Genesis Creation OR THIS?

[Givemeareason]

How can anyone accept the Genesis creation story as a scientific basis to argue creation after watching this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=udAL48P5NJU

 

[Eudaimonist]

The link is broken. This should be it:

eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Givemeareason]

Thank you sooooooooooooooo much. I have been trying to edit and correct the link.

 

[Givemeareason]

The point to be made here is why should Christians today need to adhere to a simple creation story as written in Genesis and argue with science over how the universe was created. By your own words "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." And it could have all stopped right there. But, no, humanity needed to know more. And so a story was created in terms that even a goat herder could understand. But even that did not satisfy our need for understanding. And so we continue in our quest for understanding except when we get sidetracked into believing wherein we become complacent. I cannot simply choose to believe something wherein I have already seen I would become complacent as well. And many others are like me. And Christianity becomes such a beautiful message when it is cleared from all the things it is cluttered with. Why do Christians have to believe and even prove the bible is literal when people don't even agree on what it says?

 

[juvenissun]

The point to be made here is why should Christians today need to adhere to a simple creation story as written in Genesis and argue with science over how the universe was created. By your own words "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." And it could have all stopped right there. But, no, humanity needed to know more. And so a story was created in terms that even a goat herder could understand. But even that did not satisfy our need for understanding. And so we continue in our quest for understanding except when we get sidetracked into believing wherein we become complacent. I cannot simply choose to believe something wherein I have already seen I would become complacent as well. And many others are like me. And Christianity becomes such a beautiful message when it is cleared from all the things it is cluttered with. Why do Christians have to believe and even prove the bible is literal when people don't even agree on what it says?

The video only shows at most two verses of what said in the Genesis 1. Glad you see some elaborations of the verses.
You can move on to see the meaning of other verses. Hope God will open your eyes.

 

[bhsmte]

How can anyone accept the Genesis creation story as a scientific basis to argue creation after watching this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=udAL48P5NJU

Simple, a psychological need to do so, which one symptom tends to be black and white thinking and a whole bunch of denial of well evidenced reality.

 

[Givemeareason]

The video only shows at most two verses of what said in the Genesis 1. Glad you see some elaborations of the verses.
You can move on to see the meaning of other verses. Hope God will open your eyes.

Oh, but I have read the goatherder story and far beyond that as well. And I see very deep meaning in the bible but not when I read it in just literal terms. Would you not agree? I am still waiting for God to open my eyes even further.

 

[Givemeareason]

Simple, a psychological need to do so, which one symptom tends to be black and white thinking and a whole bunch of denial of well evidenced reality.

I think the psychological need is the unwillingness to confront fear and end up being forced to view life in uncertain terms.

 

[bhsmte]

I think the psychological need is the unwillingness to confront fear and end up being forced to view life in uncertain terms.

Fear is a big motivator in those with fundamentalist type views, which is why their defense mechanisms are so potent (denial, confirmation bias, etc.).

These defense mechanisms are designed to protect the belief, at all costs, because the pain of acknowledging you may be wrong, is too burdensome to deal with.

 

[Givemeareason]

Fear is a big motivator in those with fundamentalist type views, which is why their defense mechanisms are so potent (denial, confirmation bias, etc.).

These defense mechanisms are designed to protect the belief, at all costs, because the pain of acknowledging you may be wrong, is too burdensome to deal with.

I will go one step further and make a prediction. I predict that some are feeling so threatened having read this, that they will be unwilling to address this and that this thread will die from lack of interaction on it. I hope people will prove me wrong.

 

[bhsmte]

I will go one step further and make a prediction. I predict that some are feeling so threatened having read this, that they will be unwilling to address this and that this thread will die from lack of interaction on it. I hope people will prove me wrong.

Some may, but some will keep battling. They are dug in so deep, they really have no choice.

 

[AllanV]

My understanding is that God makes everything seen appear at every instant.
Psa 104:2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
God occupies the same space of every object's volume and is very close to everyone.

Act 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
Act 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Act 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

 

[AllanV]

Simple, a psychological need to do so, which one symptom tends to be black and white thinking and a whole bunch of denial of well evidenced reality.

The reality is evolution has many holes in the story being told. All the evidence isn't being presented at all.
There is enough evidence to support a flood. There is no progression and evolution apparent, no less complex to more complex. Everything is complex and has always been complex.

