Creationism - Lazy Man's science?

[JohnR7]

Generalizations do not evidence make Assertions do not equate to empirical evidence (in the objective sense)

So where is your evidence that there is no God or that God does not exist?

 

[JohnR7]

I keep responding to them just because I enjoy debating. Unfortunately, the forums, particular the debate forums aren't very active. Not enough good debates.

If you enjoy debating, then show us your evidence that the God of the Bible did not create the Universe. Show us your evidence that creationism can not be true.

 

[vipertaja]

Are you going to quit your mental masturbation any time soon, John?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

f you enjoy debating, then show us your evidence that the God of the Bible did not create the Universe. Show us your evidence that creationism can not be true.


you are tying two things together that are not.
The God of the Bible could (and did) create the universe but not 6K years ago and used evolution to develop the living creatures that we see today not just poof them into existence fully developed then to hyper evolve since the flood.

the evidence.
start with geology, then radioactive dating, you can look at astronomy and supernovas as well, this destroys a 6K year old universe.

look at the nested hierarchical structure of taxonomy, then protein structure then DNA and now HERV's and you will see that human beings are an evolved part of life.

 

[kangitanka]

So where is your evidence that there is no God or that God does not exist?

I didnt say God doesnt exist.
Oh, wait, you arent playing the "mind reading" game are you?
You know, the one where you assume that you know what the other person is thinking

Ive seen many people (especially Christians) try to play this trick here on CF. Is this a god-granted ability, or just the hubris of being "better"?

 

[MrSluagh]

If you enjoy debating, then show us your evidence that the God of the Bible did not create the Universe. Show us your evidence that creationism can not be true.

Fossils.

Radiocarbon dating.

Vestigial organs.

Your turn.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

If you enjoy debating, then show us your evidence that the God of the Bible did not create the Universe. Show us your evidence that creationism can not be true.

Show us your evidence that Izanagi and Izanami did not create the Japanese islands.

 

[Beastt]

The evidence is in the Bible. How much of the Bible have you read? Any at all?

I've read more than enough to find the evidence. And I would have to say that the evidence contained in the Bible is utterly conclusive; no way is the Bible-God the creator of the universe and influence for the Bible because the Bible makes it clear that he, or the authors, (whomever you choose to believe represented their ideas therein), couldn't possibly have created the universe because the Bible shows that they haven't a clue how the universe was created or how it works.

 

[Beastt]

If you enjoy debating, then show us your evidence that the God of the Bible did not create the Universe.

Evidence #1: Genesis 1:2 (Day-1: Earth covered in liquid water) - Genesis 1:14 (Day-4: God creates the sun -- source of heat on Earth)

Without heat from the sun, the water wouldn't be liquid. The temperature of space is roughly 2.73°K. That's -454°F or just 5° above absolute zero.​

[bible]Genesis 1:2[/bible]
[bible]Genesis 1:14[/bible]

Evidence #2: Genesis 1:2 (Day-1: Earth covered in liquid water) - Genesis 1:6 (Day-2: God creates the Earth's atmosphere)

Planets can't obtain or retain liquid water unless they have an atmosphere to act as a capture device and retainment vessel. No atmosphere = no liquid water. The Bible claims a planet covered in liquid water but devoid of an atmosphere.​

[bible]Genesis 1:2[/bible]
[bible]Genesis 1:6[/bible]

Evidence #3: Genesis 1:7 (Day-2: God creates the firmament (atmosphere/expanse/barrier), to separate the waters below (oceans), from the waters above.)

