Are there any creationists willing to debate?

[OldBadfish]

God told man what he needed to know about creation? Okay - let us examine that statement: why exactly do humans need to know that the creation took 6 days?

They don't, but the word says that it took 6 days. You can't say for sure that the writers of the bible were not inspired, the bible says they were.

Why wouldn't we take God's creation at face value? For what reason do you weight the Bible more heavily than the creation itself? After all, the Bible was written by fallible men; the creation was written by God directly.

I don't weigh the bible more heavily, but without it, we wouldn't know the creation was done by God, we wouldn't know anything about God, unless he instilled it in us (every word). Without the bible, you wouldn't even be able to make the statement that Gods proof is in the creation and you are without excuse, unless he instilled it in our minds instead of a book. Right?

 

[David Gould]

They don't, but the word says that it took 6 days. You can't say for sure that the writers of the bible were not inspired, the bible says they were.

Just out of interest, where in the Bible does it say that the writers of Genesis were inspired by God?

I don't weigh the bible more heavily, but without it, we wouldn't know the creation was done by God, we wouldn't know anything about God, unless he instilled it in us (every word). Without the bible, you wouldn't even be able to make the statement that Gods proof is in the creation and you are without excuse, unless he instilled it in our minds instead of a book. Right?

Wrong. The Bible says that God is evident in the creation so that all are without excuse - all, which includes those people who never read the Bible. This passage makes it clear that the Bible is not necessary for a belief in the Christian God.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

give me an example of some of the science in the bible that has been disproven.

1. Translation of genealogies into the age of the earth by a literal interpreation has been disproven.

2. Literal interpretation of the global flooding event has been disproved.


Then there are other contested issues such as a flat earth, the mustard seed issue, the camel's hoof, bats as birds, etc.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

i believe it is its own species, not a transitional one. there are no fossils of anything between it and a bird, or it and a reptile. did these characteristics just pop out of all the reptiles all of a sudden?

This is the problem of creationists asking for so-called "transitional" fossils. No matter what evidence is presented, creationists will deny it because to them, no fossil would ever suffice as a transitional fossil.

For instance, a creaitonist asks for a "transitional" fossil between classes X and Z (say, reptilia and aves). We produce fossil Y, which is a fossil that has features unique to both classes X and Z (archy, anyone?). But that's not good enough. Then they want something between X & Y and Y & Z because although Y is a transitional both in time and by biological classification, it still isn't good enough. But of course producing a fossil between X & Y and/or Y & Z wouldn't be good enough either because other intermediate fossils would have to be produced. There really is no point because there's always an excuse to find one more intermediate without ever recognizing transitional characteristics. Another good example would be the hominid series that lucaspa has posted numerous times.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

how have you proven that it is that old

We have proven that it cannot be merely a few thousand years old, and a few examples of the many have been offered but none addressed or refuted in the "Geological Sciences vs. YECism/Flood Geology" thread.

Radiometric dating is the primary way we acquire a quantitative measure of the age of the earth. Calculation of the closure ages of certain gases is another (e.g., Xe). Decay rates are observed to be constant over time even under great pressure and temperature changes that would be expected on and within the earth. Furthermore, there are a varitey of radiometric dating methods such as K-Ar, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, Rb-Sr, etc. that do correllate with high accuracy when dates using these methods on the same material are cross-referenced with each other. If the decay rates changed, this would simply not be possible because each unstable nuclide has a different rate of decay, and some do not decay into only one daughter nuclide.

 

[OldBadfish]

Just out of interest, where in the Bible does it say that the writers of Genesis were inspired by God?

Everywhere!

ROM 15:4
"For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope."

2PE 1:21
"For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

HEB 1:1
"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways."


2 Tim 3:16
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

2 Pet. 1:21
"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Theres more if you need them.

Wrong. The Bible says that God is evident in the creation so that all are without excuse - all, which includes those people who never read the Bible. This passage makes it clear that the Bible is not necessary for a belief in the Christian God.

If the creation is proof, then people will seek the word of God to learn more.

But you know this because it was taught to you by the bible, not because creation was evidence for you, or am I wrong? Not everyone is in the position to not hear the word of God, I am assuming third world and tribal type people in the scripture that speaks that creation is evidence.

