Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Biblical Creation

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

1. The overwhelming breadth of physical evidence supporting the theory of evolution as an accurate description of how all life came to be as it is today.

2. Aside from supernatural assertions put forth by ancient fractured theisms written down by men of antiquity, there is no compelling reason to believe that life forms were created magically from dust, clay, ribs, thought, etc.

3. The track record of these belief systems to be incorrect when making assertions about the natural world.

4. The pattern and process by which the proponents "teach" and argue for biblical creation as an accurate description of how all life came to be as it is today. It is an inherently flawed, inconsistent, and incapable of self correction.

Commence prattling please.

 

[Greg1234]

1. According to which scientific community? Darwinian?

2. Well you know what they say, one man's protein synthesis is another seismograph's magic. By the by, does an atomic bomb exceed the capabilities of a stone in a macroscopically engineered catapult?

3. Which? Darwinian? OldearthDarwinian? DarwinianplatetectonicsbigbanggermAGW? Oldearthcreationism? Etc..??

4. According to...?

 

[Split Rock]

1. The overwhelming breadth of physical evidence supporting the theory of evolution as an accurate description of how all life came to be as it is today.

2. Aside from supernatural assertions put forth by ancient fractured theisms written down by men of antiquity, there is no compelling reason to believe that life forms were created magically from dust, clay, ribs, thought, etc.

3. The track record of these belief systems to be incorrect when making assertions about the natural world.

4. The pattern and process by which the proponents "teach" and argue for biblical creation as an accurate description of how all life came to be as it is today. It is an inherently flawed, inconsistent, and incapable of self correction.

Commence prattling please.

I was going to start a thread like this myself... you beat me to it!

Anyway... here are some additions for your list that I was going to include;

5. Biblical creation makes no sense. Light is created before the sun and plants that utilize photosynthesis after both. The Earth is created first and them (presumably) put into orbit around the sun, which is described as nothing more than a light. One human is created and then a mate is made from a rib... despite the requirement for many more than two to make a healthy breeding population, etc. etc.

6. Biblical creation assumes a writing style, literal history, that did not exist when the books of the Bible were written. Nor does it take into account context of any other kind. The Bible is assummed to be written for 21st century American Fundamentalist Christians, who are used to reading literal historical accounts.

7. Biblical creation relies on the absolute and inerrant authority of "Verbal Plenary Inspiration, " where God basically dictated scripture to what amounts to be secretaries. There is no basis for this belief anywhere in scripture, and is obviously false. All you have to do is read the bible to see it was not written by any god. It is a work of Man, and is thus fallible. Even worse, interpreting it is also done by fallable Men.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Genesis is a poetic account, not meant to be 'scientific'. The arguement comes down to two choices: Supernatural, purposeful creation.......... or not. If evolutionists want to construct a strawman by changing poetry into science go ahead. You'll win but against a false arguement.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Genesis is a poetic account, not meant to be 'scientific'. The arguement comes down to two choices: Supernatural, purposeful creation.......... or not. If evolutionists want to construct a strawman by changing poetry into science go ahead. You'll win but against a false arguement.

Excuse me but, a strawman is when you argue against a position that is not held by the oposition. Such as for instance the famous 'you dont see dogs giving birth to cats', no biologists would suggest such a thing could even take place. However there are plenty of christians who are perfectly content taking the position of literal biblical reading that is being argued against here.

So just because you personally do not subscribe to it does not mean it is a strawman, it merely means you are that other christian that is not being adressed right now.

 

[AV1611VET]

1. The overwhelming breadth of physical evidence supporting the theory of evolution as an accurate description of how all life came to be as it is today.

2. Aside from supernatural assertions put forth by ancient fractured theisms written down by men of antiquity, there is no compelling reason to believe that life forms were created magically from dust, clay, ribs, thought, etc.

3. The track record of these belief systems to be incorrect when making assertions about the natural world.

4. The pattern and process by which the proponents "teach" and argue for biblical creation as an accurate description of how all life came to be as it is today. It is an inherently flawed, inconsistent, and incapable of self correction.

Commence prattling please.