There aren't any waters above. Early depictions by those who spoke and read the Hebrew language showed this large reservoir above the firmament because it is said to be there in the Bible. And these people, being devoid of the discoveries of science had no way to know the biblical description was wrong. So they rendered it faithfully, according to scripture in their etchings. This is how the Bible, (the original Hebrew as well as the KJV), actually depicts the Earth, moon, sun, stars, firmament and water above the firmament. There are other, similar ancient etchings depicting more or less the same configuration -- as described in the Bible.​

[bible]Genesis 1:7[/bible]

Evidence #4: Genesis 1:9 (Day-3: The water flows to one point and dry land appears.) Genesis 1:14 (Day-4: God creates the sun - source of heat on Earth)

The water can't flow to allow dry land to appear if the water is cryogenically frozen as would be the case without the sun.​

[bible]Genesis 1:9[/bible]
[bible]Genesis 1:14[/bible]

Evidence #5: Genesis 1:11 (Day-3: The Earth begins bringing forth grasses, seed bearing herbs and fruit bearing trees) Genesis 1:14 (Day-4: God creates the sun to cast light and warmth upon the Earth)

You can't grow plants in the absence of light because plants rely upon photosynthesis to grow. You can't fuel photosynthesis without photons and photons on Earth come primarily from the sun. You can't grow plants in temperatures which would instantly freeze every cell in the plant, rupturing the cell membranes and leaving the plant as brittle as thin glass, as well as quite dead.​

[bible]Genesis 1:11[/bible]
[bible]Genesis 1:14[/bible]

There you go, John. I haven't even moved past page one of the Bible and already we find five indisputable evidences that the Bible is not the word of God, or that God is not the creator of the Earth. The only other option is that God is a liar and I don't see what the point would be in lying to all of mankind. So we have to look to the authors of the Bible.

Did they know what existed beyond the Earth's atmosphere?
(No).

Did they know that the Earth's heat and light came almost completely from the sun?
(Apparently not)

Did they know about photosynthesis?
(No)

Did they know that the sun was millions of miles away from the Earth rather than a ball in Earth's sky?
(No)

Did they know the temperature of space was colder than anything they'd ever experienced on Earth?
(No)

Did they know the hydrological cycle and the mechanics the atmosphere plays in that process?
(No)​

So who's ideas do we find in the Bible? Those of the author's. And among those ideas were that they were inspired by their God when writing about these things. But clearly, they were not. They wrote from their imagination and the traditional tales and beliefs of their culture. And the evidence for that resides in the same book you point to as evidence of God.

Show us your evidence that creationism can not be true.

It comes from the same source as all of the above erroneous claims. It comes from the same book which claims the Ark of the Covenant contained the power of God when we know today that, by its design as given in the Bible, it was only a large capacitor which received it's charge from the many days of being carried, (suspended and therefore insulated from a ground), through dry desert winds.
[bible]Exodus 25:10-22[/bible]

Genesis comes from Moses and Moses not only made the fallacious claims about the Ark, but also claimed that God gave him a cure for leprosy. This cure is listed in the Bible under Leviticus 14:1-9. I urge everyone to give it a good read and see what this proclaimed medical cure for leprosy is. It's nothing more than ritualistic mumbo-jumbo, completely incapable of doing much more than perhaps spreading bird flu. We know today that dripping blood from a freshly killed bird onto a person with multiple skin lesions isn't exactly a sound medical process.
[bible]Leviticus 14:1-9[/bible]

Moses was clearly being dishonest or delusional and yet, Moses is the one who gives us the account adhered to by creationists. That alone should be enough to cast doubt. But it's by no means all there is.

We know evolution is real. It does occur and has been observed as one species slowly, over generations, morphing into a different species. And this observation has been made dozens of times. We know the process, the mechanisms, the source of stimulation for these actions and, to a useful extent, can predict the outcome. These predictions have been used successfully in the development of real medicines and real treatments for disease for decades. Meanwhile, creationism has never been shown to have any viable mechanism. The entire concept relies upon magic from an invisible entity, never shown to exist and completely devoid of credible evidence.

 

[philadiddle]

Evidence #1

As a TE, I think that's a good point, well done.

Evidence #2

couldn't gravity hold the water down?

Evidence #3, #4

again, good point

There you go, John. I haven't even moved past page one of the Bible and already we find five indisputable evidences that the Bible is not the word of God, or that God is not the creator of the Earth.

now you start to talk from your own bubble world again. If it was that simple, why do ppl with Doctorite degrees in biblical theology fully embrace the Bible (and evolution) as truth? Are they stupid? Are you the smartest man alive or something?

