Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Biblical Creation

[Doveaman]

He left no record,

I reject your opinion.

except in the earth and our genes... and that is the record you guys ignore.

What we ignore is your fallible interpretation of that created record.

"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).

So why are you an agnostic?

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??

That’s why He left us a written record of why we are all related by a common designer, a record you refuse to acknowledge and then end up being deluded by your own fallible interpretations of the created record. Both records support each other; you just need to acknowledge both.

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.

You completely ignore God’s written record of why things appear the way they are and then you accuse God of being a deceiver because things appear the way they are? Ridiculous!

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."

That reason was predicted long before YouTube:

“They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you.” (1 Peter 4:4).

 

[Doveaman]

You claim he left documentation stating when and how the universe was created, yet everything we can determine disagrees with the documentation.

Appear to disagree.

How is that not deceptive

Because in the documentation God explains why things appear the way they are and He told us Who to trust:

"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).

 

[Split Rock]

I reject your opinion.

And I reject yours. What you claim is not what God tells us, its what YOU tell us.

What we ignore is your fallible interpretation of that created record.

What we ignore is your fallible interpretation of a book written by men centuries ago.

That’s why He left us a written record of why we are all related by a common designer, a record you refuse to acknowledge and then end up being deluded by your own fallible interpretations of the created record. Both records support each other; you just need to acknowledge both.

No they do NOT support each other. You don't care, since you only believe what you want to believe, not what is true.

You completely ignore God’s written record of why things appear the way they are and then you accuse God of being a deceiver because things appear the way they are? Ridiculous!

You are just repeating yourself like a broken record. Why would God make it look like common descent occurred and then tell us in a book that it did not? You make no sense, just like your theology makes no sense.

 

[Belk]

Appear to disagree.

No, Given AV's interpretation I would say they quite disagree. I do not claim to know all of his theology but he has certainly made his views on creation and science well known.

Because in the documentation God explains why things appear the way they are and He told us Who to trust:

"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).

Uh-huh. And so he made everything with the appearance of great age as a test or something? That is the very definition of deceptive. Simply because he tells you not to be deceived does not make it deceptive.

 

[AV1611VET]

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?

Belk, let me see if I can help you out here with yet another hypothetical, since you seem to be asking this sincerely, and I'd really like you to understand.

Let's just suppose God created the earth, the sun, and one other star -- just one -- and Day 1 ends.

Then He stretches this hypothetical universe, in a moment of time, so that the universe is 100 light years from end-to-end, with the earth right in the middle and the star, say, 50 light years away -- and Day 2 ends.

He then populates the earth with a modern population -- and Day 3 ends.

This is then documented.

Now, think about it.

An observer on earth on Day 4, who doesn't believe in creation, and doesn't believe in the Documentation, could triangulate that star and the following conversation could ensue:

Atheist: If the earth is only 4 days old, why do I see a star 50 light years out?

Creationist: Because after God created it 3 days ago, He stretched the universe out and placed the star where it is now.

Atheist: Then we shouldn't be able to see the light for another 50 years.

Creationist: Only if the universe made itself, but if God wants you to see that star, and wants that star to be where He placed it, then His will will override nature.

Atheist: Then isn't that being deceptive?

Creationist: No, He gave us Documentation detailing what He did, when He did it, where He did it...

Atheist: I don't believe in your God, and I don't believe in your Documentation; and besides, doesn't your Documentation say to look to nature for an interpretation of how things happened?

Creationist: Yes, but nature is not to override the Documentation. The proper order is the Documentation first, then nature.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Belk, let me see if I can help you out here with yet another hypothetical, since you seem to be asking this sincerely, and I'd really like you to understand.

Let's just suppose God created the earth, the sun, and one other star -- just one -- and Day 1 ends.

Then He stretches this hypothetical universe, in a moment of time, so that the universe is 100 light years from end-to-end, with the earth right in the middle and the star, say, 50 light years away -- and Day 2 ends.

He then populates the earth with a modern population -- and Day 3 ends.

This is then documented.

Now, think about it.

An observer on earth on Day 4, who doesn't believe in creation, and doesn't believe in the Documentation, could triangulate that star and the following conversation could ensue:

Atheist: If the earth is only 4 days old, why do I see a star 50 light years out?

Creationist: Because after God created it 3 days ago, He stretched the universe out and placed the star where it is now.

Atheist: Then we shouldn't be able to see the light for another 50 years.

Creationist: Only if the universe made itself, but if God wants you to see that star, and wants that star to be where He placed it, then His will will override nature.

