how can anyone believe in creationism

kenned

New Member
Oct 10, 2007
2
0
✟7,612.00
Faith
Atheist
i just dont get it, i have seen alot of documentaries over the past days both about creationism and evolution and i cant see how anyone would believe in creationism.

according to creationism the earth is 6000 years old, god created everything and god is perfect. well if the earth is only 6000 years old, then how do you explain that we find fossils that are millions of years old?
also if god created the earth and put Adam and Eve on it, they got a son eventually and he went out to find himself a wife. from where??? him and Adam and Eve are the only 3 humans on the earth, where would he find a wife? then Adam and eve would have to make him one, and we would all today walk around and be one giant group of inbred hillbillies.
furthermore, if the earth and the humans are only 6000 years old, how can we be 6 billion humans today? if we started with two humans, those two became 4 and those 4 became 8, and so on and so on. including fatal accidents, children born dead, sterility and just dieing from old age. it doesn't take a genius to quickly figure out that it would take alot more than just 6000 years to get to 6 billion humans. i mean if you take a family of two today, and count 5 generations ahead (100 years or so) they could maybe have gotten to be 100 people, at the most, where most of them would be old and soon to die, leaving maybe 16 couples to breed. and considering people didnt live nearly as long back then as we do now, and we dont count the fact that they would all be brothers and sisters, making probably some handicapped, and some incapable of carrying on making babies. so in 100 years 2 would become 32. it doesnt take a genius to figure out that it would take alot more than 6000 years for them to become 6 billions.

alot of creationists argument is that scientists cant prove 100% how the earth was created and the origin of life, and that scientists have been wrong so many times, but thats what science is, science is comming up with a theory of how it could have happen, and then see if you can disprove it. science is guessing and then putting it to the test, so ofc there will be alot of theories that are not correct.
and how come evolutionists have to come up with ways to prove how life originated, when creationists dont? can creationists prove that it was god who created the universe, earth and life, and it wasnt because of the big bang and evolution? all i have ever heard is creationists saying evolution cant be right because of this and because of that. but because this old book, that we cant even prove is really written by god, and could just as easily have been written by well anybody, says that it was made by some giant dude just snapping his fingers and everything came into being, then that is the right way.
speaking of which, how do creationists even know the bible is the book of god? have they any proof of that? if i wrote a book and called it the book of god, and said that god came to me one night and told me to write this book for him, would you believe that? you cant prove that god didnt come to me, because everytime you would come with a really good proof, i could just say that, thats how god is making it look so you wont figure out he is real.
dont get me wrong, i understand that religion can be good. it can bring hope and joy to people. but it can also bring the opposite. here im talking about holy war, but thats a total different matter.
 

CrashCursor

Member
Oct 19, 2007
6
0
✟15,116.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
i just dont get it, i have seen alot of documentaries over the past days both about creationism and evolution and i cant see how anyone would believe in creationism.

Well, I'd say you have a good opportunity to learn something very important right from the start. The evolutionist propaganda you've seen has not been truthful. If they broadcast truthful information about creationists, creationists might have a lot less work to do! But to do so would be tantamount to surrender.

If any of the assertions you've repeated were so, it could indeed be difficult for people to believe what God says about our origins. But this is not the case.

furthermore, if the earth and the humans are only 6000 years old, how can we be 6 billion humans today? if we started with two humans, those two became 4 and those 4 became 8, and so on and so on. including fatal accidents, children born dead, sterility and just dieing from old age. it doesn't take a genius to quickly figure out that it would take alot more than just 6000 years to get to 6 billion humans. i mean if you take a family of two today, and count 5 generations ahead (100 years or so) they could maybe have gotten to be 100 people, at the most, where most of them would be old and soon to die, leaving maybe 16 couples to breed. and considering people didnt live nearly as long back then as we do now, and we dont count the fact that they would all be brothers and sisters, making probably some handicapped, and some incapable of carrying on making babies. so in 100 years 2 would become 32. it doesnt take a genius to figure out that it would take alot more than 6000 years for them to become 6 billions.

I'm lazy, so I'll just run these easy numbers.

