How many creationists practise what they preach?

[PsychoSarah]

Why are you engaging in flaming on this Christian forum?

Are you sure you aren't new here? Or to the internet?

 

[Jay Follett]

To be blunt, historically, it is impossible to say if Jesus was even the correct name. The biblical figure could have been based off of multiple people, legends, etc.

It probably was.

 

[Jay Follett]

So you believe that Jesus wrote Genesis?

It's doubtful if Jesus could write anything, 98% of people were illiterate at the time and as Jesus was from a very poor village without even roads it's very unlikely he had even had the barest of educations, he would have worked from the time he was first able to lift something and speak.

 

[Papias]

Why don't you summarise 6 examples briefly for us, providing the evidence?

If you didn't read the information on the referenced page, I doubt that you'd take the time to learn about anything I'd present, so I'm not sure it is worth anyone's time. However, in the spirit of hope, I'll cover some of the main areas referenced for you on that page (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/).

1. The fossil record, including hundreds of transitional fossils, which shows the broad outline of our family tree, with expected forms in the time periods predicted by Darwin decades or more before they were found. (1. 4)
2. Vestigial organs and features that only make sense in light of evolution - these are stupid or harmful "designs" that make sense when looking at our evolutionary history, but make no sense if a "designer" planned every detail of design. (2.1)
3. Ontology - the fact that so many features are developed during gestation, which are then removed, and make no sense for the animal being considered, but make perfect sense when looking at our family tree, such as whales growing, then absorbing, limbs, or our own gill pouches. (2.4)
4. Atavisms - the occasional mutation which undoes a previous mutation, showing our recent evolutionary past, such as humans born with tails, or whales with legs. (2.2)
5. Molecular parahomology - the fact that so many proteins show the nested hierarchical structure expected from, and in confirmation of, our family tree - when so many other variations would work equally well for the function of the organism, yet again and again, without exception, the molecular data confirms not just any family tree, but the one known from other sources. (3.all)
6. DNA - of the many DNA examples, ERVs provide clear confirmation of our family tree, and by having a known and proven origin in viruses, are clearly not a "design feature". (4.all)

The bottom line is that thousands of scientists have gone to investigate our origins and hence our family tree, and in each major area, these scientists (many of whom are Christians), have come back to the table bearing a family tree - their conclusion after decades of work with thousands of scientists, and then they have found that all these family trees agree with each other, showing the same undeniable nested hierarchy, the same line of descent for literally millions of species, each arrived at by different lines of evidence.

Look at the above list, and add to it all the lines of evidence I didn't take the time to mention (see the same link), and realize that any one of these would show evolution likely, and any two combined shows that evolution (and specifically the agreed upon family tree we share) to be a fact far beyond any reasonable doubt. And we don't just have two lines of evidence, but two, then two more, then two more, and so on.

That's why our evolutionary family tree is confirmed more strongly that the existence of the US civil war, or the Roman empire, or even your own birthplace. That's why those of us even only roughly familiar with the evidence see through the many distortions seen on creationist websites.

I hope that was helpful-

In Christ-

Papias

 

[AV1611VET]

Not really, even in the bible, stuff such as water existed before god starts creating things,

Who created hydrogen?

 

[Gene2memE]

Who created hydrogen?

Nucleosynthesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nucleosynthesis.

Don't know him.

Is a he a muse of science?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Nucleosynthesis.

Well no, since hydrogen is usually a single elementary proton with, usually, its attached electron.

 

[OzSpen]

I wasn't created by divine fiat in 4004 BC.

Where does the Bible stated the universe (the heavens and the earth) was created by divine fiat in 4004 BC?

 

[OzSpen]

No, it's not eisgesis. It's what Christians have done for centuries - a literal reading of one's Bible gives a date of creation, and it's pretty close to 5,000 years. Not only is the date determined from scripture, but it's also nothing new to determine the date. Only ignorance of both history and scripture would lead one to say that a literal reading cannot say how old the earth is.