 

[David Gould]

Everywhere!

ROM 15:4
"For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope."

2PE 1:21
"For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

HEB 1:1
"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways."


2 Tim 3:16
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

2 Pet. 1:21
"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Theres more if you need them.





If the creation is proof, then people will seek the word of God to learn more.

But you know this because it was taught to you by the bible, not because creation was evidence for you, or am I wrong? Not everyone is in the position to not hear the word of God, I am assuming third world and tribal type people in the scripture that speaks that creation is evidence.

Yes, we agree - this proves that the Bible is NOT necessary for belief in the Christian God. Thus, the creation MUST be a better testimony for God than the Bible. And if the Creation lies then that cannot be the case. Thus, the creation must tell us the truth. And the truth that it tells us is that it is old.

 

[fortheloveofmike]

1. Translation of genealogies into the age of the earth by a literal interpreation has been disproven.

2. Literal interpretation of the global flooding event has been disproved.


Then there are other contested issues such as a flat earth, the mustard seed issue, the camel's hoof, bats as birds, etc.

how has the flood been disproven

 

[fortheloveofmike]

Of course, God can do it. But if he did do it, then he planted false evidence.

Since God cannot lie, the earth is old ... QED

or maybe you just suck at interpreting evidence

 

[fortheloveofmike]

If you are saying, 'God could have made the Earth anyway that he wanted to and then made it impossible for us to find anything about it - worse, he would make it so that science would always come to the wrong conclusion,' then sure. God could have done that. But in that case God would be lying to us in the creation. Most Christians reject the idea that God would lie.

If you do not know that much about radiation and radioactivity, then this is not too bad a place to start:

http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html


This is a Christian perspective on radiometric dating:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html


Have fun finding out about it. I learnt a lot from the above.

what i was asking was not could God create them like that, i know he can. i was asking can rocks form naturally like that?

 

[troodon]

how has the flood been disproven

http://www.christianforums.com/t41209 (5 are listed here)

http://www.christianforums.com/t40474

http://www.christianforums.com/t43339

http://www.christianforums.com/t46140

http://www.christianforums.com/t43407 (falsifies 6,000 year old earth but I thought I'd add it )

 

[fortheloveofmike]

http://www.christianforums.com/t41209 (5 are listed here)

http://www.christianforums.com/t40474

http://www.christianforums.com/t43339

http://www.christianforums.com/t46140

http://www.christianforums.com/t43407 (falsifies 6,000 year old earth but I thought I'd add it )

the problems with all those "disproofs" of the flood are that you guys forgot one thing. God does not have to abide by our laws of physics. God can do all things.

 

[troodon]

the problems with all those "disproofs" of the flood are that you guys forgot one thing. God does not have to abide by our laws of physics. God can do all things.

They don't say that God could not flood the world with water, they say that the earth shows he didn't. Unless you can provide reason's why they should be dismissed, these threads show several lines of reasoning from which we know (not that God couldn't have flooded the earth) that God didn't flood the earth.

Nice hand wave though

 

[lucaspa]

the problems with all those "disproofs" of the flood are that you guys forgot one thing. God does not have to abide by our laws of physics. God can do all things.

The problem, fortheloveofmike, is that
1. Such a flood, however miraculous in origin, would leave CONSEQUENCES on the earth.

2. YECers claim that such a flood, however miraculous in origin, DID leave consequences. Namely all geological features. All those layers of sedimentary rock, for instance, is said to have been laid down in the Flood. The Grand Canyon is said to have been carved by the Flood.

So, we are not questioning whether God can perform a miracle, but whether what we see was caused by a Flood.

All the threads are of geological features THAT CANNOT POSSIBLY BE THERE IF THERE WAS FLOOD or could not POSSIBLY be caused by flood waters.

Therefore, they do disprove that there was a world-wide Flood. Not only don't we see the consequences we should see if there were one, but we see consequences that can't possibly be there if a Flood were true.

 

[lucaspa]

You underestimate the power of God.

Not at all. What you are overestimating is the power of God to lie.

What you are saying is that God made all these things in an instant even tho they LOOK LIKE they took a long time to make. That makes God lying.