From your own model: Effective breeding population doubles in less than 30 years. But in case you were too generous, we'll say it doubles every 30 years.
Start: P2
Y30 P4
Y60 P8
Y90 P16
Y120 P32
Y150 P64
Y180 P128
Y210 P256
Y240 P512
Y270 P1K
Y300 P2K
Y330 P4K
Y360 P8K
Y390 P16K
Y420 P32K
Y450 P64K
Y480 P128K
Y510 P256K
Y540 P512K
Y570 P1M
Y600 P2M
Y630 P4M
Y660 P8M
Y690 P16M
Y720 P32M
Y750 P64M
Y780 P128M
Y810 P256M
Y840 P512M
Y870 P1G
Y900 P2G

That's enough to see the pattern, I think. And whoever gave you this line either didn't do the math, or lied about the result.

I would suggest that you find out what creationists actually say, rather than rely on such lame liars for your information. You can read all manner of slander on forum websites and at talkorigins; but the only way to find out what's really being said by creation scientists is to read what they say.

They do not say the earth is 6000 years old and you find fossils which are millions of years old.

They do not say evolutionism should be rejected because it can't be proven 100%.

They do not say they cannot prove the Bible is God's Word. (Some might, but they shouldn't.) Fulfilled prophecy is sufficient proof for anyone who does not presuppose God cannot exist. For those who do make such a presupposition, nothing can be proved.

We could argue all these points, and there are many more you could find in evolutionist writings. I don't want you to form an affinity for these positions as your own, since they clearly are not. And you'll learn better if you do your own investigation. I have demonstrated that your source is unreliable, so it makes sense for you to consult reliable sources now.

Good bye for now
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I'm lazy, so I'll just run these easy numbers.

From your own model: Effective breeding population doubles in less than 30 years. But in case you were too generous, we'll say it doubles every 30 years.
No, it doesn't. Take population mechanics 101, and you'll see that only bacteria breed exponentially. Humans do not.

Start: P2
Y30 P4
Y60 P8
Y90 P16
Y120 P32
Y150 P64
Y180 P128
Y210 P256
Y240 P512
Y270 P1K
Y300 P2K
Y330 P4K
Y360 P8K
Y390 P16K
Y420 P32K
Y450 P64K
Y480 P128K
Y510 P256K
Y540 P512K
Y570 P1M
Y600 P2M
Y630 P4M
Y660 P8M
Y690 P16M
Y720 P32M
Y750 P64M
Y780 P128M
Y810 P256M
Y840 P512M
Y870 P1G
Y900 P2G

That's enough to see the pattern, I think.
Indeed. However, this model is even more flawed than the general one you initially gave. You have modelled a population that:
  • Breeds exponentially
  • Does not die
  • Can breed from ago 30 to age 900 and beyond
  • Has unlimited resources (food, water, shelter, space, etc)
  • Has no predators
  • Assuming only life-long monogamous heterosexual couples exist (i.e., no gay people, no divorcees, etc, and everyone is in a couple by age 30), each couple must have produced four fertile offspring by age 30.
Etc. A more accurate model that coutered for these things would show that populations tend towards a limit, all things staying the same.

And whoever gave you this line either didn't do the math, or lied about the result.
You chastise him for bad math? :doh:

I would suggest that you find out what creationists actually say, rather than rely on such lame liars for your information. You can read all manner of slander on forum websites and at talkorigins; but the only way to find out what's really being said by creation scientists is to read what they say.

They do not say the earth is 6000 years old and you find fossils which are millions of years old.

They do not say evolutionism should be rejected because it can't be proven 100%.
Pray tell, where did you get this information, and why should we consider it over the words of other, 'less reputable' creationists?

They do not say they cannot prove the Bible is God's Word. (Some might, but they shouldn't.) Fulfilled prophecy is sufficient proof for anyone who does not presuppose God cannot exist.
The only Biblical prophecies are either unfulfilled or self-fulfilling. Hardly proof of anything.

For those who do make such a presupposition, nothing can be proved.
Indeed. They are called strong atheists, and are quite rare indeed. The majority of atheists are weak atheists: they make no statement regarding God's existance.
 
