Adam and Eve

[DontTreadOnMike]

It doesn't, huh?

Would you care to explain to me how this 'creation myth' was shown to be utterly false, when you can't even explain to me how it was done?

Right, I also can't show you how Odin learned the secret of the Runes by impaling himself to a tree, therefore it must have happened.

You're the one making a positive claim when you say everything was created from nothing contrary to current scientific understanding, so you are the one who has to show us how it worked. Or at least evidence that it happened.

 

[Skaloop]

It doesn't, huh?

Would you care to explain to me how this 'creation myth' was shown to be utterly false, when you can't even explain to me how it was done?

It's not a creation myth, it's a challenge.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're the one making a positive claim when you say everything was created from nothing contrary to current scientific understanding, so you are the one who has to show us how it worked.

Wrong.

I do not say everything was created from nothing 'contrary to current scientific understanding'.

In fact, my Apple Challenge challenges you to explain it scientifically.

There's a difference between 'contrary to current scientific understanding' and 'no science'.

Nothing in Genesis 1 was done contrary to science; as God didn't use science to create this universe.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not a creation myth, it's a challenge.

Yes, I'm aware of that.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Wrong.

I do not say everything was created from nothing 'contrary to current scientific understanding'.

In fact, my Apple Challenge challenges you to explain it scientifically.

There's a difference between 'contrary to current scientific understanding' and 'no science'.

Nothing in Genesis 1 was done contrary to science; as God didn't use science to create this universe.

If we're going to use your apple challenge as an analogy, YOU are the one who supposedly had the apple created ex nihilo into your hand. Therefore it's you who needs to explain it if you want us to believe you.

I have a question for you now. You believe that the universe was created with apparent age ~6,000 years ago. Pretend we live in a land where no one has heard of the Bible. Since we lack the Bible and only have science to go by, would it be reasonable for us to assume that the universe is ~14 billion years old, and that evolution is the reason we see so much diversity in life etc? I'm not asking you if that assumption is correct, but would it be reasonable to make that wrong assumption based only on science if we had never heard of the Bible?

 

[AV1611VET]

If we're going to use your apple challenge as an analogy, YOU are the one who supposedly had the apple created ex nihilo into your hand.

No -- read it, Mike.

It was created ex nihilo into the palm of your hand -- (in other words, you're already convinced).

And I didn't 'have it done' -- I did it.

Therefore it's you who needs to explain it if you want us to believe you.

No -- it is you who needs to explain it to a third party -- your friend.

Read the thing, for crying out loud -- it's only one short sentence long.

I have a question for you now.

Okay -- I'll do my best not to answer like you did mine -- I promise.

You believe that the universe was created with apparent age ~6,000 years ago.

Let's drop the 'apparent' baloney and call it 'embedded', okay?

I wouldn't want you to get confused.

Pretend we live in a land where no one has heard of the Bible.

Okay.

Since we lack the Bible and only have science to go by, would it be reasonable for us to assume that the universe is ~14 billion years old, and that evolution is the reason we see so much diversity in life etc?

Cute -- two totally different points in one sentence.

So if I agree with the first one, it looks like I'm agreeing with the second one as well.

You guys sure try hard to confuse things, don't you -- (or does it come naturally)?



Yes, I believe it would be reasonable for us to assume that the universe is 14 billion years old.

As far as the evolution part is concerned, I don't know.

I'm not asking you if that assumption is correct, but would it be reasonable to make that wrong assumption based only on science if we had never heard of the Bible?

'That wrong assumption' is singular -- you brought up two points in one sentence ; so which one are you talking about?

 

[AV1611VET]

Mike, just out of curiosity I read your profile, and I notice you have an interest in ancient religions and what seems to be an equal interest in fiction and mythology.

This is none of my business, but I can't figure out why you can't get embedded age and a simple challenge straight, yet you have an interest in what other people think as well.

Why is that?

Are you able to comprehend their beliefs, but struggle with ours?

Again, none of my business.

I just find it ... ironic ... that some people here have an active interest in other religions and even mythology -- yet show an active intolerance toward Christianity of any kind.