1. You've got nothing in the way of macroevolution. Your 'overwhelming physical evidence' supports only microevolution, and macroevolution is assumed to be the next step. In fact, existing evidence today supports limited evolution only. Bacteria, which create a new species every twenty minutes to twenty-four hours, has never produced anything other than more bacteria, despite doing so since the beginning of time. The fruit fly, which goes from egg to adult in nine days, and is one of scientists' favorite insects to study, has been tested under every conceivable condition on the face of the earth, and still yields a fruit fly. Try to force a species to become something other than its own kind yields only death and sterility.

2. I don't believe they were created 'magically' either. I believe they were created 'miraculously', which puts a whole new dimension on your point that even Internet scientist here won't acknowledge. They prefer to stick with 'magically', even when corrected; because 'magically' is a much weaker term and can be contested more easily.

3. Speaking of track records being inconsistent. Since the dawn of time, anyone appealing to science to explain something has had that 'something' eventually changed. The periodic table of the elements is always being changed, theories are always being falsified, and even our moon has six different theories to choose from. The only thing consistent with your track record is the fact that it changes with the weather. One person here even told me he can't wait until the next discovery changes the way we view things.

4. Only when they factor uniformitarianism and same-state past into the equation of how everything came to be, does it break down and segment into all different explanations -- as it should. Those of us who believe in catastrophism with a different-state past disagree with each other only in minor details that really aren't worth discussing.

 

[Greg1234]

Light is created before the sun

A flashlight?

and plants that utilize photosynthesis after both.

Plants don't need God's light? How do they survive. Poor plants.

The Earth is created first and them (presumably)

uh oh.

which is described as nothing more than a light.

...?

One human is created and then a mate is made from a rib... despite the requirement for many more than two to make a healthy breeding population, etc. etc.

Darwinian logic takes over. Physical beast men for the win!!!!!!11

6. Biblical creation assumes a writing style, literal history, that did not exist when the books of the Bible were written. Nor does it take into account context of any other kind. The Bible is assummed to be written for 21st century American Fundamentalist Christians, who are used to reading literal historical accounts.

What if I desperately tell the Anti-global warming community that we have a stunning revelation: their literature secretly and metaphorically means global warming. Will that strategy work? Will it be taken seriously? Yes? No? Maybe a little? little?

7. Biblical creation relies on the absolute and inerrant authority of "Verbal Plenary Inspiration, " where God basically dictated scripture to what amounts to be secretaries. There is no basis for this belief anywhere in scripture, and is obviously false.

Who authorized that? The Darwinian community?

All you have to do is read the bible to see it was not written by any god. It is a work of Man, and is thus fallible. Even worse, interpreting it is also done by fallable Men.

Are electric universe proponents fallible? Yes:Electric universe refuted. No: It's not refuted. Who will win? Find out next time on Split Rock's Universe. laldeedidadum

 

[Split Rock]

1. You've got nothing in the way of macroevolution. Your 'overwhelming physical evidence' supports only microevolution, and macroevolution is assumed to be the next step. In fact, existing evidence today supports limited evolution only. Bacteria, which create a new species every twenty minutes to twenty-four hours, has never produced anything other than more bacteria, despite doing so since the beginning of time. The fruit fly, which goes from egg to adult in nine days, and is one of scientists' favorite insects to study, has been tested under every conceivable condition on the face of the earth, and still yields a fruit fly. Try to force a species to become something other than its own kind yields only death and sterility.

The evidence does indeed support macro-evolution or common descent. The twin-nested hierarchy can only be explained by either common descent or gross deception of a creator. Family trees are family trees. As far as bacteria producing only bacteria, we never claim anything else. We are animals, vertebrates, tetrapods, mammals, primates, and apes... just like our ancestors. You cannot escape your heredity.

2. I don't believe they were created 'magically' either. I believe they were created 'miraculously', which puts a whole new dimension on your point that even Internet scientist here won't acknowledge. They prefer to stick with 'magically', even when corrected; because 'magically' is a much weaker term and can be contested more easily.

"Magic" or "miracle" amounts to the same thing.

3. Speaking of track records being inconsistent. Since the dawn of time, anyone appealing to science to explain something has had that 'something' eventually changed. The periodic table of the elements is always being changed, theories are always being falsified, and even our moon has six different theories to choose from. The only thing consistent with your track record is the fact that it changes with the weather. One person here even told me he can't wait until the next discovery changes the way we view things.

