For RichardT: why creationism is harmful

[metherion]

What about my flaw? God never creates undersea plants. He never makes anything for His non-carniverous undersea critters to eat.

Metherion

 

[Aggie]

If God is intentionally deceiving us, Aggie, He's doing a poor job.

Why would He leave us documentation detailing exactly what He did, when He did it, and how He did it?

If I still believed that Genesis is literally true, I think the only thing it would make sense for me to believe is that God revealed the truth about how he created the world to one group of people in the Middle East, and created the world is such a way so as to intentionally deceive everyone else. Remember that until a few hundred years ago, nobody outside of Europe and the Middle East had ever seen the Bible at all. Around the year 1000 AD, people in Eastern Asia, Southern Africa, Australia, and the Americas had nothing but the physical world to use in order to understand the way in which the world was created, because God hadn’t given them access to the Bible at that point. If the only information he had given these people about the world’s history was false, then I think it’s an unavoidable conclusion that he was trying to deceive them.

Aggie, here's the thing --- and you may not want to debate Creation with me after this post --- and I won't blame you at all.

When I debate Creation, I try to never ever step outside of Genesis 1.

Once you get into Genesis 2 or beyond, people can start bringing up all kinds of side issues like the Tree of Knowledge, the Serpent, etc.

If you think for one minute that in Genesis 1, Adam was in danger of his life when God paraded the animals past him so he could name them, then there's really not much to discuss. - (I know, he did that in Genesis 2).

I hold try to hold people to Genesis 1 --- and Genesis 1 only --- if they want to debate Creation.

And I challenge them to find one flaw --- just one.

HERE are my four rock-solid refutations of evolution, from Scripture.

I already knew this about you, so it’s not like it changes my attitude towards you or anything.

I’d like you to address the last part of what I said in my OP, though. Do you trust the Bible more than you trust what you can see for yourself in the physical world? It seems like you’re saying that you do, but I was trying to explain why that shouldn’t be possible.

How do you read the Bible? Is it a printed Bible? If you read it in print and think you know what it says as a result, then you’re trusting your eyes. If it’s a Braille Bible, then you’re trusting your sense of touch, or your sense of hearing if someone reads it aloud to you. If your senses can be trusted when you’re reading the Bible, then you should also be able to trust them when you observe things about the world directly.

In order for anyone to avoid the hypothetical situation I described for someone driving a car, it’s essential for them to realize that nothing can be a more reliable source of information about the world than our own senses. Everything we learn about the world has to come through our senses anyway, even if it’s from an external authority, and a combination of our senses and logic are the only way for us to know which authorities are a reliable source of information. How have you determined what the Bible says, and that the Bible is truly the word of God, rather than the word of God being the Koran or the Vedas? If you needed to use observation and logic in order to determine that the Bible is true, then at least once you’ve considered these things a more reliable source of information than anything that’s taken on someone’s authority.

 

[MoonLancer]

Why would He leave us documentation detailing exactly what He did, when He did it, and how He did it?

um when did god do it? I don't see a date on that book do you? and can you explain the exact method of How? because i would like to create my own universe, but i cant seem to find the instruction manual. the best thing i have is one that was revers engineered from science.

and ah, still to answer to Why? the very question of purpose eludes even the bible. Science is hardly alone in its endeavor to answer this question.

why use logic, when you can use .... CIRCULAR LOGIC. Yes its nice and round and never gets to the point at the end.

are you trying to say that the book that claims god exists also stats that this god is infallible and gave you an infallible book that makes the claim to a infallible god who gave you said book? If so you might be a victim of circular logic and unfalsifiable claims.

 

[Renton405]

It's posts like this that makes me wonder why people with your POV bother with living... You see this life as some crappy starter like a watery soup thats been over seasoned and left to get cold. Why do you bother with it while you have a fantastic main course and desert waiting?

Because life on earth is our time to get right with God. Its our probationary period..What the people in hell wouldn't give for just an hour worth of time back here on earth..Compare that to how people squander away their time in worldly things ignoring the warnings from God. That is what true stupidity is..