Atheist: Then isn't that being deceptive?

Creationist: No, He gave us Documentation detailing what He did, when He did it, where He did it...

Atheist: I don't believe in your God, and I don't believe in your Documentation; and besides, doesn't your Documentation say to look to nature for an interpretation of how things happened?

Creationist: Yes, but nature is not to override the Documentation. The proper order is the Documentation first, then nature.

Erm... because this isn't what the bible says, Cowboy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Erm... because this isn't what the bible says, Cowboy.

Oh, really? That's news to me, chief.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Oh, really? That's news to me, chief.

50 light years? Which version was that, exactly?

 

[AV1611VET]

50 light years? Which version was that, exactly?

The HIV -- Hypothetical Internet Version -- so educatees can understand.

 

[Belk]

Belk, let me see if I can help you out here with yet another hypothetical, since you seem to be asking this sincerely, and I'd really like you to understand.

Let's just suppose God created the earth, the sun, and one other star -- just one -- and Day 1 ends.

Then He stretches this hypothetical universe, in a moment of time, so that the universe is 100 light years from end-to-end, with the earth right in the middle and the star, say, 50 light years away -- and Day 2 ends.

He then populates the earth with a modern population -- and Day 3 ends.

This is then documented.

Now, think about it.

An observer on earth on Day 4, who doesn't believe in creation, and doesn't believe in the Documentation, could triangulate that star and the following conversation could ensue:

Atheist: If the earth is only 4 days old, why do I see a star 50 light years out?

Creationist: Because after God created it 3 days ago, He stretched the universe out and placed the star where it is now.

Atheist: Then we shouldn't be able to see the light for another 50 years.

Creationist: Only if the universe made itself, but if God wants you to see that star, and wants that star to be where He placed it, then His will will override nature.

Atheist: Then isn't that being deceptive?

Creationist: No, He gave us Documentation detailing what He did, when He did it, where He did it...

Atheist: I don't believe in your God, and I don't believe in your Documentation; and besides, doesn't your Documentation say to look to nature for an interpretation of how things happened?

Creationist: Yes, but nature is not to override the Documentation. The proper order is the Documentation first, then nature.

Thank you for taking the question seriously AV. Here is the issues I have with your analogy.

1) It is not just a single instance of nature contradicting the documentation. It is whole swaths of multiple different disciplines that contradict the documentation.

2) As you yourself keep pointing out, science is an ongoing learning process. When a theory does not fit the facts precisely, the theory ends up being modified and refined as new data and tests happen. If God "stretched the universe" caused our instruments to be off and false measurements to happen then he did this in such a way that it looks exactly like what we would expect to see if the universe had actually been around for 14.3 billion years. Further, he did exactly the same sort of maneuver for every single dating method we have. And did it in such a way that they all match up.

3) I hope you will forgive me but I am not very conversant with the bible. I do know there is a passage proclaiming that the universe and everything in it proclaims God, but I am unfamiliar with one claiming the bible supersedes anything we learn from the natural world.

And finally, the big one

4) The bible is translated multiple different ways by many different people. What you are asking us to believe is that you, a fallible human, have the correct translation and that vast amounts of things that we have tested and know work are so fundamentally flawed that even though every test we have thrown at it works the way we expect it to we have something wrong.

Your analogy asks me to believe that even though everything we can test shows an old universe with the world forming later and life evolving, it didn't happen that way but yet God is not deceptive because he left a book behind. I'm sorry, but I do not find that idea credible. I find it much more likely that you, and your interpretation, are wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

Belk, let me see if I can help you out here with yet another hypothetical, since you seem to be asking this sincerely, and I'd really like you to understand.

Let's just suppose God created the earth, the sun, and one other star -- just one -- and Day 1 ends.

Then He stretches this hypothetical universe, in a moment of time, so that the universe is 100 light years from end-to-end, with the earth right in the middle and the star, say, 50 light years away -- and Day 2 ends.

He then populates the earth with a modern population -- and Day 3 ends.

This is then documented.

Now, think about it.

An observer on earth on Day 4, who doesn't believe in creation, and doesn't believe in the Documentation, could triangulate that star and the following conversation could ensue:

Atheist: If the earth is only 4 days old, why do I see a star 50 light years out?

Creationist: Because after God created it 3 days ago, He stretched the universe out and placed the star where it is now.

Atheist: Then we shouldn't be able to see the light for another 50 years.

