Creation/Evolution Fundamental Assumptions

[VehementisDominus]

You seem to think that analysis of spiritual text must harbor your fictional belief that the bible is unreliable.

It's called scepticism.

You know, where you engage your critical thinking skills and don't blindly believe a 2000+ year old book written by bronze age goat herders and barbarians for absolutely no good reason.

Though, some people lack any capabilities for critical thought whatsoever, we call these people gullible.

By the way how about showing also how purely naturalistic unintelligent processes can build a man.

When mummy loves daddy very much, they have unprotected sex. Sperm meets egg, the two gametes become a zygote, which grows into a blastocyst and then a fetus then finally a person - it's an entirely natural process, with no intelligence required. There's no god or gods involved in this whatsoever.

 

[Greg1234]

It's called scepticism.

You know, where you engage your critical thinking skills and don't blindly believe a 2000+ year old book written by bronze age goat herders and barbarians for absolutely no good reason.

What I'm saying is that the belief where the bible writers were ignorant beast men , ignorant barbarians or ignorant goat herders is yours, dismissed and not shared.

When mummy loves daddy very much, they have unprotected sex. Sperm meets egg, the two gametes become a zygote, which grows into a blastocyst and then a fetus then finally a person - it's an entirely natural process, with no intelligence required. There's no god or gods involved in this whatsoever.

DNA was discovered and is a part of man. The origination of man thus includes everything- at the micro and macro level.

 

[Research6]

It's called scepticism.

Why aren't you skeptical about evolution then?

You blindly follow the theory of evolution, without being open to any alternitive. You are no skeptic.

 

[Cabal]

Why aren't you skeptical about evolution then?

You blindly follow the theory of evolution, without being open to any alternitive. You are no skeptic.

How do you know he does? And it seems he has considered your "alternitives" adequately, and found them lacking, so he is hardly being inconsistent.

Provided evidence yet for that "Darwin shrine" you claimed existed in London?

 

[VehementisDominus]

Why aren't you skeptical about evolution then?

You blindly follow the theory of evolution, without being open to any alternitive. You are no skeptic.

Not quite; the difference being evolution is demonstrably accurate, it can be shown to be accurate through evidence. Not just a few pieces of evidence here and there but all evidence pertaining to it strengthens it as a theory, and there's no evidence that contradicts it or falsifies it that's been found.

It's been used to make accurate predictions, such as the existence of DNA and the location of Tiktaalik Rosae fossils.

Whereas with the Bible, there's absolutely o evidence supporting it that can't be explained by other means and there's far too much evidence to the contrary to take it seriously anymore.

It requires blind faith, it even states that itself, which is a good way to avoid having to back up its statements with evidence and still have people blindly believe it.

 

[Insane_Duck]

Why aren't you skeptical about evolution then?

You blindly follow the theory of evolution, without being open to any alternitive. You are no skeptic.

I thought there were less of these guys on here. But they've started popping up more and more lately.

 

[Research6]

there's no evidence that contradicts it or falsifies it that's been found.

There no evidence which falsifies or contradicts creationism either because we are dealing with events which fall outside of recorded history and observation or testing.

Whereas with the Bible, there's absolutely o evidence supporting it that can't be explained by other means and there's far too much evidence to the contrary to take it seriously anymore.

If it wasn't for the Old Testament there would be no such thing as assyriology. The first archaeologists to excavate Mesopotamia used the Book of Genesis. It was Genesis that led Layard and Botta to discover Ninevah and secondly it was the Bible that led archaeologists to discover evidence of the Hittites.

<edit>You only have to google 'Biblical archaeology' to see all the artefacts that have proven the historical or factual basis of scripture. But still Atheists go around on the internet ignorantly promoting the erroneous view nothing in the Bible is true.

 

[Cabal]

But still Atheists go around on the internet ignorantly promoting the erroneous view nothing in the Bible is true.

They do? I'm an atheist and I don't. But a few historical facts verified doesn't mean it's thus all true.

 

[sabercroft]

There no evidence which falsifies or contradicts creationism either because we are dealing with events which fall outside of recorded history and observation or testing.

Is that (part of) how you creationists justify your blind beliefs to yourselves? "I'm too uneducated to know anything about science and see what scientific evidence says, therefore I'll just sit here in my Bible-protected cocoon of ignorance and pretend that there is no evidence!"

As has been mentioned already, if the Bible account of creation is true, here's what we'd expect to find: that the universe isn't billions of years old, that the earth is not younger than the sun, zero evidence of evolution, a fossil record that is consistent with the creation order, that signs of human civilization and intelligence started only ~7000 years ago with Adam and Eve, etc. We have found none of this. On the other hand, we have found mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Repeat after me: we have found zero evidence for creation, and copious amounts of evidence for the "other" side. The fact is that the solar nebular model, protoplanet theory, abiogenesis, modern evolution synthesis are all incompatible and contradictory with the Biblical account of creation means that all the evidence for scientific theories directly falsifies and contradicts creationism.

<edit>

 

[AV1611VET]

Your worldview can't handle that.

Who's the one arcing and sparking here?

 

[sabercroft]

Who's the one arcing and sparking here?

Me. I'm allergic to ignorance, unfortunately. Especially when it comes trying to disguise itself as wisdom and knowledge.

 

[AV1611VET]

Me. I'm allergic to ignorance, unfortunately. Especially when it comes trying to disguise itself as wisdom and knowledge.

Need an antihistamine?

 

[sabercroft]

Need an antihistamine?