And I'm not talking about you, but I do have another poster in mind -- a professor of literature, in fact.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

No -- read it, Mike.

It was created ex nihilo into the palm of your hand -- (in other words, you're already convinced).

No, I'm not convinced because an apple wasn't created ex nihilo into my hand. So I'm not going to try to use science to explain something that current scientific understanding says is impossible. No scientist thinks anything was created from nothing, only creationists believe that. So it's YOU who has to explain creation ex-nihilo. You're the one who brought your apple challenge in to this for no reason. You brought up creation ex-nihilo, and claimed that because we can't explain how it would work, then we can't disprove that it happened. But that's not how it works. You're the one who believes that it did happen, so you're the one who has to explain it or give evidence of it.

'That wrong assumption' is singular -- you brought up two points in one sentence ; so which one are you talking about?

Ok, let me rephrase this for you. Do you think that without any context from the Bible, scientists have generally interpreted scientific evidence correctly? Meaning, if the Bible wasn't known to us, would the scientific evidence that we have left point towards our current understanding of the age of the universe, the origin of life, and how life has evolved? Is there anything outside the Bible but in the realm of science that indicates that our current scientific understanding is wrong? We're not dealing with whether the universe really is 14 billion years old or with whether all life has a common ancestor, just whether the earth was created to LOOK that way.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Mike, just out of curiosity I read your profile, and I notice you have an interest in ancient religions and what seems to be an equal interest in fiction and mythology.

This is none of my business, but I can't figure out why you can't get embedded age and a simple challenge straight, yet you have an interest in what other people think as well.

Why is that?

Are you able to comprehend their beliefs, but struggle with ours?

Again, none of my business.

I just find it ... ironic ... that some people here have an active interest in other religions and even mythology -- yet show an active intolerance toward Christianity of any kind.

And I'm not talking about you, but I do have another poster in mind -- a professor of literature, in fact.

Actually I was a Fundamentalist Christian and a young earth creationist who believed in embedded age for the first 23 years of my life. I'm 25. So I have a pretty good grasp on your (christians in general) beliefs and I have a soft spot in my heart for Christians. I tend to go easy on them because I know what it's like to be in their position. Also, having "de-converted" so recently, I can see that Christians aren't as wacky or evil as a lot of people think. They believe what they believe generally because that is all they know. But they are kind and generous people and only a small portion of them are like those "god hates you-know-whats" people. I've always been interested in history, folklore, mythology, etc. Maybe that's why my wife and I hit it off so well. She's currently pursuing a PhD in archaeological anthropology. But my interest in all that stuff is purely academic. By the way, my interest in ancient religions includes Christianity.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok, let me rephrase this for you. Do you think that without any context from the Bible, scientists have generally interpreted scientific evidence correctly?

No

Meaning, if the Bible wasn't known to us, would the scientific evidence that we have left point towards our current understanding of the age of the universe, the origin of life, and how life has evolved?

'Current understanding'?

Yes

Keep in mind though, that history has shown you guys wrong time and time and time and time again.

Your scientific evidence has led to geocentrism, flat earth, phlogiston, Hesperopithecus haroldcookii (?), an incorrectly-identified and defined planet, air having no mass, global warming, Thalidomide, a safe shuttle launch, cigarettes good for your health, eggs bad for your health, a constantly-changing Periodic Table, and on and on and on and on.

Tomorrow, it would not surprise me if E=mc[sup]3[/sup].

Some of you guys even look forward to your paradigms being found wrong tomorrow.

I'm sure every generation thinks their science is right on target and cutting-edge ... I don't.

Is there anything outside the Bible but in the realm of science that indicates that our current scientific understanding is wrong?

History

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

No

'Current understanding'?

Yes

Ok, just to be clear so that I don't misquote you in the future. Do you agree that given everything we currently know about the universe outside of the Bible, our current conclusions about how the universe works are reasonable? Remember I said "reasonable" not "correct".

Keep in mind though, that history has shown you guys wrong time and time and time and time again.

Your scientific evidence has led to geocentrism, flat earth, phlogiston, Hesperopithecus haroldcookii (?), an incorrectly-identified and defined planet, air having no mass, global warming, Thalidomide, a safe shuttle launch, cigarettes good for your health, eggs bad for your health, a constantly-changing Periodic Table, and on and on and on and on.

