing and grouping all gods into the same heap.

The Bible and the manuscripts of David Koresh are not even comprobable in a valid way.

All the same claim, all the same lack of consistency, all the same lack of compelling evidence.

This is totally based on your opinion and your opinion holds no more authority than any other person here.

Which says nothing for the validity, or lack thereof, for the claim that it was inspired.

You claiming it says nothing for its validity, or lack thereof either.

Which still says nothing for the validity, or lack thereof, for the claim that it was inspired. It's still just an unverified claim which, by virtue of the many erroneous and fallacious claims found in the writing, is substantially more likely to be an erroneous or fallacious claim.

In the CWV your lack of understanding of the Bible is completely in keeping with our worldview. Now that is not evidence for it to the non-believer nor should it be. But the "many" are not that many and many of the many are simple to explain but most non-believers disount them. The erroneous and fallacious claims that most people cite are mere misunderstandings of the words written there.

One might expect that if God were real and inspired people to write his message, he'd have made sure they got most of it right.

Who says that they didn't? I didn't catch that?

The danger in allowing the scribes to get it wrong is that it gives compelling evidence to disbelieve the claim of divine influence.

Again, who said they did?

Do you see how completely blinded you are by your belief? Are you not aware that there are dozens of "bibles"? Are you not aware that the vast majority of these books all make the same claim of divine inspiration? I'm not just talking about the Bible or its individual books which were hand selected by men, not by God, for inclusion in the Holy Bible.

There are millions of claims by millions of people everyday and many are unfounded. Does that mean that one claim in a million can not be valid? The number of "bibles" is not relevant, it is truth that is relevant. You have a scientific mind in all other avenues but when it comes to understanding that you must use reason to determine truth of religion you throw it out the window. One must look at all the claims and use their reason to determine what is truth. It is not unlike quacks in the scientific world who come up with some theory based loosely on a bit of evidence without anything to back it up. You don't lump someone like this in with Darwin or Dawkins. The same is true of the Bible and other claims.

Thank you but I assure you that I possess no secret powers or black arts. My "magic" is reason, logic and knowledge. And it seems to be very effective against ancient tales, traditional superstitions and demonstrably false claims.

As I have pointed out and you have not responded to; logic, reason, and knowledge are attributes that only can be considered in the CWV as valid.

Are you not aware that the Christian God is said, (by Christians), to be omnipotent? You said that God is doing all he can do to convince people that he exists and is who the Bible claims him to be. Yet I sit here a feeble human and have no problem whatsoever convincing humans that I exist. Am I more powerful that the Christian God? I'm certainly so far from omnipotent that it needn't even be mentioned.

In the CWV you have been given evidence of His existence you have denied it. Why do you put God on your level? You are human and it is a reality that humans interact face to face in this reality; God is God and He has His way of interacting with human's. The fact that you have not experienced that interaction does not mean that it is invalid nor non-existent.

So if I can so easily convince people that I exist and God is doing everything he can do to convince people that he exists, yet I'm so much more successful than God, it would appear that he is even further from omnipotence than I.

God presented His evidence, He has presented a Book to explain Himself. It is then up to the individual to go from there.

And since I'm only a human and not really even a notable one at that, it stands to reason, does it not, that any god unable to do what I can do really isn't much of a god at all?

Reason does not stand alone. In the CWV you stand on the lap of God and spit in His face; without God you could not reason at all. Then without understanding you claim God to be inadequate. By what authority do you cast this judgement?

(Just for the record; I'm not saying your god is less than a god, just that by the evidence and claims you're presenting, you seem to be suggesting that he is less capable than a person at showing himself to exist.)

Ah, so you don't think of the Christian God as inadequate, you feel that the person presenting the case is presenting Him in that way?

 

[Beastt]

If the Quran was correct, I would think that we should all be Islam by now;

Which, when you consider that only about a third of the population is Christian, would also mean that the Bible isn't correct.

or, at the least, the Islams should be winning their wars.

So you think the outcome of a war is determined by the religious beliefs of the countries involved?

I love what I heard a guy on the radio once say. He said if Hinduism is correct, then India right now should be a literal paradise on earth.

Of course on that basis, no religion is correct because there is no such thing as a paradise on Earth.

No --- I'd say a book (the Book) should be judged by its contents.

I agree.

And this is why it takes only the first page of the Bible to expose it as other than what it is claimed to be. There are at least four demonstrably incorrect claims in the first 16 verses.

There's where you're wrong. The Bible has already been verified by those living when it was written.

That's purely incorrect and I have to believe that you realize that. Just because some people believed it doesn't mean they were confirming it. The only one who can actually confirm the Bible to be the word of God would be God. He's never bothered to do any such thing. God hasn't ever confirmed a single thing. You might think if the Bible were his word and he recognized that over two-thirds of the world doubted this, that it might be important enough for him to provide some confirmation. But he doesn't. That has to be significant.