You know, it'd be great if it was possible to engage in honest and factual intellectual discussion with you people, but failing that, I suppose light-hearted banter will have to do as a substitute.

P.S: You were kidding, right?

 

[AV1611VET]

You know, it'd be great if it was possible to engage in honest and factual intellectual discussion with you people...

'If it was possible'?

Was that a Freudian slip, or your personal belief?

Either way, I take it you're enjoying yourself here; where you can converse with your allergies?

 

[Research6]

Is that (part of) how you creationists justify your blind beliefs to yourselves? "I'm too uneducated to know anything about science and see what scientific evidence says, therefore I'll just sit here in my Bible-protected cocoon of ignorance and pretend that there is no evidence!"

Please see several pages back, where i clearly stated i'm not a creationist.

Both evolution and creationism are faith-based, as are all views on origins since no one was there to observe how, when and where we were created. Origins is something we can never know for sure about and evolution and creation are both just theories.

As has been mentioned already, if the Bible account of creation is true, here's what we'd expect to find: that the universe isn't billions of years old, that the earth is not younger than the sun, zero evidence of evolution, a fossil record that is consistent with the creation order, that signs of human civilization and intelligence started only ~7000 years ago with Adam and Eve, etc. We have found none of this. On the other hand, we have found mountains of evidence to the contrary.

None of this is in the Bible though, these lies are pulled clearly from cranks, charlatans and liars who have never studied the scripture from an academic or scholarly perspective.

 

[sabercroft]

Please see several pages back, where i clearly stated i'm not a creationist.

Both evolution and creationism are faith-based, as are all views on origins since no one was there to observe how, when and where we were created. Origins is something we can never know for sure about and evolution and creation are both just theories.

First, you obviously have no idea what a scientific theory means, as opposed to what "theory" means in everyday language.

What's the use of explaining things to you when all you do is simply ignore them?

Secondly, your questions have already been answered before (link)! All we got in return from you was deafening silence, and some nonsense about how "evolution is merely an interpretation", despite your complete lack of ability to explain how a "mere interpretation" can make testable and accurate predictions, or to propose an alternate interpretation.

Why do you keep asking questions when all you do is ignore the answers? Do you believe that trying to cast doubt on scientific evidence out of ignorance makes you appear any more intelligent? Do you honestly think constantly dodging all the explanations to your questions impresses anyone?

None of this is in the Bible though, these lies are pulled clearly from cranks, charlatans and liars who have never studied the scripture from an academic or scholarly perspective.

Dear god...

This forum desperately needs a "bang head against wall" emoticon.

I'll give it a shot anyway. What do you think is the correct version of Biblical creationism, then?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll give it a shot anyway. What do you think is the correct version of Biblical creationism, then?

Does that really matter?

As soon as someone says the G-word, the educated are trained to go to Deafcon 1.*

* I think they are, anyway. I'm not educated.

 

[sabercroft]

Does that really matter?

As soon as someone says the G-word, the educated are trained to go to Deafcon 1.*

* I think they are, anyway. I'm not educated.

It's more like the educated throw their arms up in exasperation at the lack of ability of the uneducated to understand how logic works. The issue being discussed here is the validity of the Bible, yet the uneducated start the discussion by assuming right off the bat that the Bible is valid when in fact that's the conclusion we may or may not reach; i.e. putting the cart before the horse.

Let me put it in what is hopefully a simpler example for you. Do you try to determine whether a person is trustworthy by starting off with the assumption that the person is trustworthy, and concluding that the person is indeed trustworthy because you asked that person if you could trust him and he said yes?

 

[Research6]

First, you obviously have no idea what a scientific theory means, as opposed to what "theory" means in everyday language.

A scientific theory is something that can be tested, experimented, observed and so forth. The scientific method is: make a hypothesis and then test it through experiment or observation. The theory of evolution however is not observable or testable since it concerns past events. None of it was caught on camera or ever observed, just like creationism.

I'll give it a shot anyway. What do you think is the correct version of Biblical creationism, then?

As interpretated by scholars who study the ancient near eastern context. Most are now dead as this interpretation was only popular in the late 19th and early 20th century (Sayce, Waddell etc) but a contemporary scholar who interprets Genesis and the 'creation' through its ANE historic context is David Rohl (Legend: The Genesis of Civilisation).

A few basic points on the 'creation account' in the ANE context -

*Adam was not the first man, but the first king (the Sumerian kingship was the oldest in the world).
*The creation of Gen. 1 is describing the Mesopotamian creation of civilization. Note for example that Gen 1. 24 translates most animals as 'livestock' or 'cattle', this is because Genesis is detailing when they were first domesticated. The creation is therefore their domestication.
*The Garden of Eden was the first Mesopotamian city.
* The serpent was a pre-Adamic snake cult (aniministic cults were prevelant during Paleolithic, Neolithic and survived into classical times).

 

[sabercroft]

A scientific theory is something that can be tested, experimented, observed and so forth. The scientific method is: make a hypothesis and then test it through experiment or observation. The theory of evolution however is not observable or testable since it concerns past events. None of it was caught on camera or ever observed, just like creationism.

You're falling into the common trap of getting confused between scientific laws and scientific theories. But I guess this is a far more understandable mistake than your previous ones. In a nutshell, theories are formed based on scientific laws and empirical data. Neither is a lesser form of the other. What you described is the process of formulating scientific laws. The process of theories, while similar, is not exactly what you just described.

As for your version of Biblical creationism, I will honestly admit I'm not familiar with it. Do you know where I can go to learn more?