Upvote 0

teishpriest

Active Member
Feb 23, 2007
271
21
United States
✟8,006.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, OK, I believe creationism because that is the Biblical account of how things came to be. Either the whole Bible is the infallible Word of God, or it's not. If it's not, then we should not believe anything written in it to be true. I'm sure that I will be accused of having a simplistic view, but I don't mind. ;-)

Neither evolution, nor creationism can be PROVED scientifically, since none of us were there to witness it, and we cannot reproduce the beginning of the universe to observe it ourselves. So, either way, you have to take something on faith. You just choose which you believe. I personally, think that evolution is a pretty silly idea and I'm not sure why anyone would buy it. So, since we have opposite beliefs about the origin of, well, everything, we naturally think that the other's belief is crazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: busterdog
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Well, OK, I believe creationism because that is the Biblical account of how things came to be.
Most other Christians would disagree with you.

Either the whole Bible is the infallible Word of God, or it's not.
False dichotomy. There are numerous examples of metaphor being used in the Bible.

If it's not, then we should not believe anything written in it to be true. I'm sure that I will be accused of having a simplistic view, but I don't mind. ;-)
Then the question becomes: why should we consider the Bible to be true?

Neither evolution, nor creationism can be PROVED scientifically, since none of us were there to witness it, and we cannot reproduce the beginning of the universe to observe it ourselves.
Evolution by natural selection is unrelated to the origin of the universe, or even the origin of life. It is the theory that explains the origin of biodiversity.

So, either way, you have to take something on faith. You just choose which you believe.
No. A scientist believes whatever the evidence tells him/her to believe, no matter how counter-intuitive. If you believe something without reason or justification, then that is called faith. If you believe in spite of contradictory reason or justification, then that is called blind faith.

Suffice to say, the scientist takes nothing on faith.

You create another false dichotomy: an explanation can either be proven or disproven. This dichotomy is false because there is no room for a continuum of probabilities in your model, which is blatently at odds with reality.

Specifically, you ignore the concept of evidence: all known evidence, all verifiable data gathered on the subject points to evolution by natural selection (that is, all known evidence points to modern life having a common ancestor that lived ~3.5 billion years ago).

I personally, think that evolution is a pretty silly idea and I'm not sure why anyone would buy it.
General & Special relativity is even more silly, yet we accept it without question. Why? Because arguments from personal incredulity ("I don't understand it, therefore it's false"; "I don't like it, therefore it's false") are fallacious.

So, since we have opposite beliefs about the origin of, well, everything, we naturally think that the other's belief is crazy.
I do not consider your beliefs to be crazy, or else most of humanity would be equally condemned. I consider your beliefs to be misinformed, ignorant of the relevant data, etc. But I do not consider them crazy.
 
Upvote 0

teishpriest

Active Member
Feb 23, 2007
271
21
United States
✟8,006.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, thank you for not considering my views crazy! :)

I guess I tend to lump evolution and the big bang theories together, I should be more specific in the future.

I guess I would wonder, why SHOULDN'T I consider the Bible to be true? If half of it is just metaphor, what half do I believe and what half is just a fairy tale. The Bible claims to be the Word of God, I have to take all of it as such or not at all.

I don't think that ANY of us is capable of not letting our personal belief color our opinions at least to a small degree.

We can't ALWAYS prove or disprove something. We can't always reproduce something to observe it, but we can take data and try to interpret it. Sometimes we are right and sometimes we are wrong in our interpretations.
There are just some things that we can't be sure about. :)

IAC, this is an interesting debate. If I suddenly drop off the board, it is because I have a baby due sometime this week and will have my hands full! ;-)
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I guess I tend to lump evolution and the big bang theories together, I should be more specific in the future.
It would be advisable. We get too many fundies here who equate atheism to the big bang to common descent to evolution to unproven theories to false theories. And no, I'm not exaggerating.

I guess I would wonder, why SHOULDN'T I consider the Bible to be true?
There is no reason to consider the Bible any more true than, say, the Qu'ran, or the Vedic texts. One of the most common dichotomies put forward by those fundies I mentioned above is that there is no middle-ground between belief and disbelief.
As it happens, there is:
  • Belief: to think something is true
  • Disbelief: to think something is false
  • Nonbelief: to think neither
I personally consider the Bible to be void of divine inspiration, simply because it looks exactly as we would expect the sacred text of Bronze-Age nomads to look.