You really need to study more.

I would suggest that you learn to be a bit more honest with yourself. No god has ever confirmed a single word of any book attributed to any god -- ever!

Indeed --- when The Last Temptation of Christ came out around the same time as Robert Mapplethorp's and Andres Serrano's trash, people were screaming why God didn't do something --- like zapping the actors of the movie, or zapping Mapplethorpe's exhibit --- until someone pointed out that when God does act, He starts with the house of God first:

God never acts. Although we find written claims that he has, we never find any evidence which can be shown to confirm these claims. And as such claims exist for every god it seems quite obvious that non-existent gods simply don't act because they don't exist. In that respect, the Christian God is completely consistent with all non-existent gods.

If you read the book of Habakkuk, you'll see that the thing that bothered Habakkuk the most was why bad things didn't happen to bad people --- until God pointed out to him that if he knew what was in store for those people if they didn't repent, he'd think differently --- it convinced him.

I rarely read fiction. But when I do, I don't subscribe to it as other than fiction.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which, when you consider that only about a third of the population is Christian, would also mean that the Bible isn't correct.

In view of Matthew 7:14, I'd say your conclusion is faulty.

[bible]Matthew 7:14[/bible]

So you think the outcome of a war is determined by the religious beliefs of the countries involved?

If it's [we + God] vs them, yes.

[bible]Romans 8:31[/bible]

So too, you'd think that Allah should be showing his muscle by now, if Islam is right.

And this is why it takes only the first page of the Bible to expose it as other than what it is claimed to be. There are at least four demonstrably incorrect claims in the first 16 verses.

Only if you look at them through scientific paradigms. Like I have been saying, I believe He created the things He did, in the order that He did, as a powerful refutation against evolution. He could have easily created the sun first, then the plants; but chose not to --- on purpose.

The only one who can actually confirm the Bible to be the word of God would be God.

That is so not so. When the events of Revelation start unfolding in the order that they are written in the Bible, they'll be able to compare these events, and even predict the next one, and that will show the Bible to be much more than a book of coincidences.

I would suggest that you learn to be a bit more honest with yourself. No god has ever confirmed a single word of any book attributed to any god -- ever!

You want honesty? If you were left behind in the Rapture, and the events of Revelation started unfolding in the order given in Revelation, what conclusion would you come to about its authorship?

God never acts.

That was an interesting paragraph, in light of:

[bible]2 Peter 3:3-4[/bible]

I rarely read fiction. But when I do, I don't subscribe to it as other than fiction.

I'd advise you to get the newspaper and hold it up alongside Matthew 24 and judge for yourself if this "fiction" is not really a dormant volcano about to become active.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So too, you'd think that Allah should be showing his muscle by now, if Islam is right.

This is a rather misleading and unfortunate premise. Scripture has a lot to say about the Islamic people.

Gen 16:11 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou [art] with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.

Gen 16:15 And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael.

Gen 16:16 And Abram [was] fourscore and six years old, when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram.

Gen 17:18 And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!

Gen 17:20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

So as you can see, it is within Scripture that although Islam is in the CWV incorrect, Our God not Allah has blessed them. But Scripture also says:

And he will be a wild man; his hand [will be] against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

And so it remains today.

 

[Nathan Poe]

If the Quran was correct, I would think that we should all be Islam by now; or, at the least, the Islams should be winning their wars.

Read the paper -- they are.

I love what I heard a guy on the radio once say. He said if Hinduism is correct, then India right now should be a literal paradise on earth.

Right, because all Gods are fans of global economics.

No --- I'd say a book (the Book) should be judged by its contents.

If you want to discuss the Bible as literature, I'd be all for a new thread on the topic.

There's where you're wrong. The Bible has already been verified by those living when it was written.

Who are all conveniently dead now -- the only records of their "verification," being the Bible itself.

There comes a time when time, itself puts an end to the verification process of some things. I should point out, though, that the Bible's prophecies kept the verification process going for thousands of years. Most notably to us though, the rebirth of Israel --- a major prophecy fulfilled in our time - (okay, just before our time).

Self-Fulfilling.

 

[AV1611VET]

Who are all conveniently dead now -- the only records of their "verification," being the Bible itself.

I'd say if you check your history (especially the pictures), you'll see the earth dotted with churches here and there --- living testimony of Bible-believing saints.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'd say if you check your history (especially the pictures), you'll see the earth dotted with churches here and there --- living testimony of Bible-believing saints.

I also see the Earth dotted with mosques and temples, and in a lot more places than "here and there" -- living (if buildings can be said to be "living") testimony of Bible-unbeliving saints.

 

[AV1611VET]

I also see the Earth dotted with mosques and temples, and in a lot more places than "here and there" -- living (if buildings can be said to be "living") testimony of Bible-unbeliving saints.

I knew that was coming:

[bible]Matthew 13:24-30[/bible]