Here's some history:

For Ussher was in no way exceptional in believing that he knew the year in which the world was created: such knowledge was entirely normal in his time and for a considerable period after him. Ussher was only one in a long series of scholars who concerned themselves with biblical chronology, .... let me give you three names: Martin Luther, a religious genius of enormous importance; Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540-1609), by far the greatest classical scholar of his time and among the greatest there has ever [p.3] been; and Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), certainly the dominant scientific genius over a long period of the world’s history. None of these men had the slightest doubt that the date of creation was knowable and was known. It was there in the Bible for anyone to read. Everyone knew this. .... It is true that scholars could not agree on the exact figure; but that did not prevent them from agreeing that the exact figure could be known. ...There were in fact two main groups of dates. ....The higher date was the eastern figure, and it was so because the eastern current of Christianity followed the figures of the Septuagint or Greek Old Testament, which had higher figures in Genesis 5 and 11; the lower was widespread in the west, especially after the Vulgate of St Jerome familiarized western Christianity with the figures derived from the standard Hebrew text itself. Judaism, we may note, had the same tradition, though again with different (and lower) figures: this year, 1986-87, is the Jewish year 5747, i.e. 5747 from creation, creation took place in the year that by Christian dating is 3761 BC.

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/chronology_barr.pdf Page 4 or so.​

In Christ

Papias

Archbishop Ussher's genealogies did not take into account the gaps in the genealogical record that scholars have found. I find it to be dishonest with the evidence to place a date on the time of creation when the OT provides no complete list of genealogies from the time of creation.

 

[OzSpen]

To be blunt, historically, it is impossible to say if Jesus was even the correct name. The biblical figure could have been based off of multiple people, legends, etc.

You still are avoiding the issue. It was you who claimed 'mountains of facts' in support of your view, but you give not one face here in your response.

You conveniently overlook evidence like this:

• 'History shows Jesus really lived'.

It's amazing how selective you can be as an atheist.

Oz

 

[dad]

Archbishop Ussher's genealogies did not take into account the gaps in the genealogical record that scholars have found. I find it to be dishonest with the evidence to place a date on the time of creation when the OT provides no complete list of genealogies from the time of creation.

From your link

"Biblical timeline calculations are based in large part on early patriarchal genealogies. However, passages such as Genesis 5, 10, and 11 contain sketchy information, typically listing only a “father,” “son,” the age of the “father” when he began reproducing, his total lifespan, and that he had other progeny (unnamed and unnumbered). By contrast, stories of the most important patriarchs—including Noah, Abraham, and Moses—contain much more detail; and this detail is helpful in understanding the finer points of the biblical Hebrew."


There is enough detail to see who came from whom, and at what age they had the son etc. Why call that sketchy?

 

[OzSpen]

From your link

"Biblical timeline calculations are based in large part on early patriarchal genealogies. However, passages such as Genesis 5, 10, and 11 contain sketchy information, typically listing only a “father,” “son,” the age of the “father” when he began reproducing, his total lifespan, and that he had other progeny (unnamed and unnumbered). By contrast, stories of the most important patriarchs—including Noah, Abraham, and Moses—contain much more detail; and this detail is helpful in understanding the finer points of the biblical Hebrew."


There is enough detail to see who came from whom, and at what age they had the son etc. Why call that sketchy?

It is 'sketchy' because of the gaps in the genealogical record. William Henry Green's assessment, 'Are There Gaps in the Biblical Genealogies?' is not as optimistic as yours. He demonstrates some of the significant gaps in the genealogical record.

Add to this the assessment that the length of the days of creation are not as definitive as young earth creationists want them to be. Long before the theory of evolution, St Augustine of Hippo (died 430) doubted the length of creation days when he stated, '

'But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!' (The City of God 11.6, emphasis added)

There are other conservative evangelical scholars who argue for longer days of creation than 24 hours. These scholars include: Gleason Archer, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler and Hugh Ross.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Are you sure you aren't new here? Or to the internet?