Creationist: Only if the universe made itself, but if God wants you to see that star, and wants that star to be where He placed it, then His will will override nature.

Atheist: Then isn't that being deceptive?

Creationist: No, He gave us Documentation detailing what He did, when He did it, where He did it...

Atheist: I don't believe in your God, and I don't believe in your Documentation; and besides, doesn't your Documentation say to look to nature for an interpretation of how things happened?

Creationist: Yes, but nature is not to override the Documentation. The proper order is the Documentation first, then nature.

So if I wrote a story about the Universe being created 2 days ago, complete with false memories and false histories, would you accept it? If not, then why should we accept your fantasies as true?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

History of the Philosophy of Science

Science

History + the scientific method = ?

An inadequate way to evaluate biblical creation vs. evolution. Most of the evidence predates anything written. In your case it's even worse since the only "historical" document used as a basis for your belief has been shown to be at odds with evidence produced by the scientific method.

You can't cherry pick your "history" and science, filter it through a political agenda, ignore the rest, and pretend it's better.

The geocentric universe is a formulation of physical science.

It's an amalgamation of ancient man's observations and interpreted biblical passages suggesting that the earth is fixed. At the time I'm sure it seemed perfectly reasonable. The problem is what happens when the evidence started to stack up against the geocentric model. All the religious baggage that had been heaped upon it mate it heretical to suggest otherwise. It made righteous men act like fools and do bad things in defense of their beliefs. This is exactly the same thing we see today with evolution.

It's one scientific community opposing another.

It's the religious community opposing the scientific community and using political maneuvering to try and undermine science.

 

[Greg1234]

"Atheist: If the earth is only 4 days old, why do I see a star 50 light years out?"

Well according to the EU scientific community, the age of the universe is...

 

[AV1611VET]

"Atheist: If the earth is only 4 days old, why do I see a star 50 light years out?"

Well according to the EU scientific community, the age of the universe is...

Yup -- that's what they're trained to think in obedience school.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

The HIV -- Hypothetical Internet Version -- so educatees can understand.

More like the AENAV (or, as I like to call it, the 'I can interpret the bible to justify anything I care to believe' version).

 

[RickG]

Yup -- that's what they're trained to think in obedience school.

What do you think the age of the universe is?

 

[chris4243]

5. Biblical creation makes no sense. Light is created before the sun and plants that utilize photosynthesis after both.

Oh, did you think it would make sense to have stars without Maxwell's Equations? Did the stars get created before the laws of physics (that allow for AND require light to exist)? In the Big Bang theory, does light or stars manifest first?

As for plants, they don't need the sun as marijuana cultivators and such have demonstrated. Per the Bible, God's spirit is glowy and provided for the needs of the plants.

 

[Greg1234]

An inadequate way to evaluate biblical creation vs. evolution. Most of the evidence predates anything written.

Those pesky beastmen. Always confined to the finite mind. Gorsh

In your case it's even worse since the only "historical" document used as a basis for your belief has been shown to be at odds with evidence produced by the scientific method.

\

Which scientific community are you talking about? ID?

You can't cherry pick your "history" and science, filter it through a political agenda, ignore the rest, and pretend it's better.

Who me? Well gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooolly.

It's an amalgamation of ancient man's observations and interpreted biblical passages suggesting that the earth is fixed.

They took physical evidence and made their theory. Just like you take physical evidence and make Darwinism. Geddit?

At the time I'm sure it seemed perfectly reasonable. The problem is what happens when the evidence started to stack up against the geocentric model. All the religious baggage

WHOA Whoa whoa. Keep it down, man. there are theistic evolutionists around. They love you guys. Do you think they want to be called "religious baggage" for following you? Have a little decency, man. At least? Please? Thank you.

It's the religious community opposing the scientific community and using political maneuvering to try and undermine science.

It's one scientific community opposing another. They're both doing science, they're all scientists.

 

[RickG]

Oh, did you think it would make sense to have stars without Maxwell's Equations? Did the stars get created before the laws of physics (that allow for AND require light to exist)? In the Big Bang theory, does light or stars manifest first?

As for plants, they don't need the sun as marijuana cultivators and such have demonstrated. Per the Bible, God's spirit is glowy and provided for the needs of the plants.

Grasses, herbs and fruit trees were created on the third day. The Sun was created on the fourth day. Do you not see a problem with that?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Grasses, herbs and fruit trees were created on the third day. The Sun was created on the fourth day. Do you not see a problem with that?

He pretty much stated 'goddidit.'