Tomorrow, it would not surprise me if E=mc[sup]3[/sup].

Some of you guys even look forward to your paradigms being found wrong tomorrow.

I'm sure every generation thinks their science is right on target and cutting-edge ... I don't.

History

Ok awesome! This is the answer I was hoping for. If there is evidence, outside of the Bible that scientists have something wrong, that is what belongs in this forum. Arguments from the Bible, or arguments for the Bible's infallibility do not belong in the science forum. Now, what natural evidence is there that the earth merely LOOKS billions of years old but was created only 6,000 years ago. And what natural evidence is there that evolution is not responsible for biological diversity?

 

[Greg1234]

Actually I was a Fundamentalist Christian and a young earth creationist who believed in embedded age for the first 23 years of my life. I'm 25. So I have a pretty good grasp on your (christians in general) beliefs and I have a soft spot in my heart for Christians.

Funnily enough, I see Darwin as the pattern. Handing the man to the atheist will only breed problems. Darwin attempted to give man their creator, or their God, in random mutations. And like the Son of God he showed all Christians the path to be emulated and adopted. A path worn with treading.

I tend to go easy on them

Meh, Christian handle superior strength of Terminator X.

"de-converted" so recently

Converted.

, I can see that Christians aren't as wacky or evil as a lot of people think.

Awesome. But favor in the eyes of men is not set as the ideal.

They believe what they believe generally because that is all they know

We know enough. Believe or not we actually know stuff.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you agree that given everything we currently know about the universe outside of the Bible, our current conclusions about how the universe works are reasonable?

Yes -- but again, evolution is an exception to me.

I just don't see how anyone, even w/o knowing the Bible, can believe we came from the jungle.

Remember though -- you said 'outside of the Bible' -- so you get what [understanding] you deserve.

 

[Tiberius]

It doesn't, huh?

Would you care to explain to me how this 'creation myth' was shown to be utterly false, when you can't even explain to me how it was done?

There is no explanation for it because it has never happened.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Yes -- but again, evolution is an exception to me.

I just don't see how anyone, even w/o knowing the Bible, can believe we came from the jungle.

Remember though -- you said 'outside of the Bible' -- so you get what [understanding] you deserve.

Ok this is awesome. And not because I'm foaming at the mouth, just WAITING to prove you wrong. I really have nothing to say. Just questions. I know a lot of people pick on you but this is the most interesting and intellectually stimulating conversation I've had on this forum in a while.

Let's pretend I agree with you when you say that without the Bible our view of nature is incomplete. But still, granting that, what about our view only in the context of science is wrong? I mean, can you point to something in nature that scientists have missed that suggests we didn't come from the jungle as you put it? I'm not trying to catch you. I really want to know. If it's just a personal opinion or a hunch that you have about the evidence, but you can't really explain it without referring to the Bible, I'll respect that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Every creation myth has been shown to be utterly false...

There is no explanation for it because it has never happened.

Cool -- it never happened, yet it was shown to be false.

I thought you guys boasted that you couldn't prove a negative?

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Cool -- it never happened, yet it was shown to be false.

I thought you guys boasted that you couldn't prove a negative?

Haha oh ok. I see what you were getting at.

I think they meant the genesis account of creation in general was proved to be false, not every individual detail.

And you're right, negatives can't be proved. But if another, mutually exclusive theory is positively proven, then the alternative is disproven enough that we can say it didn't happen.

 

[AV1611VET]

I mean, can you point to something in nature that scientists have missed that suggests we didn't come from the jungle as you put it?

No, I sure can't.

If I had to say something, I would say "common sense".

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

No, I sure can't.

If I had to say something, I would say "common sense".

Alright. I said I would respect that answer and I do. A lot. Thanks.

 

[AV1611VET]

But if another, mutually exclusive theory is positively proven, then the alternative is disproven enough that we can say it didn't happen.

I call that, denial by antithesis, and I use it almost exclusively here.

I'm sure it has its own term already, though -- somewhere.