If half of it is just metaphor, what half do I believe and what half is just a fairy tale. The Bible claims to be the Word of God, I have to take all of it as such or not at all.
Yes, but never does the Bible say that it is 100% literally true. Indeed, the Literalist's stance can be readily refuted by highlighting any one of the logical contradictions that emerge (my favourite so far is the whole issue of Jesus' tomb; no two accounts are the same).

I don't think that ANY of us is capable of not letting our personal belief color our opinions at least to a small degree.

We can't ALWAYS prove or disprove something. We can't always reproduce something to observe it, but we can take data and try to interpret it. Sometimes we are right and sometimes we are wrong in our interpretations.
There are just some things that we can't be sure about. :)
Technically, there is almost nothing we can be 100% sure about.

That said, we know to an obscene degree of accuracy that the theory of evolution by natural selection (aka Common Descent) is true, that the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old, and the universe ~12-13 billion.

Personally, I go for the explanations that can be readily demonstrated, falsified, etc. A priori assumptions that have no bearing in reality are... not.

IAC, this is an interesting debate. If I suddenly drop off the board, it is because I have a baby due sometime this week and will have my hands full! ;-)
:eek: Weeee ^_^ Congrats!
 
Upvote 0

teishpriest

Active Member
Feb 23, 2007
271
21
United States
✟8,006.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It has been interesting debating with you! You would probably enjoy debating with my Dad or DH more since they understand science much better than I do! IAC, I enjoy a good debate, and this had been a good one!

I'm feeling like I might have this baby tomorrow (I hope!) so I will bow out for now, and look forward to getting back to this section of the board after things settle back down! Have a good week everyone!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

hogndog

Saved by grace and grace alone
Apr 24, 2007
880
61
On The Battlefield
Visit site
✟8,814.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
;) I know this man personally, we met back in 1972, via email. The display when you open it has a lot of educated scholars that have some serious questions for the evolutionists, that they can't answer. And after you read these contents you'll be asking those same questions...

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm

Give all the glory to God, he'll lead if you'll follow.

:amen:
 
Upvote 0

IrishRockhound

Geologist
Feb 5, 2004
158
46
Ireland
✟524.00
Faith
Other Religion
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm

Dinosaur tracks. You must be kidding me.

Never mind the sheer diversity of geological formations, the hundreds and hundreds of different sediments and enviroments represented across the world, which pose insurmountable problems for the Flood story.

You give us pictures of supposed dino and human tracks together, and ignore the rocks they are found in that blow a chunk of the bible out of the water.

Ah irony...
 
Upvote 0

hogndog

Saved by grace and grace alone
Apr 24, 2007
880
61
On The Battlefield
Visit site
✟8,814.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm


1b705a82.gif

Dinosaur tracks. You must be kidding me.

Never mind the sheer diversity of geological formations, the hundreds and hundreds of different sediments and enviroments represented across the world, which pose insurmountable problems for the Flood story.

You give us pictures of supposed dino and human tracks together, and ignore the rocks they are found in that blow a chunk of the bible out of the water.

Ah irony...
....
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
;) I know this man personally, we met back in 1972, via email. The display when you open it has a lot of educated scholars that have some serious questions for the evolutionists, that they can't answer. And after you read these contents you'll be asking those same questions...

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm

Give all the glory to God, he'll lead if you'll follow.

:amen:
Just because the fossils were made in the same place doesn't mean they were made at the same time.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TheOutsider

Pope Iason Ouabache the Obscure
Dec 29, 2006
2,747
202
Indiana
✟11,428.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Also, several of the cited tracks on that site are known to be pretty thoroughly debunked by actual scientists, i.e. the Paluxy river brd tracks. See Talk.origins for a pretty good run down, or wikipedia for a summary.
Heck, you don't even have to go to Talk.Origins to see that the Paluxy tracks are a bad argument. Even AiG agrees that the "tracks" are worthless.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Exactly. This does away with the overpopulation myth.
Hardly. Humans still breed. Our civilisation has vastly increased our life expectancy, our 'breedability', our resource availability, etc. The limit to which the human population tends towards is itself rising. The world is finite, but the human urge to breed is not.

I agree absolutely, there is no way around a global flood and a young earth if Genesis is taken in its historical narrative.
Where does Genesis say anything about a young Earth?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums