Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Biblical Creation

[sandwiches]

You may commence at your convenience.

Been there. Done that. Didn't get a t-shirt. =(

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

Not only is it broad in scope, it's deep in volume too: every type of evidence has enourmous quantities of physical fossils and genomes and species and so on and so forth that support it.

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.

Are you implying that these supernatural assertions are compelling reasons?

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

The track record of genuine scientific beliefs is just as poor, wouldn't you say?

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.

If it were, would it be any more valid? Does the method of education affect the veracity of what is taught?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Your entire paragraph confirms macroevolution. That you don't understand that is very humorous.

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.

It was spoken into existence. That is an incantation. That is magic by every definition.

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.

Creationism has been wrong for 300 years and hasn't changed. What does that tell you? Are you saying that you would accept evolution if it still clung to Lamarckian mechanisms even though they have been shown to be false?

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.

Catastophism is a part of uniformitarianism. That you don't understand this is even more hilarious.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

The track record of genuine scientific beliefs is just as poor, wouldn't you say?

No. Not "just as poor". The simple fact that scientific beliefs dependent on evidence tends to ground them substantially more. I'm not about to claim that there exists a perfect system for seeking knowledge but I will assert that science is far more accurate and honest.

If it were, would it be any more valid? Does the method of education affect the veracity of what is taught?

I think it would. If a belief system wasn't steeped in inculcation then independent thought would eventually help stamp out false beliefs. Some systems are simply more honest and reliable in the pursuit of knowledge.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No. Not "just as poor". The simple fact that scientific beliefs dependent on evidence tends to ground them substantially more. I'm not about to claim that there exists a perfect system for seeking knowledge but I will assert that science is far more accurate and honest.

Still, you said that, because "[t]he track record of these belief systems to be incorrect when making assertions about the natural world", you therefore don't believe in Biblical Creationism. Shouldn't a claim be judged on its own merits? That you failed before doesn't mean you'll fail again.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

Creationism has been wrong for 300 years and hasn't changed. What does that tell you? Are you saying that you would accept evolution if it still clung to Lamarckian mechanisms even though they have been shown to be false?

The track record of genuine scientific beliefs is just as poor, wouldn't you say?

No. Not "just as poor". The simple fact that scientific beliefs dependent on evidence tends to ground them substantially more.

Interesting.

Two people making the same point, but getting two different answers.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Interesting.

Two people making the same point, but getting two different answers.

If a child and a professor both ask a 20yo university undergraduate, "Why is the sky blue?", you'll get two different answers. Not because of any inherent dissonance, but because the answers are tailored to the asker.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Still, you said that, because "[t]he track record of these belief systems to be incorrect when making assertions about the natural world", you therefore don't believe in Biblical Creationism.

This is one reason (not the reason). Since biblical creationism doesn't allow for changing based on new evidence the accuracy of other assertions within the same immutable framework are an important indicator when determining it's reliability as a whole. It becomes untrustworthy as a source of knowledge.

Shouldn't a claim be judged on its own merits? That you failed before doesn't mean you'll fail again.

Claims should be judged based on a preponderance of evidence. Incorrect assertions made within a framework that doesn't allow for question is a far bigger problem than incorrect assertions made within a framework designed to challenge assertions.

No system is going to be perfect. What I think gets lost here is the the bigger picture. When you step back and really compare the two systems from which these competing ideas were born it becomes obvious that science is a far superior system for seeking knowledge. It has been used time and again to dispel long held religious beliefs like the geocentric universe. Evolution is just the modern incarnation of this age old cycle. This pattern must be taken into account when looking at the big picture.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Interesting.

Two people making the same point, but getting two different answers.

If a child and a professor both ask a 20yo university undergraduate, "Why is the sky blue?", you'll get two different answers. Not because of any inherent dissonance, but because the answers are tailored to the asker.

Don't get excited. We are just quibbling over the shade of blue

 

[Split Rock]

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'.

He gave us nothing at all in writing. All because you repeat this over and over here, does not make it true. Even if He did write scripture, you are still interpreting it wrong anyway.