The only other option is that God is a liar and I don't see what the point would be in lying to all of mankind.

that's not the only other option. your strong words are very ignorant. You need to read theology texts as THEOLOGY, not as an intended literal science text. Taking what's said into context (regaurding the culture it was written in etc) is a great place for you to start researching.

So we have to look to the authors of the Bible. Did they know what existed beyond the Earth's atmosphere? (No). Did they know that the Earth's heat and light came almost completely from the sun? (Apparently not) Did they know about photosynthesis? (No) Did they know that the sun was millions of miles away from the Earth rather than a ball in Earth's sky? (No) Did they know the temperature of space was colder than anything they'd ever experienced on Earth? (No). Did they know the hydrological cycle and the mechanics the atmosphere plays in that process? (No)

This is all completely irrelevant.

So who's ideas do we find in the Bible? Those of the author's. And among those ideas were that they were inspired by their God when writing about these things. But clearly, they were not. They wrote from their imagination and the traditional tales and beliefs of their culture. And the evidence for that resides in the same book you point to as evidence of God.

"clearly" huh? You should go to biblical seminary and share the "obvious" things you've figured out with the educated Christians. You may even get a job teaching theology and how to read and interpret ancient texts. You seem to be better at it then all those ministers who wasted 5-8 years in university studying the very things you speak of.

 

[JohnR7]

I can tell right from the beginning that these are ALL straw man arguements from someone that does not know the Bible and what the Bible says. For example:

Evidence #1: Genesis 1:2 (Day-1: Earth covered in liquid water)

The Bible says nothing about "liquid" water. Why you added the word "liquid" I have no idea. Perhaps so you could argue against the word you added.

Genesis 1:14 (Day-4: God creates the sun -- source of heat on Earth)

The Bible does not say that God created the "sun" on day four. The referance is to the "firmament of the heaven". It could be there was no atmosphere, like the moon, or it could be that God made some changes in the atmosphere. Either way, this is a discussion about the firmament and the effect that has on the sun. Science tells us that there is a green house effect to hold the heat in. That would cause the ice to melt.

Without heat from the sun, the water wouldn't be liquid. The temperature of space is roughly 2.73°K. That's -454°F or just 5° above absolute zero.

You mean without the greenhouse effect. That is why the ice is melting faster now, because of the changes made by pollution has effected the atmosphere in a way so that we have global warming.

​

The Bible claims a planet covered in liquid water but devoid of an atmosphere.

Another strawmen, the Bible makes no claim about liquid water.

Evidence #3: Genesis 1:7 (Day-2: God creates the firmament (atmosphere/expanse/barrier), to separate the waters below (oceans), from the waters above.)

What is the problem with this? Water below is called "water". Water above is call humidity, steam, vapor, rain, clouds and so on.

There aren't any waters above.

I can tell you have never been to Ohio in the summer, there is lots of water above and it is called humidity. Some people say muggy.

Early depictions by those who spoke and read the Hebrew language

We are to be lead by God in our understanding of the Bible, not man. Even Jesus warns us to be careful of the traditions of men. So we even need to be carefull of the traditions when it comes to understanding the Bible.

At any rate, your not argueing against the Bible, you are arguing over a drawing that someone made up. Just like the evos make up drawing all the time. I am all for an arguement against a drawing of this sort, because they do not reflect reality.

The water can't flow to allow dry land to appear if the water is cryogenically frozen as would be the case without the sun.

This was after God created the atmosphere along with it's green house effect to hold the heat in and melt the ice.


​

Evidence #5: Genesis 1:11 (Day-3: The Earth begins bringing forth grasses, seed bearing herbs and fruit bearing trees) Genesis 1:14 (Day-4: God creates the sun to cast light and warmth upon the Earth)

Whatever God did, He did it in the firmament.

There you go, John. I haven't even moved past page one of the Bible and already we find five indisputable evidences

"Indisputable"? What a joke that is. You build five little wooden indians and knock down your own indians. All of your arguement are strawman arguements. You do not understand the Bible at all.