I thought you were never going to use the Periodic Table as an argument again? Science is self-correcting. That is how we learn and improve our understanding of the universe. I keep asking you guys how creationism corrects itself, and never get an answer that makes sense. And boy does it need correcting!

4. Only when they factor uniformitarianism and same-state past into the equation of how everything came to be, does it break down and segment into all different explanations -- as it should. Those of us who believe in catastrophism with a different-state past disagree with each other only in minor details that really aren't worth discussing.

Oh no...... now you are using dadology?! Some one throw AVET a rope!!

Those "minor details" are pretty major. Of course, in order to mainatian the illusion of solidarity with your fellow "Brothers and Sisters in Christ" against the common enemy, you have to pretend otherwise. It would almost be worth it to give you guys what you want and then watch your fellow Brothers and Sisters in Christ tear each other apart like rabid jackals... each defending "The Inerrent Word of Almighty God," of course.

 

[Jazer]

1. The overwhelming breadth of physical evidence supporting the theory of evolution as an accurate description of how all life came to be as it is today.

That is absurd. The theory offers an explaination for the evidence. The evidence itself offers nothing in the way of support as to how accurate the theory is. That is simply an opinion in regards to how good the theory explains the evidence. A lot of science is based on just having an explaination or a answer for the questions. Even if the answer or explaination is worthless. After all science can always get indignant and claim "I am an expert" if people question the explainations or the answers they provide. So you can know that what they provide is the best science has to offer for whatever that maybe worth.

God gives us physical evidence. A lot of what God does is to see what our reaction will be. He wants to know if we are going to give Him the honor and the glory. Look at people with musical talents, gifts and abilitys. Some use that gift to honor God, some use that Gift NOT to Honor God. They have that choice and He wants to see what they will do with what He has given to them. Of course when it comes to the Universe it is difficult to try and explain the Universe without talking about the God who created us and the Univese that we abide in. Some people do at least try to leave God out of the equation. But most know that God is a part of what He has Created. In fact Jesus became so much a part of the world that He could walk and talk with us. Even He was offered up as a sacrifice in our place.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Genesis is a poetic account, not meant to be 'scientific'. The arguement comes down to two choices: Supernatural, purposeful creation.......... or not. If evolutionists want to construct a strawman by changing poetry into science go ahead. You'll win but against a false arguement.

Ah, the rare proponent of theistic evolution. To be honest, I don't have much of a beef with TE types but the general MO of the debate here in Creation & Evolution is that of "Evolution can't be true because [insert your supernatural creator here] made us in our present form magically."

This is historically how it goes down... Men of antiquity take a stab at explainng the world around us (flat Earth, geocentric universe, magical creation for man, mystical forces controlling the weather, etc.) and then, once science is able to explain stuff like evolution, the heliocentric solar system, weather, etc. the intrenched biblical explanations are defended tooth and nail for awhile. This goes on until truth prevails and theists revise their interpretations of, as you call them, ancient poems. It's a time honored tradition.

At this point there is a convergence of many scientific disciplines from chemistry to cosmology that come together to support evolution. We just need the fundamentalists to get over it like the TEs have and move the supernatural explanations, be they called magical or miracle, to the next gap in scientific knowledge. Something like:

"At first there was nothing then... a miracle happened... and we use science to explain the rest."

That should buy us all some time to live in (some semblance of) harmony and stop trying to rewrite scientific theories in favor of dogma passed down based on the misinterpretation of ancient poems.

I guess, in the grand scheme of things, I'm just happy that the church has relatively limited power these days and nobody is being jailed, burned, or beheaded.

The world needs more moderates like you.

 

[AV1611VET]

The evidence does indeed support macro-evolution or common descent.

No, it doesn't -- unless you use your imagination to make the loose ends fit.

Macroevolution has never been observed.

The twin-nested hierarchy can only be explained by either common descent or gross deception of a creator.

There's a third opition: a Common Designer.

As Kent Hovind says, "I don't believe in a common ancestor; I believe in a Common Designer."

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I don't believe they were created 'magically' either. I believe they were created 'miraculously'

Aside from how the word makes you feel, what is the difference? When your god or gods wield magic then it's called a miracle?