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

No, you are being deceived by an erroneous interpretation of scripture based on incorrect assumptions about who wrote it and why.

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.

A family tree is a family tree. Go ahead and try putting automobiles into a family tree and see how you do. Diagram it all you want. Use supercomputers. A square peg does not fit into a round hole.

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.

Computers are useful tools, but they only make calculations faster.. they do not change the results.

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?

Easy. You give the creatures all genetic sequences that make it look like they are related as in a family tree.

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.

You don't share my distain for Hovind, because you don't see being wrong constantly as a bad thing. He is a brother-in-Christ who supports creationism, and that is all that counts. Being wrong for you is irrelevant to "the Truth." This is one of the reasons you are deceived by creationism, btw.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This is one reason (not the reason). Since biblical creationism doesn't allow for changing based on new evidence the accuracy of other assertions within the same immutable framework are an important indicator when determining it's reliability as a whole. It becomes untrustworthy as a source of knowledge.

That would lead to a "The Bible is either true or false" kind of dichotomy, when the Bible is, in and of itself, made up of many claims. It claims there was a Global Flood and Pharaohs. The falsehood of the former shouldn't be used as an indicator, as that would imply the latter is also false - yet, obviously Pharaohs did exist.

So, though some parts are demonstrably false, others are demonstrably true. The system as a whole ("It's in the Bible, therefore it's true") is wrong, but we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss everything in the Bible.

Claims should be judged based on a preponderance of evidence. Incorrect assertions made within a framework that doesn't allow for question is a far bigger problem than incorrect assertions made within a framework designed to challenge assertions.

Agreed.

No system is going to be perfect. What I think gets lost here is the the bigger picture. When you step back and really compare the two systems from which these competing ideas were born it becomes obvious that science is a far superior system for seeking knowledge. It has been used time and again to dispel long held religious beliefs like the geocentric universe. Evolution is just the modern incarnation of this age old cycle. This pattern must be taken into account when looking at the big picture.

I think the biggest and most powerful thing is to simply point out that, at the end of the day, science works. Like it or not, it's not religion that built MRI machines and smallpox vaccines.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

That would lead to a "The Bible is either true or false" kind of dichotomy,

I am only speaking in reference to instances akin to the creation vs. evolution debate. In matters where these two systems become at odds I will weigh the history as one of my deciding factors.

History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

I think the biggest and most powerful thing is to simply point out that, at the end of the day, science works. Like it or not, it's not religion that built MRI machines and smallpox vaccines.

Yet people still pray for healing and give to mega-churches instead of medical research

I'm still amazed by how far we haven't come.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I am only speaking in reference to instances akin to the creation vs. evolution debate. In matters where these two systems become at odds I will weigh the history as one of my deciding factors.

History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

That's a good quote, I may steal it for myself!

Yet people still prey for healing and give to mega-churches instead of medical research

I'm still amazed by how far we haven't come.

What an ironic typo, considering the methods by which televangelists operate

 

[Nostromo]

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

Weird, when I look at synonyms of "magical" in the thesaurus, I find "miraculous".

 

[AV1611VET]

Weird, when I look at synonyms of "magical" in the thesaurus, I find "miraculous".

Is that where you get your theology?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Weird, when I look at synonyms of "magical" in the thesaurus, I find "miraculous".

Is that where you get your theology?

Noted as the moment the thread officially jumped the shark.

 

[Belk]

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?

Are you trying to argue that we are not deceived AV? Is that not the basis of your whole argument against the "5% of science" you disagree with?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you trying to argue that we are not deceived AV?

Yes, you are being deceived -- but not by God.

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

 

[Jazer]

He gave us nothing at all in writing.

For me a fossil is just like writting. Clearly God wanted to show us what He did and left us a fossil record so we could see for ourselves. Even if you deny the Bible, all of creation gives witness and testimony for God. Perhaps a few egg heads at the university say creation created itself. But the vast majority of people see that creation needed a Creator. That is why sometimes people believe the college of hard knocks trumps the universities. Because people tend to lose their common sense and the ability to think for themselves when they get to much education.