Haven't you read the number of posts I've made on this forum and how long I've been here? Take a look at the stats in association with my avatar and a link to my name. I'm no newbie here, but I sure know it when you are flaming me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Where does the Bible stated the universe (the heavens and the earth) was created by divine fiat in 4004 BC?

It doesn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Archbishop Ussher's genealogies did not take into account the gaps in the genealogical record that scholars have found. I find it to be dishonest with the evidence to place a date on the time of creation when the OT provides no complete list of genealogies from the time of creation.

By "scholars," do you mean the boys at the Jesus Seminar?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

By "scholars," do you mean the boys at the Jesus Seminar?

Address the actual argument, not the persons who present the arguement.

 

[Papias]

Archbishop Ussher's genealogies did not take into account the gaps in the genealogical record that scholars have found. I find it to be dishonest with the evidence to place a date on the time of creation when the OT provides no complete list of genealogies from the time of creation.

First of all, a plain reading of the text doesn't state there are gaps, anywhere. This is probably why pretty much everyone read them as plain, unbroken, gapless genealogies until the evidence showed that they couldn't be literally true (and hence the new idea of "yalad"). That's why there has been clear historic agreement on the date, and hence this being the Jewish year 5776. You have called nearly all of historical Christianity as well as Judaism "dishonest".

Secondly, and just as importantly - positing gaps doesn't help, and still leaves one hopelessly out of step with the evidence. One is still left with either deciding the OT genealogies are symbolic/metaphors vs. denying evidence. The evidence shows that humans have been around for at least 100,000 years, so if there are "gaps" in the 5,776 year chronology, then those "gaps" would have to account for over 90% of the time! So you are saying that the genealogies are 90% gap, with less than 10% of the time mentioned?

It gets worse - the evidence shows that the breeding population of our species was never just two people, and that the flood and many other Biblical stories could never have happened literally. The evidence also shows that there have been no humans for 99.9998% of earth's history - yet if one puts "gaps" in the genealogies to fill up the time (and keep creation week as 1 literal week), then humans appear after just 0.00002% of earth's history - the complete opposite. And the authors suggest that this is supposed to reconcile a literal reading of our scripture with the fact that droves of people are leaving the church due to the denial of scientific reality? Even allowing for longer "days" in creation week doesn't come close to agreement with the evidence - though if you've got some other approach that does help us stay in agreement with the evidence (as theistic evolution already does), then I'm all ears.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[TLK Valentine]

It doesn't.

Then, by your own "boolean standards," you're not required to believe it.

 

[KWCrazy]

It's doubtful if Jesus could write anything, 98% of people were illiterate at the time and as Jesus was from a very poor village without even roads it's very unlikely he had even had the barest of educations, he would have worked from the time he was first able to lift something and speak.

Not at all correct. Joseph was a carpenter, which was a skilled trade even then. Jesus could not only read, he had memorized the Scriptures and discussed them with the teachers when he was 12 (Luke 2: 41-52).

From the days of Ezra until the Roman wars in Judea, a child usually attended a Bet Sefer from age 6 to age 10.
This school would be attended five or six days a week . There would be a local synagogue teacher who would begin teaching the Books of Moses; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy; along with reading, writing and other subjects of a general basic education.

Roughly from ages 10-14 in Bet Talmud you would learn the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures all the way to Malachi.
When Jesus parents found him in the Temple He was how old? (12) And what do they find Him doing? Mark 2:46 says, “they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers.” When it came to Scripture Jesus was the best of the best. He knew how to question and answer. source

Some scholars contend, with Stephen Patterson, that “very few people could read or write [in Jesus’ day].” But such statements are no longer supported by the evidence. Not everyone could read and write. And some who could read were not necessarily able to write. But archaeological discoveries and other lines of evidence now show that writing and reading were widely practiced in the Palestine of Jesus’ day. And if that is true, there is no reason to doubt that there were some eyewitness records of what Jesus said and did. source