Speaking of track records being inconsistent. Since the dawn of time, anyone appealing to science to explain something has had that 'something' eventually changed. The periodic table of the elements is always being change...

Here is the major difference that escapes most religious folks. Science is a system capable of correcting itself. If science didn't correct biblical interpretations then we would still believe the earth was the center of the universe because dogma has no way to correct itself.

No matter how you slice it, interpretation of ancient texts is inferior to science when seeking to explain the universe around us.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

That is absurd. The theory offers an explaination for the evidence...

This is correct. I will simply contend that an explanation based on physical evidence (especially from multiple disciplines and sources) is more worthy of belief than explanations based on interpretation of ancient texts. Interpretations of antiquated knowledge is simply inferior.

God gives us physical evidence. A lot of what God does is to see what our reaction will be. He wants to know if we are going to give Him the honor and the glory.

I always find this line of thought interesting. On one hand it's a clever defense for any evidence that contradicts someone's belief system. Yet, it must be at least a bit uncomfortable to paint your god as a trickster that goes around planting evidence just to test you.

 

[Split Rock]

There's a third opition: a Common Designer.

As Kent Hovind says, "I don't believe in a common ancestor; I believe in a Common Designer."

That third option is actually my second option.. a deceptive creator. Because this "common designer" of yours had to have purposely created to make it look like common descent had occurred. He had to have created a false family tree. Oh and btw... quoting "Dr. Dino" is usually a bad idea.

 

[Split Rock]

Genesis is a poetic account, not meant to be 'scientific'.

I agree 100%!

The arguement comes down to two choices: Supernatural, purposeful creation.......... or not. If evolutionists want to construct a strawman by changing poetry into science go ahead. You'll win but against a false arguement.

We're not the ones who invented the idea of turning poetry in the bible into science. this is the work of "Creation Scientists." Ever heard of them? AIG... ICR... Dr. Dino... Ring a bell?

 

[AV1611VET]

That third option is actually my second option.. a deceptive creator.

And yet again, I have to ask: Who is being deceived?

When God gives us in Writing what He did, when He did it, how He did it, where He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long to do it, and who the eyewitness were, I would not call that 'deception'.

In fact, if it wasn't for Genesis 1, we would be deceived by science.

Because this "common designer" of yours had to have purposely created to make it look like common descent had occurred.

Either that, or you educatees look at nature and diagram it in such a way as to make it fit into a puzzle that doesn't exist, then claim the One Who gave us the pieces is being deceptive.

In short, your paradigms have seams that stick out like a sore thumb; and require a LOT of work -- often with computers -- to make things even come close to fitting.

He had to have created a false family tree.

No, He didn't.

And think about what you just said.

How do you create a 'false family tree' in a six-day literal creation week?

Oh and btw... quoting "Dr. Dino" is usually a bad idea.

I'm aware of that, and believe me, it doesn't deter me one bit.

I don't share your disdain for him, so that's a burden I don't have to carry around.

 

[sandwiches]

And yet again, I have to ask: Who is being deceived?

Anyone with half a brain.

I'm sure AV would call the police if his house was broken into and robbed even if the robbers left a note saying "Your house wasn't robbed." Unless God had written it, in which case, he'd eat out of a non existent fridge, sit on a chair no longer there, and watch the spot on the wall where his TV used to be.

I'll tell you what... If God is a deceiver, it ain't the atheists who swallowed the lie.

 

[AV1611VET]

And yet again, I have to ask: Who is being deceived?

Anyone with half a brain.

No argument there.

But that aside, I can assure you that if God wanted to deceive you, you would be deceived.

In fact, if He wanted to deceive you, He would not have given us Genesis 1; He would have just had to remain silent.

And for the record, what is an atheist doing telling anyone what God is or isn't doing, or what God has or hasn't done?

 

[sandwiches]

No argument there.

But that aside, I can assure you that if God wanted to deceive you, you would be deceived.

In fact, if He wanted to deceive you, He would not have given us Genesis 1; He would have just had to remain silent.

And for the record, what is an atheist doing telling anyone what God is or isn't doing, or what God has or hasn't done?

We use the same sources. We're just showing you were your interpretation is wrong or inconsistent.

 

[AV1611VET]

We use the same sources. We're just showing you were your interpretation is wrong or inconsistent.

You may commence at your convenience.