So who's ideas do we find in the Bible?

I do not know where you got your "ideas" from, it was mostly just a cut and paste job from somewhere. You should try to find someone who can help you to understand the meaning and the lesson for us today in the Word of God. There is no lack of people who do not want to live right before God that will try to lead you astray from the truth contained in the word, to their own destruction. But there are people who can help you to find the truth. So you do not have to live your life any longer in deception.

 

[Beastt]

As a TE, I think that's a good point, well done.

Thank you. I do wonder though, what exactly being a Theistic Evolutionist has to with this. Evolution doesn't address the formation of the universe, Earth or life.

Having said that I still wish to welcome you to a world view more subject to reason and less to superstition and blind acceptance. I can remember when you subscribed to views more consistent with YECs and it is my opinion that you've gravitated to a much more reasonable stance. I don't think your journey is over as I see there is more to learn and more to see. I hope your journey will continue to be fruitful for you.

couldn't gravity hold the water down?

Does it hold the water down now? An atmosphere performs several functions. Among those are to filter the suns rays, to act as a thermal blanket and to provide an envelope under which the hydrological cycle proceeds. It also acts as a pressure blanket around the Earth. The gases which make up the atmosphere are lighter than the solid materials that make up the Earth. But they're not without weight. The gravity of the Earth acts to hold these gases around the Earth. In doing so, these gases exert about 14.7 pound of force, (at sea level), for every square inch of Earth's surface. It is this force exerted upon the Earth which keeps water liquid. Without the atmosphere applying pressure to the water, the water would convert to vapor. And just as with an atmosphere, once converted to a heated vapor, it would rise away from the planet. But without a pressurized atmosphere in which to cool, form clouds and return as precipitation, it would simply drift off into space. Gravity can only play its part on water vapor if the medium in which the water vapor exists has a greater vapor density than that of the water vapor itself.

again, good point

Thank you

now you start to talk from your own bubble world again. If it was that simple, why do ppl with Doctorite degrees in biblical theology fully embrace the Bible (and evolution) as truth? Are they stupid? Are you the smartest man alive or something?

You're appealing to the authority of others, apparently without understanding from where that authority comes. Certainly you must realize that there are people who have spent great portions of their lives examining the bibles of different beliefs. And for any popular religious belief, you can find people with vast religious educations who subscribe to their particular belief. You seem to assert that if someone with a doctorate in study of the Christian God accepts the Christian God as real, then those with lesser educations on the topic couldn't possibly be correct in assessing the Christian God to not exist. But what of those who have studied the Qur'an and accept Allah as the only one and true god? Does that mean that Christianity couldn't be correct? Does it mean that if you haven't put as much study into the Holy Bible as they have into the Qur'an that your observations, no matter how reasonable and logical can't possibly be valid?

You need to understand that rarely does anyone enroll in Bible college if they don't believe in God. They have almost always formed their beliefs long before choosing to dedicate much of their life to such studies. So by the time they begin to earn a degree, they're not looking for evidence to sway them one way or another. They've already made up their mind. At that point, they're interested in instruments to be used for confirmation bias. If one believes the heart to be the center of spiritual thought, do you suppose they would enroll in medical school where they will be taught, with full and conclusive demonstrations, that the heart is a muscle, designed to pump blood around the body? Or will they instead enroll in some sort of religiously based education in order to pursue further support for the ideas they have already accepted?

Higher education doesn't remove bias. Bias is more often the motivational agent for higher education.

that's not the only other option. your strong words are very ignorant. You need to read theology texts as THEOLOGY, not as an intended literal science text. Taking what's said into context (regaurding the culture it was written in etc) is a great place for you to start researching.

This is the reason I included the reproduction of ancient Hebrew etchings. I often see this type of claim. But as pointed out above, if one chooses to accept the unevidenced theology of those who have chosen, through their bias to study and teach theology, one will gain mostly the subjective opinions of their instructors. If you want to know what the original Hebrew claims, then look to the depictions drawn upon the early Hebrew, by those to whom Hebrew was the native language. And that is what I have done. In doing so, I find that the early Hebrew, as concerns configuration of the Earth and universe, reads very much like the KJV. If you look at the etching as you read the KJV, you'll find remarkable consistency. Yet I'm constantly assured by those who don't read Hebrew that the original Hebrew offers no such depiction.

