Are Evolutionists Burning Creationist Books?

Notedstrangeperson said:

Depends. They may not conclude that the entire world was flooded 5,000 years ago, yet many unrelated mythologies have some kind of flood narrative.

The funny thing is that phred argues that we would never rediscover the religions we have today if all knowledge were suddenly wiped out - yet atheists frequently point out the similarities between the Bible and other religions to try and disprove the uniqueness of the Christianity.

Click to expand...

That similarity is partly due to cross-fertilisation between religions. Moreover, similarity is not identity.

Notedstrangeperson said:

Depends. They may not conclude that the entire world was flooded 5,000 years ago, yet many unrelated mythologies have some kind of flood narrative.

Click to expand...

The only thing they have in common is that they are about floods. All of the other details differ. In some legends a child runs to the top of a hill to avoid the flood. In another a man hides in a jar and is saved from a flood that destroys the villages in a valley. If new floods occurred I am sure new flood myths would be written.

The funny thing is that phred argues that we would never rediscover the religions we have today if all knowledge were suddenly wiped out - yet atheists frequently point out the similarities between the Bible and other religions to try and disprove the uniqueness of the Christianity.

Click to expand...

Since we have thousands of different gods now I would suspect that we would have a thousand new gods if we started over.

Notedstrangeperson said:

Just because it can doesn't mean that it will.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Modern theories were unavoidable.

It was perfectly possible that the Aboriginals could move on from using stone tools to using metals tools, just like (almost) every other group of people on Earth ... but they never did.

Click to expand...

If Jared Diamond, author of "Germs, Guns, and Steel", is correct then the reason the Aboriginals did not move on from stone tools is because they lacked a reliable and plentiful food source.

But I digress. As I said, there is no guarantee that people of the future would rediscover the same science we have today.

Click to expand...

If they did rediscover the scientific method then they would arrive at the same theories we have today. They would never arrive at the conclusions drawn by creationists.

Loudmouth said:

I disagree. Modern theories were unavoidable.

Click to expand...

Disagree all you want, but you cannot actually prove anything. And what do we call fully believing something without having any proof ... ?

Loudmouth said:

If they did rediscover the scientific method then they would arrive at the same theories we have today. They would never arrive at the conclusions drawn by creationists.

Click to expand...

"If"? Didn't you just say rediscovering science was unavoidable? At the risk of soundlike like a creationist myself, it really is quite astounding how blindly atheists put their trust in science.

Loudmouth said:

If Jared Diamond, author of "Germs, Guns, and Steel", is correct then the reason the Aboriginals did not move on from stone tools is because they lacked a reliable and plentiful food source.

Click to expand...

Only because farming never seemed to have occurred to them either.

Loudmouth said:

Since we have thousands of different gods now I would suspect that we would have a thousand new gods if we started over.

Click to expand...

Considering more than half of the world (54%) believe in the God of Abraham, less than a third (30%) follow other religions and 16% say they are atheists or have no religion, saying that we now have "thousands" of gods is a gross exaggeration.

Even modern polytheistic religions like Hinduism aren't truly polytheistic. Some of them do believe in several gods, but most say they believe in one God who takes on several forms - like how Christians believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

He is a world-renowned man of ideas.

Click to expand...

Notedstrangeperson said:

"If"? Didn't you just say rediscovering science was unavoidable?

Click to expand...

"If" because there is no need to rediscover it unless it were lost - which is not necessarily unavoidable.

At the risk of soundlike like a creationist myself, it really is quite astounding how blindly atheists put their trust in science.

Click to expand...

How is it blind when there is evidence?

Only because farming never seemed to have occurred to them either.

Click to expand...

The aboriginals ought to have thought of wheat.

Considering more than half of the world (54%) believe in the God of Abraham, less than a third (30%) follow other religions and 16% say they are atheists or have no religion, saying that we now have "thousands" of gods is a gross exaggeration.

Click to expand...

You're combining Christians and Muslims to get the majority figure. Still, what is your source for these numbers?

Even modern polytheistic religions like Hinduism aren't truly polytheistic.

Click to expand...

Modern? Hinduism predates Judaism.

Some of them do believe in several gods, but most say they believe in one God who takes on several forms - like how Christians believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Click to expand...

Are you sure that most say there is only one god in existence? That doesn't sound plausible. I think it's more akin to how some Christians have their patron saint, but that does not negate the existence of the other saints.

Notedstrangeperson said:

Disagree all you want, but you cannot actually prove anything.

Click to expand...

The current state of science is all I need as proof.

"If"? Didn't you just say rediscovering science was unavoidable?

Click to expand...

Yes, if they find the same facts we have. The facts lead to an unavoidable conclusion.

At the risk of soundlike like a creationist myself, it really is quite astounding how blindly atheists put their trust in science.

Click to expand...

No trust is needed. It is the facts that lead to the conclusion.

Only because farming never seemed to have occurred to them either.

Click to expand...

What would they have farmed? It occurred to several different cultures independently, and the ones with the richest cultivars (e.g. wheat) grew into scientifically advanced cultures.

Considering more than half of the world (54%) believe in the God of Abraham, less than a third (30%) follow other religions and 16% say they are atheists or have no religion, saying that we now have "thousands" of gods is a gross exaggeration.

Click to expand...

We can add in the norse, greek, roman, hindu, and native american pantheons. There are hundreds just with those, not to mention all of the religions we probably never heard of.

Even modern polytheistic religions like Hinduism aren't truly polytheistic. Some of them do believe in several gods, but most say they believe in one God who takes on several forms - like how Christians believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Click to expand...

Some still believe in multiple gods, and polytheism appears to be the rule through history, not the exception.

Jamin4422 said:

The word we are looking for here is Biomes or Ecosystem. The Ecosystem that Noah was a part of was flooded and destoryed. NOT all the Ecosystems were destoryed. After all some Biomes or Ecosystems are in the ocean, a flood would not effect them at all. Of course these were domesticated animals. Sheep, goats and dogs for example. Along with grains and the other domesticated crops that man had developed at the time. Noah was able to save all of that from the Flood.

Click to expand...

What rediscoverable facts lead to these conclusions?