Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Biblical Creation

[Jazer]

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?

What irony. You ignore the 95% in order to accept the 5% that he rejects.

 

[Doveaman]

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.

You cannot blame the Creator for the way He chose to create. You can only blame yourself for your own delusion caused by the way you chose to interpret His creation. If God wanted to deceive us He wouldn't have left us a written record of what He did.

It is only people like you who completely ignore His record who then turn and accuse Him of being a liar. He thoroughly explained what He did, you completely ignore His explanation, and then you accused Him of being a liar. Ridiculous!

Perhaps if you took some time to study His explanation you wouldn't keep embarrassing yourself with such a ridiculous accusation.

"Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called science - by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith...For we walk by faith, not by sight." (1 Tim 6:20-21, 2 Cor 5:7).

 

[Doveaman]

He gave us nothing at all in writing.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

 

[AV1611VET]

What irony. You ignore the 95% in order to accept the 5% that he rejects.

Yup -- they have a zero tolerance level with us.

 

[Doveaman]

Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Biblical Creation

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.

Biblical Creation is irrefutable. This is why the debate has continued for so many centuries. But you are welcome to try.

 

[USincognito]

Biblical Creation is irrefutable. This is why the debate has continued for so many centuries. But you are welcome to try.

This quote starts off bad and just gets worse with each sentence.

 

[Jazer]

Yup -- they have a zero tolerance level with us.

It just amazes me that they are willing to be a traitor to science because of their hatred of Christianity. Sooner or later everyone has to decide if they are going to take a stand for the truth or not. Perhaps science is just a tool they use to accomplish their anti Christian objectives. We know that God is long suffering not wanting any to perish but for all to come to a saving knowledge of the truth. Yet they accuse God because He will allow people to perish in their sin.

 

[Greg1234]

science is a far superior system for seeking knowledge.

Science is not exactly a system for the seeking of knowledge, it is the seeking of knowledge. We invented the thing. Shheeesh...

It has been used time and again to dispel long held religious beliefs like the geocentric universe.

If you want to call the geocentric literature of the scientific community "religious."

Evolution is just the modern incarnation of this age old cycle.

You mean a well known scientific community is resisting ID science because of it's "religious" literature?

This pattern must be taken into account when looking at the big picture.

Surely, Watson. Surely.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Biblical Creation is irrefutable. This is why the debate has continued for so many centuries. But you are welcome to try.

This quote starts off bad and just gets worse with each sentence.

You can almost picture the process after being here after seeing responses like this time and time again...

Fundamentalist starts to read the OP... can't get past the title before the the automatic reaction sets in... all of a sudden those neural pathways that have been reinforced every Sunday for their entire life kick in and all the sound bytes start flooding to their mind... unable to finish reading they simple blurt out the first three of four disjointed non-starters that cannot be suppressed.

Cognitive dissonance relieved, they take a deep breath and return to a blissful state of [insert various belief system here].

Well, seeing as how this thread has already jumped the shark I'll go ahead and adapt my normally thoughtful argument and give it a go...

Biblical Creation is irrefutable. This is why the debate has continued for so many centuries. But you are welcome to try.

Is not. Has not. Already did. You can start here.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Science is not exactly a system for the seeking of knowledge, it is the seeking of knowledge. We invented the thing. Shheeesh...

Just because we "invented" science doesn't preclude it from being a system for seeking knowledge. The scientific method was born out of the pursuit of knowledge. It is the most honest and accurate system we have for gaining knowledge. It stands in stark contrast to those who seek knowledge by interpreting ancient texts full of antiquated information.

If you want to call the geocentric literature of the scientific community "religious."

I'm certain you were trying to say something here but It's gotten a bit muddled. The geocentric model was a long held belief of various religions based on their interpretation of the bible. It's been proven wrong by science and, after some effort by the church to suppress this contradictory knowledge, the heliocentric model was finally established by science and religion reinterpreted the ancient texts. It is a pattern that simply needs to repeat for the subject of evolution.

You mean a well known scientific community is resisting ID science because of it's "religious" literature?

I guess you are not familiar with the debate at all are you. You should research the "wedge strategy". Let me google that for you

 

[Nostromo]

Is that where you get your theology?

It seems to be where you get yours, just thought I'd save you some time.

 

[Greg1234]

Just because we "invented" science doesn't preclude it from being a system for seeking knowledge. The scientific method was born out of the pursuit of knowledge.

History of the Philosophy of Science

It is the most honest and accurate system we have for gaining knowledge. It stands in stark contrast to those who seek knowledge by interpreting ancient texts full of antiquated information.

History + the scientific method = ?

You got it!