Ive thought the same about atheists. Why do u bother if you know you'll be nothing later on. Do you even wonder about Paschals Wager?

why use logic, when you can use .... CIRCULAR LOGIC. Yes its nice and round and never gets to the point at the end.

and you don't think things like the big bang is circular logic?? I still have yet seen a scientist prove that something can come from nothing..

I respond that God has set boundaries that nature cannot cross.

AIDS is a good example. I personally believe AIDS is one of the plaugues sent by God because of the sins of humanity. And yet we can only supress it. There is no cure..Who knows what the next uncurable disease there is gonna be..

 

[Patashu]

Two reasons why pascal's wager is flawed:
1. There are an infinite amount of possible afterlives; when you die, you can only go for one of these. Without evidence that Christianity is the correct one, beliving in it will grant no advantage (1 out of infinity is still 0)
2. You do lose something in this world by being religious; your current life. If there's nothing after life, atheists lived their life to the fullest and you didn't.

One (possible) reason why the big bang isn't:

astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

 

[AV1611VET]

Remember that until a few hundred years ago, nobody outside of Europe and the Middle East had ever seen the Bible at all.

I totally disagree. If nature alone is good enough, why the need for Scripture in the first place? Surely you're not suggesting that these authors died for nothing?

I have to believe that the Apostles were obedient to the Great Commission, even coming to America to spread the Gospel.

(They would even have gone to Antarctica if it would have been inhabited at the time.)

If no one outside of the Middle East had ever seen a Bible, why is China's alphabet a pictograph of the Gospel?

I’d like you to address the last part of what I said in my OP, though. Do you trust the Bible more than you trust what you can see for yourself in the physical world?

Only where the physical world contradicts the Bible. If the physical world doesn't contradict the Bible, then no problem.

How do you read the Bible? Is it a printed Bible? If you read it in print and think you know what it says as a result, then you’re trusting your eyes. If it’s a Braille Bible, then you’re trusting your sense of touch, or your sense of hearing if someone reads it aloud to you. If your senses can be trusted when you’re reading the Bible, then you should also be able to trust them when you observe things about the world directly.

But just as I can misinterpret the Bible, I can misinterpret nature as well.

Science is always "correcting" last year's misinterpretations of nature.

 

[Tinker Grey]

But just as I can misinterpret the Bible, I can misinterpret nature as well.

If we can trust the Holy Spirit to guide people in interpreting scripture, we can trust that the Holy Spirit will guide in interpreting nature.

Science is always "correcting" last year's misinterpretations of nature.

Would that literalists were so humble.

 

[AV1611VET]

If we can trust the Holy Spirit to guide people in interpreting scripture, we can trust that the Holy Spirit will guide in interpreting nature.

But atheists do not have the Holy Spirit as a guide.

Besides, nature currently is hostile to God.

Case in point: death --- the "enemy."

[bible]1 Corinthians 15:26[/bible]

 

[Loudmouth]

But atheists do not have the Holy Spirit as a guide.

But christian geologists do and they can not find evidence of a global flood or a young earth. In fact, they find evidence to the contrary.

 

[TheOutsider]

But atheists do not have the Holy Spirit as a guide.

Why do you insist calling every single scientist as an atheist when that is patently false? In fact, the majority of scientists are Christians. I'm sure quite a few of them ask the Holy Spirit to help them in their work too.

 

[Chalnoth]

In fact, the majority of scientists are Christians.

I don't buy that. Though it is the case that the majority of Christians accept things like evolution and an old Earth, and reject things like a literal 6-day creation or a literal flood.

 

[TheOutsider]

I don't buy that.

I should have said American scientists. I'm not sure about the international numbers though.

Though it is the case that the majority of Christians accept things like evolution and an old Earth, and reject things like a literal 6-day creation or a literal flood.

That is definitely true. Young Earth Creationists are in the minority everywhere. They are almost a cult at this point.