 

[ALoveDivine]

The reality is evolution has many holes in the story being told.

Quantum mechanics has holes in it too, that doesn't mean we throw it out the window.

All the evidence isn't being presented at all.

Actually all the evidence for the Theory of Evolution is widely publicized, I can provide you some links if you'd like.

There is enough evidence to support a flood.

No, there's not. "Flood Geology" has been refuted for the better part of a century. The ancient age of the earth is one of the most well-supported pieces of empirical knowledge we have in science. Even a cursory examination of just a couple of the multiple converging lines of evidence will convince any reasonable person not suffering from rampant confirmation bias.

There is no progression and evolution apparent, no less complex to more complex.

That's dead wrong. The evidence for this is found all throughout the fossil record and is also readily apparent in genetics. We can trace evolution through genomes. In fact the dna evidence is so compelling that to deny evolution at this point is just completely absurd.

 

[AllanV]

There are many scientists who have worked in different areas and because they are under close scrutiny show their sources impeccably. But of course they are ridiculed and discredited without any alternate proof offered.

http://walterveith.com/walter-veith-genesis-conflict-series.html

http://www.halos.com/

 

[ALoveDivine]

Why do humans and chimpanzees share a broken vitamin C gene at the exact same place in their genomes? Did God intentionally design both humans and chimps with a broken gene in the same place? Why not just create both species without that particular gene? A broken vitamin C gene makes it impossible for the body to produce vitamin C, so the inclusion of this gene at all is rather redundant if its broken. Did God create both species with this broken gene so as to make evolution appear true? God doesn't deceive us...

This piece of evidence alone shatters young earth creationist arguments. There is simply no reasonable way to explain this from a young-earth paradigm.

 

[AllanV]

Quantum mechanics has holes in it too, that doesn't mean we throw it out the window.


Actually all the evidence for the Theory of Evolution is widely publicized, I can provide you some links if you'd like.


No, there's not. "Flood Geology" has been refuted for the better part of a century. The ancient age of the earth is one of the most well-supported pieces of empirical knowledge we have in science. Even a cursory examination of just a couple of the multiple converging lines of evidence will convince any reasonable person not suffering from rampant confirmation bias.


That's dead wrong. The evidence for this is found all throughout the fossil record and is also readily apparent in genetics. We can trace evolution through genomes. In fact the dna evidence is so compelling that to deny evolution at this point is just completely absurd.

Professor Walter Veith points out that all the Precambrian fossils are all together but are placed in order from small to large when this is plainly not true. The video(s) need to be watched.

http://creation.com/john-sanford is discredited and because of this much care is taken in what is done.

Most of the evolutionary principles are shown in drawings and pictures and are a fantasy. They are made up with no basis or from collected material.

 

[AllanV]

Why do humans and chimpanzees share a broken vitamin C gene at the exact same place in their genomes? Did God intentionally design both humans and chimps with a broken gene in the same place? Why not just create both species without that particular gene? A broken vitamin C gene makes it impossible for the body to produce vitamin C, so the inclusion of this gene at all is rather redundant if its broken. Did God create both species with this broken gene so as to make evolution appear true? God doesn't deceive us...

This piece of evidence alone shatters young earth creationist arguments. There is simply no reasonable way to explain this from a young-earth paradigm.

Because there is a creator and the earth is the way it is with biological processes there will be similarities in design features of differing organisms.
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

The earth brought forth in Gen 1:24 would indicate some adaption.

 

[juvenissun]

Oh, but I have read the goatherder story and far beyond that as well. And I see very deep meaning in the bible but not when I read it in just literal terms. Would you not agree? I am still waiting for God to open my eyes even further.

The literal meaning is the deepest. The other meanings, comparatively, are much easier to see.

 

[Givemeareason]

The reality is evolution has many holes in the story being told. All the evidence isn't being presented at all.
There is enough evidence to support a flood. There is no progression and evolution apparent, no less complex to more complex. Everything is complex and has always been complex.

I think you are misinformed. This idea sounds more like it came from creationists rather than from scientists. If creationists claim that all the evidence is not being presented it is because their evidence which they supposedly have is contrived in order to support their own foregone conclusions. If you think me wrong and you are are aware of this evidence can you refer me to it? True science looks for evidence while false science looks for conclusions first and then looks for the evidence.