The historical method!.

Now for the bonus round: "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you."(Matt 7:7).

What's that doing there?

I'm certain you were trying to say something here but It's gotten a bit muddled.

No it's quite fine. It means what it says . The Aristotle and Ptolemaic model were devised based solely on physical investigation.. Aristotle was one that was inclined towards the purely material derivation of universal knowledge and primary causes, while Plato to the heavens. In fact, this depiction captures in essence the disparity between their views, with Aristotle pointing to the earth, and Plato to the heavens.

The opposing views can be partially summed based on what manner of man you are speaking of. The components of reality are not in the habit of depending on physical instruments to confirm their existence before they begin to have an influence on the phenomenal world. Man's mental faculties are already composed of, and can be influenced by the very foundation he his looking for. As a result, information can be derived from any level, be it the purely physical to the quintessential foundation (effects-to-cause, theory down-to-up, Aristotle) or from the foundation to the physical (top-to-down, cause-to-effect, fact, Plato)

The geocentric universe is a formulation of physical science.

Sir Isaac Newton:

"Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things."

"In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence. "

"...The main busisness of natural Philosophy is to argue from phaenomena without feigning Hypotheses, and to deduce Causes from Effects, till we come to the very first Cause, which certainly is not mechanical.... What is there in places almost empty of Matter, and whence is it that the Sun and Planets gravitate towards one another, without dense Matter between them? Whence is it that Nature doth nothing in vain; and whence arises all that Order and Beauty which we see in the World? To what end are the Comets, and whence is it that Planets move all one and the same way in Orbs concentrick, while Commets move all manner of ways in Orbs very excentrick; and what hinders the fix'd Stars from falling upon one another? How came the Bodies of Animals to be contrived with so much Art, and for what ends were their several Parts? Was the Eye contrived without Skill in Opticks, and the Ear without Knowledge of Sounds?.... And these things being rightly dispatch'd, does it not appear from Phaenomena that there is a Being incorporeal, living, intelligent, omnipresent, who in infinite Space, as it were in his Sensory, sees the things themselves intimately, and thoroughly perceives them, and comprehends them wholly by their immediate presence to himself... And though every true Step made in this Philosophy brings us not immediately to the Knowledge of the first Cause, yet it brings us nearer to it, and on that account is to be highly valued.​

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Rom 1:20

I guess you are not familiar with the debate at all are you. You should research the "wedge strategy". Let me google that for you

Familiar. It's one scientific community opposing another.

 

[Split Rock]

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.

That must be why the fossil record does not support the instant creation of all basic "kinds" 6,100 years ago.

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.

Why is it then that I see such little common sense among creationists here?

 

[Split Rock]

You cannot blame the Creator for the way He chose to create. You can only blame yourself for your own delusion caused by the way you chose to interpret His creation. If God wanted to deceive us He wouldn't have left us a written record of what He did.

He left no record, except in the earth and our genes... and that is the record you guys ignore. Are you claiming that God didn't know the consequences of setting up our genetic sequence so that it looked like we were all related by common descent??

It is only people like you who completely ignore His record who then turn and accuse Him of being a liar. He thoroughly explained what He did, you completely ignore His explanation, and then you accused Him of being a liar. Ridiculous!

You are ridiculous. You ignore the actual record in the earth and in our bodies. Then you take a work of MAN and claim it is God's and hold it above God's work. I am not calling God a liar, I am calling the god you created a liar, since you created him as a liar.

Perhaps if you took some time to study His explanation you wouldn't keep embarrassing yourself with such a ridiculous accusation.

I am not the ridiculous one. There is a reason that there is a video series on YouTube called, "Why do people laugh at creationists."

 

[Split Rock]

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

My opinions are based on the facts. Yours are based on an erroneous interpretation of an old series of books.

 

[Nostromo]

Familiar. It's one scientific community opposing another.

They actually do science?

 

[AV1611VET]

They actually do science?

You realize that peeking through a keyhole is science, don't you?

 

[Belk]

What irony. You ignore the 95% in order to accept the 5% that he rejects.

What 95% am I ignoring Jazer?

 

[Loudmouth]

Familiar. It's one scientific community opposing another.

It's science vs. anti-science as the Wedge Document demonstrates:

"Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

ID supporters are not using ID to do any original research. There is no ID scientific community. ID is a political movement that is trying to replace science with religion in our public schools.

 

[Belk]

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.

Did not God create everything? If so why did he create it in such a way that every single discipline that touches upon it tells us of an very old universe and evolutionary descent? You claim he left documentation stating when and how the universe was created, yet everything we can determine disagrees with the documentation. How is that not deceptive AV?