 

[Vene]

Young Earth Creationists are in the minority everywhere. They are almost a cult at this point.

Are you sure you need to add almost?
It's a complete and total rejection of the physical world.

 

[Vene]

Because life on earth is our time to get right with God. Its our probationary period..What the people in hell wouldn't give for just an hour worth of time back here on earth..Compare that to how people squander away their time in worldly things ignoring the warnings from God. That is what true stupidity is..

Really? I thought true stupidity was ignoring the physical evidence in exchange for old fairy tales and a magic man in the sky.

Ive thought the same about atheists. Why do u bother if you know you'll be nothing later on. Do you even wonder about Paschals Wager?

Pascal's Wager is a false dichotomy. It is entirely possible that there is a supreme being and it's not the god of the Bible.

and you don't think things like the big bang is circular logic?? I still have yet seen a scientist prove that something can come from nothing..

I think this sums up the sentiment.
By the way, in the big bang, the energy that was changed into matter was always there.

AIDS is a good example. I personally believe AIDS is one of the plaugues sent by God because of the sins of humanity. And yet we can only supress it. There is no cure..Who knows what the next uncurable disease there is gonna be..

As I said in another thread:
God loves us, so he has to kill us? And as far as a plague goes AIDS is pretty weak, the bubonic plague had people dying in the street, and the 1918 influenza outbreak killed more people that the war that preceded it. You have a pretty impotent God if AIDS is the best he can do. Only 2.9 million people died from it in 2006 and that is not even 0.05% of the world's population. (6.6 billion)

 

[Chalnoth]

I should have said American scientists. I'm not sure about the international numbers though.

I don't think that's true either, though. I just found a scholarly article that pegs natural scientists in the US at around 68% atheist/agnostic ("I do not believe in God" or "I do not know if there is or is not a God and there is no way to find out"). Sorry that it's by subscription only:
http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/sp.2007.54.2.289

 

[TheOutsider]

I don't think that's true either, though. I just found a scholarly article that pegs natural scientists in the US at around 68% atheist/agnostic ("I do not believe in God" or "I do not know if there is or is not a God and there is no way to find out"). Sorry that it's by subscription only:
http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/sp.2007.54.2.289

I guess I should have done my research beforehand. Wikipedia has a section on this too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relati...#The_attitudes_of_scientists_towards_religion

That doesn't mean that all scientists are atheists/agnostics. And to say that a scientific theory is atheistic is beyond ridiculous.

 

[AV1611VET]

um when did god do it? I don't see a date on that book do you?

No --- but that doesn't mean I can't do simple arithmetic and calculate when He did it.

...and can you explain the exact method of How?

Yes --- ex nihilo.

... because i would like to create my own universe, but i cant seem to find the instruction manual. the best thing i have is one that was revers engineered from science.

The instruction manual wouldn't do you any good. You need another ingredient --- omnipotence.

and ah, still to answer to Why? the very question of purpose eludes even the bible. Science is hardly alone in its endeavor to answer this question.

You want motive, and you can't even understand the "crime"?

why use logic, when you can use .... CIRCULAR LOGIC. Yes its nice and round and never gets to the point at the end.

No one uses circular logic more than "scientists," who use nature to explain nature.

are you trying to say that the book that claims god exists also stats that this god is infallible and gave you an infallible book that makes the claim to a infallible god who gave you said book?

Yes

 

[AV1611VET]

But christian geologists do and they can not find evidence of a global flood or a young earth. In fact, they find evidence to the contrary.

They need to keep looking, don't they?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you insist calling every single scientist as an atheist when that is patently false? In fact, the majority of scientists are Christians. I'm sure quite a few of them ask the Holy Spirit to help them in their work too.

You have a point here --- I used to use the term "scientatheist" to differentiate, until someone pouted about it.

I'm strongly considering going back to it.

 

[Naraoia]

You have a point here --- I used to use the term "scientatheist" to differentiate, until someone pouted about it.

I'm strongly considering going back to it.

What about atheist scientist?