Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Biblical Creation

[chris4243]

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?

The plants got their light, so what's the problem? Incidentally, even if the plants were in total darkness for a few days, it would still not be a problem.

 

[Split Rock]

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.

The biblical account makes no sense. Light comes from our sun. The sun came before any life that utilized it. Why put the horse before the cart? That is what I was saying

 

[Split Rock]

The plants got their light, so what's the problem? Incidentally, even if the plants were in total darkness for a few days, it would still not be a problem.

Sure, and god created the earth first, then created a star for it to orbit and then created other planets to orbit the same star. This is a typical pre-science earth-centric view that we now know is nonsense. We are the third planet around an average yellow star in the outskirts of a typical barred spiral galaxy. That is reality.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Which scientific community are you talking about? ID?

Starting with a single unchangeable supernatural explanation and then surrounding it with pseudoscience while throwing out any contradictory evidence is about as far from actual science as it gets.

It is a great example of the dishonest lengths supporters of biblical creation will go to try and manipulate and subvert science in defense of their supernatural beliefs.

It is also a very telling, albeit tacit, admission that science is the superior system of knowledge. You'll never see science pretending to be religion in order to vie for respect.

Who me? Well gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooolly.

Not just you. It's not personal. You are not unique in this. It's every fundamentalist and ID proponent that rails against the inevitable truths produced by science whenever they clash with your current beliefs.

You all try to act like science and talk like science but you can never cover up the supernatural suppositions of antiquity upon which you build.

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

They took a gap in knowledge and placed God in it as a placeholder for ignorance. Then they resisted the truth when science came bearing knowledge. It was an embarrassment that proponents of magical creation would love to forget because it so accurately parallels the creation vs. evolution debate.

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.

How disingenuous. You know very will I was not talking about TEs. You can be wrong all you like but let's not start being dishonest too.

The irony is that, chances are, no TE would have a problem admitting that the whole Galileo debacle was an embarrassment for the church and would probably agree that the creation vs. evolution debate is history repeating itself.

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

No matter how hard they pretend this will never be true.

 

[AV1611VET]

What do you think the age of the universe is?

That's a good question.

I go with 13.7 billion, so as to avoid having to explain Embedded Age to anyone.

In my personal opinion, the spatial universe is 6000 years old, but has objects in it -- like the earth -- that are much older.

 

[AV1611VET]

He pretty much stated 'goddidit.'

I call that pulling rank.

 

[Doveaman]

Why would God make it look like common descent occurred and then tell us in a book that it did not?

God did not make it look like common descent. Scientists made it look like common descent through their speculations.

You keep accusing God of things He never did. Why?

 

[Nostromo]

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.

You're still in the same situation as if the star was just placed 50 light years away. How can we see the star in this example?

 

[Davian]

God did not make it look like common descent. Scientists made it look like common descent through their speculations.

Are you accusing scientists of deception?

 

[Doveaman]

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.

You do realize none of this is in the Bible, right? This is just your interpretation of what is actually there.

But that's okay, I have my own interpretation too: Re-creation.

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.

You are taking your science too seriously, man. Lighten up!

 

[Doveaman]

Are you accusing scientists of deception?

Yup. They are deceiving themselves.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I call that pulling rank.

Call it whatcha' like Cowboy.

 

[Doveaman]

When a theory does not fit the facts precisely, the theory ends up being modified and refined as new data and tests happen.

Is that how it's done? :o

When the Big Bang theory does not fit the facts precisely, the theory ends up being modified and refined by sprinkling a little dark matter here and a little dark energy there?

Is that how it's done? :o

 

[AV1611VET]

You're still in the same situation as if the star was just placed 50 light years away. How can we see the star in this example?

I don't understand your question.

Have someone shine a flashlight in your face.

Then have them suddenly teleport 10 light years away.

Nature says the light from the flashlight will red-shift, then disappear, then in 10 years will reappear -- (I think).

God made sure it didn't happen that way.

 

[Doveaman]

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?

Do you see a problem with God being capable of doing that?

"With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." (Matt 19:26).

 

[chris4243]

The biblical account makes no sense. Light comes from our sun. The sun came before any life that utilized it. Why put the horse before the cart? That is what I was saying

Everyone agrees that there was light before there were stars.

 

[Doveaman]

That's a good question.

I go with 13.7 billion, so as to avoid having to explain Embedded Age to anyone.

In my personal opinion, the spatial universe is 6000 years old, but has objects in it -- like the earth -- that are much older.

In the opinion of cosmologists, the spatial universe is 13.7 billion years old, but has objects in it -- like the Milky Way galaxy -- that appear to be 78 billion years old.

Sounds to me like another version of Embedded Age.

Embedded Age verified.

 

[Nostromo]

Nature says the light from the flashlight will red-shift, then disappear, then in 10 years will reappear -- (I think).

More or less, yeah.

God made sure it didn't happen that way.

I'm curious as to why you think the "Documentation detailing what He did, when He did it, where He did it..." led people to the wrong conclusions for 3000+ years. Suddenly the meaning is clear when some idiot in a white coat finds out the true nature of the cosmos. Why did people following the "Documentation" hold the wrong ideas for millennia, and why do you think you're in a different position to them?

 

[AV1611VET]

Embedded Age verified.

Thank you, my friend!

You are a gentleman and a scholar!

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm curious as to why you think the "Documentation detailing what He did, when He did it, where He did it..." led people to the wrong conclusions for 3000+ years.

It's not the Documentation that led them to the wrong conclusion in my hypothetical, it's the conclusion made after the star was triangulated and found to [correctly] be 50 light years out, viz. that the star is at least 50 years old.

(His first mistake though, is not believing the Documentation.)