An alternative would be to learn Hebrew and obtain the original Hebrew text. But we today are incapable of reading the text without coloring it from the understanding we already hold for such things as the configuration of our solar system. This is why it's so fascinating to look upon the depictions of those who held no such knowledge, as they applied the statements of the Bible, devoid of any preconceived bias.

If you were to learn about the Qur'an, find its inconsistencies and contradictions and offer then to one who holds a belief in Allah, would you expect them to accept what you've offered or would you expect that they would appeal to translational errors, contexts and scholars who have studied the Qur'an and still hold belief that it is the message of Allah -- the one and only true god?

They'll do the same thing Christians do. And in debating numerous points, numerous times, across numerous threads, I always encounter claims of translational errors, appeals to the original Hebrew and proclamations of contextual error. Perhaps not so unexpectedly, it's very rare that the proposed substitutions or contexts are the same. Christians themselves can't agree on these despite the fact that they are so quick to tell non-believers that their readings are indicative of vast ignorance.

This is all completely irrelevant.

When engaging in a discussion concerning the fallacious claims of the Bible and the demonstrable errors, it is not at all irrelevant to examine the beliefs of the authors. When it is demonstrated that their level of knowledge is what is claimed in the Bible, it's pretty difficult to continue proclaiming that the Bible holds the knowledge of an all-knowing god, rather than only the beliefs of the men known to have done the writing.

"clearly" huh? You should go to biblical seminary and share the "obvious" things you've figured out with the educated Christians. You may even get a job teaching theology and how to read and interpret ancient texts. You seem to be better at it then all those ministers who wasted 5-8 years in university studying the very things you speak of.

Yes, "clearly". It's not difficult to read words and see what is being said. You're doing that at this very moment.

Again you are appealing to others whom you believe to have a greater understanding than that which you hold, as defense for the beliefs you hold. Are you so certain that its wise to appeal to ideas you either don't comprehend or aren't familiar with, based only on the belief of others? And if this is a credible practice, why do you appeal only to the authority of those who have studied Christianity? Why not appeal to the knowledge of those who have studied and hold a belief in other religions? Can you not see that you can no more appeal to their level of study and acceptance of the material they have been offered than you can any opposing or differing belief?

Religious study is based in part, upon subjective belief. This is where it contrasts with study of the sciences which are founded upon evidence rather than opinion or even educated opinion. When studying Greek mythology, you will likely come away with a much better understanding of the Greek culture, their beliefs and the basis for those beliefs. But mostly you will come away with an understanding of the Greek opinion which was, as with your religious beliefs, based almost entirely on subjectivity.

 

[Beastt]

The Bible says nothing about "liquid" water. Why you added the word "liquid" I have no idea. Perhaps so you could argue against the word you added.

Perhaps because the word for solid, (frozen) water, is "ice". The Bible doesn't say "ice". It says water. Therefore, it's talking about liquid water which is what I said.

The Bible does not say that God created the "sun" on day four. The referance is to the "firmament of the heaven". It could be there was no atmosphere, like the moon, or it could be that God made some changes in the atmosphere. Either way, this is a discussion about the firmament and the effect that has on the sun. Science tells us that there is a green house effect to hold the heat in. That would cause the ice to melt.

"Could be", "could be", "could be"!
Seriously, John. How do you expect to provide a credible refutation when it's so obvious that all you can offer is pure conjecture. You get upset when I refer to "water" as "liquid water", then you start talking about "ice" when there isn't any mention of any ice.

Look to Genesis 1:16; "God made two great lights". Don't try to tell me it doesn't say God created the sun on day four. You and I have been through this before and you argument trails off to silence. And the only mention of the firmament in Genesis 1:14-16 is when he Bible claims that God spoke these sources of light into existence "in the firmament". Yet we know that the moon is 240,000 miles from Earth, the sun 93 million miles from Earth and the Earth's "firmament" (atmosphere) only extends for about 350 miles above the Earth.