I simply am not wedded to a literalistic interpretation of the Bible to the extent that I am willing to destroy all of Christianity in order to win a debate. I would rather discard an obvious incorrect human literal interpretation rather than stick with it out of human pride and have to make God out to be a liar -- which we both know He is not.

Pride is said to be a sin. You have just demonstrated one reason why.

 

[lucaspa]

well honestly, as an incoming junior in high school, i have no idea how radioactivity works. but is it possible that not everything started out with as much radiation or radtioactivity as you thought.
for example, could a rock that is 1 year old have the same amount of radioactive atoms as one that is 2000? like it just was made with that much?

If the rock is made with the ratios of parent and daughter isotopes (different forms of the atom, the parent isotope being radioactive and the daughter being the atom after it has decayed), then we are back to God being a deceiver again. God had to deliberately create it that way to make it LOOK old when it is not.

Now you have made God into a deceiver. Science can stand this, but Christianity cannot. Are you really willing to destroy Christianity in order to keep your literal interpretation of Genesis?

These sites will help you understand radiometric dating. The first is the American Scientific Affiliate -- an organization of evangelical Christian scientists

4. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
5. http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html

 

[lucaspa]

just to let you know there is absolutely 100% no possible way you can prove that God did not create each species individually.

We have SEEN in real time new species evolve from parent species in the lab and in the wild.

Yes, we can falsify special creation. And have.

 

[lucaspa]

If science understood and had evidence that God created, then we would have believers that believe only because science proved that God existed.

And that's EXACTLY what all creationists claim: there is SCIENTIFIC evidence that God created. This is what creation science is all about: proving by science that God created!

Now you say there isn't any such evidence! Well, at least you have rejected creationism.

Of course, you said this to counter the overwhelming evidence that creationISM is false. But notice what you are doing. You are exposing the hidden assumption within creationism: if creationISM is false, then God did not create.

NO ONE is saying that. Even the atheists here aren't saying it. They know better. You should too. God could still have created. He just created using the processes discovered by science, that's all.

As you are pointing out, God can do things any way He pleases. However, for some reason, YOU won't let Him create the earth in the far past, create the geology of the planet over time, and create the diversity of life on the planet by evolution.

WHY? Why are you so insistent on telling God how He had to create? Do you commonly think you can order God about?

 

[lucaspa]

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
[2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


Ok, maybe it's possible that the earth is older than it's inhabitants, maybe it was formed over a long period of time, and then he created the Garden and life later on, thats possible. Maybe he formed the Universe over a substantial time period, and then went on to put life here some time after earths initial formation (letting it cool down and forming it to sustain the life he intended to put here. You know maybe earth was just a rock with some water, and God decided to put life here sometime after the earths formation.

But the creation of unique species and intentional diversity of species is what I believe God is talking about, it's the things that inhabit the earth, that leaves you without excuse.

And what' your excuse for a literal reading of these passages when it is clear they were never intended to be literal?

It's in the area of speciation that real time experiments have shown new species evolving without any direct intervention of God.

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

DID YOU NOTICE THIS? "IN THE DAY". That's "beyom" and it means WITHIN a 24 hour day. Not an indefinite period that could be 6 days. Right here you KNOW, if you would just hear, that God never meant either creation story to be read literally, otherwise there wouldn't be this glaring contradiction.

If God is eternal, then Genesis simply says that in the beginning God created the heavens and earth,

THERE you go. And science tells you HOW God created the heavens and the earth. The processes discovered by science are just as much God creating as Him poofing things into existence.

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

Not at all. What you are overestimating is the power of God to lie.

What you are saying is that God made all these things in an instant even tho they LOOK LIKE they took a long time to make. That makes God lying.

I simply am not wedded to a literalistic interpretation of the Bible to the extent that I am willing to destroy all of Christianity in order to win a debate. I would rather discard an obvious incorrect human literal interpretation rather than stick with it out of human pride and have to make God out to be a liar -- which we both know He is not.

Pride is said to be a sin. You have just demonstrated one reason why.

This guy simple does not believe in the power of God or understand that He is timeless not bound by time as we are. that his word from mouth wiped out armies in Rev 19:21 ....bible=sword=john 1:1-3