You mean without the greenhouse effect. That is why the ice is melting faster now, because of the changes made by pollution has effected the atmosphere in a way so that we have global warming.

I'm a bit embarrassed for you, John. It would appear that you hold zero understanding of the greenhouse effect, what it is, how it works or why it is of concern. Firstly, without a source of heat, there is no greenhouse effect. Take away the sun, and the greenhouse effect ceases to be of enough significance to cause any concern. The problem is that certain gases are more effcient at providing thermal insulation than others. Among the more efficient gases are carbon dioxide and methane. Carbon dioxide is one of the ones causing the greatest concern because of its abundance and the rate at which we are adding to the percentage in the atmosphere. Methane, while far less abundant, is more than 21 times more effective at insulating the Earth against the loss of heat. But again, if you don't have a source of heat, the greenhouse effect ceases to exist.

Think if it the way you would blankets on your bed. A light sheet will hold in some heat but most of your body heat will escape. Toss on a thicker blanket and you'll keep more of your body heat around your body. Put a quilt or comforter over that blanket and you'll again increase the insulation efficiency of the upper bedding. But no matter how many blankets, quilts and comforters you place on the bed, if you or another source of thermal energy aren't present, the temperature of the bed will remain roughly that of the air around it.

Greenhouse gases don't produce heat. They simply slow the dissipation of existing heat. If you don't have a source of heat, there's no thermal energy to retain in the first place. Try this; gather together all of your heaviest bedding, (electric blankets don't count because they produce heat by conversion of electrical energy into resistance, producing heat). Stack them all on your bed when you get up in the morning. Before going to bed, reach under the blankets. Notice that the bed isn't warmer than the room. Thermal insulation is about retaining heat, not creating heat.

Another strawmen, the Bible makes no claim about liquid water.

"Water", John, is the liquid form of H2O. When solid, it is "ice" and when in a gaseous state, it is "steam" or "water vapor". The scholars who translated the Bible didn't select the word "ice" and they didn't choose "steam" or "water vapor". They chose "water", hence liquid.

What is the problem with this? Water below is called "water". Water above is call humidity, steam, vapor, rain, clouds and so on.

In so stating, you've clearly demonstrated the problem in two different ways. "Water above" means water above the atmosphere. There isn't any significant water in the majority of space, John. Secondly, the Bible doesn't refer to "steam", "vapor", "rain" or "clouds". It refers to "water" above. And just as we see in the drawings by those to whom Hebrew was the native language, that means a collection of water above the atmosphere. You keep adding and changing words in order to try to twist what the Bible actually says into what you need it to say. Notice that?

I can tell you have never been to Ohio in the summer, there is lots of water above and it is called humidity. Some people say muggy.

We have a monsoon season here so I'm quite familiar with humidity. I also know what the Bible says and it doesn't talk about water vapor "within" the firmament, John. Genesis 1:6 states that the firmament is "in the midst" of the waters. Genesis 1:7 says that the firmament "divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament". Water vapor isn't above the firmament, John. It's within the firmament. If you stop changing what the Bible says and start reading what it says, you'll quickly find yourself without an argument.

You claim to believe in the Bible but everytime you try to defend it, it's not the Bible you end up defending. You re-write everything it states to try to bring it into some semblance of sensibility. When you have to re-write a book before it makes sense, it means it doesn't make sense in what it states.

I'll take on the rest of this after a bit of sleep. If I don't go now, it'll be too hot to ride by the time I wake. Good night.

 

[JohnR7]

Perhaps because the word for solid, (frozen) water, is "ice".

How much ice do you find in Egypt? They had a word for frost, but there was no word for ice. There are only about 5,000 Hebrew words used in the Bible. So it is common for words to have multiple meaning. Greek is a lot more exacting of a language, because it's more of a military language. When you give orders to soldiers then you have to be very exact in what you tell them.

Seriously, John. How do you expect to provide a credible refutation when it's so obvious that all you can offer is pure conjecture.

It is a lot better then the nonsense interpretation of the Bible that you came up with. It is as if you do not want to know the truth. If you do not want to know, then why should anyone take the time or the trouble to try to offer you want your not interested in and what you don't want? Your not going to convert me to your way of thinking, so what is the use of all this, what is the purpose of this conversation?

Don't try to tell me

Exactly, don't try to tell you, because your not interested, and you don't want to know. I just wonder why your here if your not interested in learning the Bible and discovering the truth that we find in the Bible.

 

[Jase]

If you enjoy debating, then show us your evidence that the God of the Bible did not create the Universe. Show us your evidence that creationism can not be true.

I'm not sure why this was directed at me, since if you look under my name - I'm not an atheist.

 

[OdwinOddball]

So where is your evidence that there is no God or that God does not exist?

John, John John. No, you don't get an answer. You have never had the courtesy to ever answer the opposite question when put to you, so no one need answer you now. It is up to you to proof your case, which without evidence is not going to happen.

Unless you are ready to actually pony up this evidence you have so often claimed to have?

 

[Naihtepo]

Exactly, don't try to tell you, because your not interested, and you don't want to know. I just wonder why your here if your not interested in learning the Bible and discovering the truth that we find in the Bible.

No John, the big problem is that you believe what you want to believe. You have preconceived notions of what the bible says, because you have an idea of what you would really like it to say. The problem is that you aren't being intellectually honest to yourself, and your "search for the truth" is actually a search for an imaginary paradise, a desperate attempt at trying to make the world look better, or shall we say closer to the version you would like it to be, than it actually is. The sad thing is that the only way you can do this is by interpreting an old book of myths and fiction. You are desperately distorting your reality, and will prefer the most illogical and erroneous arguments that support your fake reality, above rock solid evidence and unrejectable logic that opposes your fairytale view of the world.

 

[And-U-Say]

now you start to talk from your own bubble world again. If it was that simple, why do ppl with Doctorite degrees in biblical theology fully embrace the Bible (and evolution) as truth? Are they stupid? Are you the smartest man alive or something?

that's not the only other option. your strong words are very ignorant. You need to read theology texts as THEOLOGY, not as an intended literal science text. Taking what's said into context (regaurding the culture it was written in etc) is a great place for you to start researching.

This is all completely irrelevant.
"clearly" huh? You should go to biblical seminary and share the "obvious" things you've figured out with the educated Christians. You may even get a job teaching theology and how to read and interpret ancient texts. You seem to be better at it then all those ministers who wasted 5-8 years in university studying the very things you speak of.

You write this, but without a moment's thought about the larger picture of religion in the world. There are "doctorates" of Islam and Mormonism and Hinduism and others. Your adherance to christianity specifically demands that these other ministers have wasted their time studying those respective religions. Why have they embraced their religion as the truth? Are they stupid? Do you consider yourself the "smartest man alive" for having happened to choose this particular religion? Aren't you lucky for having been born into the very culture that that has the one true religion and not those other cultures with their stupid ministers?

No. The intellectually honest thing is to see all these religions as being equally valid since they all have equal amounts of supporting evidence. Thus, they are all equally wrong.

 

[Garnett]

John, John John. No, you don't get an answer. You have never had the courtesy to ever answer the opposite question when put to you, so no one need answer you now. It is up to you to proof your case, which without evidence is not going to happen.

Unless you are ready to actually pony up this evidence you have so often claimed to have?

Spot on.

 

[JohnR7]

No John, the big problem is that you believe what you want to believe.

No, the problem is that people who are not interested in what I believe keep wanting to waste my time. I am here to share the truth with people. If people are not interested in learning, they should still have enough respect for others not to belittle them and not to waste their time. I could be using my time in a more productive way to help people that do want and need help. For example, I could be up at the church teaching the young people there about creationism. Or I could be getting ready for a mission trip overseas to help the people there. The last thing I need to be doing is wasting my time with people that have no interest in what I have to offer. If they just want to fight and argue, then maybe they are in the wrong place for that.