How some creationists pushed me away from christianity

[plindboe]

Now the macro 400 billion years from a one celled slug to a human , lol that is purely retarded , or " laughable " even : )

1.Slugs aren't one-celled
2.No one says we evolved from slugs
3.No one says that evolution has been going on for 400 billion years
4.Evolution is about populations, not about an individual organism turning into another individual organism.

You might want to educate yourself on what it is you are trying to argue against. How can you argue against macroevolution when you don't even know what it is?

It's sadly a rather typical creationist tactic to lie about science instead of addressing what science actually says. I can't count the number of times I've seen this deceit.

In any case, arguments from incredulity are fallacious. Try something better than 'I can't believe it, therefore it must be false'.

Peter

 

[Jazer]

1) Prove that they lived 6,000 years ago, rather than 60,000 years ago or more.

You are getting Bible Adam and Eve mixed up with Science Adam and Eve. They are two different people, well actually four different people. According to SCIENCE all four of them existed. Adam in the Bible would be represented by J1 & J2 Haplotype, as found in the genetic DNA. This is work they are doing at the University of Jerusalem. Other people at other universities are working on different Haplotypes.

If you want to deny Adam and Eve in the Bible, then your going to have to deny Scientific Adam and Eve. Because the evidence is the same for all of them. Based on the Y chromosome for men and the Mitochondrial for women. Of course if you want to deny that Eve in the Bible got her Mitochondrial from Adam you could do that. But you also can not falsify it because according to Science it could have happened that way. Adam would have gotten his Mitochondrial from his mother. So Eve would have had the same Mitochondrial as Adams sister would have had.

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (5752) (as was supposed ) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. [/FONT]

 

[Split Rock]

The anti evolution , not anti atheist lol. I believe in evolution to an extent, micro evolution where a species can adjust to their surroundings is totally plain to see . Now the macro 400 billion years from a one celled slug to a human , lol that is purely retarded , or " laughable " even : )

Yes we all agree that "400 billion years from a one celled slug to a human" is laughable... what is your point?

Moses says in Psalms " An evening to man is like 1,000 years to a man" . No where in the bible does it say how old the earth is. God could have very easily tinkered with his creations over a long long period of time before he got what he wanted . Or he could have just put bones in the ground to mess with the minds of unbelievers : )~

Yeah... bones in the ground to mess with unbelievers... right... are you sure it wasn't SATAN who put thoses bones in the ground? How about pixies? And why would an omnipotent god need to "tinker" with his creation??

Ok, lol ....I find it to be the pinnacle of irony that some people refuse to believe in God , yet they believe we , who are having a convo online in the year 2011, came from one cell organisms in a " random " universe, that made itself !

I suppose a god who made himself is less ironic??

 

[Ar Cosc]

You are getting Bible Adam and Eve mixed up with Science Adam and Eve. They are two different people, well actually four different people. According to SCIENCE all four of them existed. Adam in the Bible would be represented by J1 & J2 Haplotype, as found in the genetic DNA. This is work they are doing at the University of Jerusalem. Other people at other universities are working on different Haplotypes.

Which science would this be now? Direct me to the peer-reviewed research proving the Biblical Adam and Eve existed in the way the Bible describes.

If you want to deny Adam and Eve in the Bible, then your going to have to deny Scientific Adam and Eve. Because the evidence is the same for all of them. Based on the Y chromosome for men and the Mitochondrial for women. Of course if you want to deny that Eve in the Bible got her Mitochondrial from Adam you could do that. But you also can not falsify it because according to Science it could have happened that way. Adam would have gotten his Mitochondrial from his mother. So Eve would have had the same Mitochondrial as Adams sister would have had.
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica][/FONT]

You don't seem to understand how mDNA Eve actually works: Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

You are getting Bible Adam and Eve mixed up with Science Adam and Eve. They are two different people, well actually four different people. According to SCIENCE all four of them existed. Adam in the Bible would be represented by J1 & J2 Haplotype, as found in the genetic DNA. This is work they are doing at the University of Jerusalem. Other people at other universities are working on different Haplotypes.

If you want to deny Adam and Eve in the Bible, then your going to have to deny Scientific Adam and Eve. Because the evidence is the same for all of them. Based on the Y chromosome for men and the Mitochondrial for women. Of course if you want to deny that Eve in the Bible got her Mitochondrial from Adam you could do that. But you also can not falsify it because according to Science it could have happened that way. Adam would have gotten his Mitochondrial from his mother. So Eve would have had the same Mitochondrial as Adams sister would have had.

lol


Where is the evidence that Biblical Adam and Eve existed? And why is it different to 'scientific' Adam and Eve?


I love how you guys always refer to science as some mythical process that other people do.


You do know that mDNA and somatic DNA are inherited in different ways, right?

 

[ToBeInChrist]

I've read Lee Strobel. His arguments are nothing more than appeal to authority and incredulity. I was not impressed - and I read them when I was a Christian.

No his arguments in the books I mentioned are not 'nothing more' than appeals to authority and incredulity.

Re: the resurrection of Jesus, (The Case for the Resurrection), he takes a look at the evidence that exists and the various explanations of the evidence; he argues that it is implausible that the early Christians didn't experience something really amazing or were just hallucinating or were just making things up, and he examines the subject in some detail. Even if you disagree with him, it is an interesting examination of the evidence and the arguments that people make one way or another.

Similarly in The Case for the Real Jesus, he takes a look at claims about Jesus that people make that aren't consistent with the New Testament, in some detail, and examines the implausibility of various allegations of such 'alternative' views about or speculations by scholars about 'the historical Jesus' as contrasted to the picture of Jesus presented in the NT Gospels.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

No his arguments in the books I mentioned are not 'nothing more' than appeals to authority and incredulity.

Re: the resurrection of Jesus, (The Case for the Resurrection), he takes a look at the evidence that exists and the various explanations of the evidence; he argues that it is implausible that the early Christians didn't experience something really amazing or were just hallucinating or were just making things up, and he examines the subject in some detail. Even if you disagree with him, it is an interesting examination of the evidence and the arguments that people make one way or another.

Similarly in The Case for the Real Jesus, he takes a look at claims about Jesus that people make that aren't consistent with the New Testament, in some detail, and examines the implausibility of various allegations of such 'alternative' views about or speculations by scholars about 'the historical Jesus' as contrasted to the picture of Jesus presented in the NT Gospels.

As I stated earlier, I have read "The Case For Christ" and "The Case For Easter." In both books, his entire appeal is one of incredulity. His arguments fall apart when you begin to look at his claims individually.

Are you even aware of the fact that the Gospel According to Mark, which is considered to be the earliest, wasn't even written until approximately thirty years after Jesus died. The earliest extant copy of Mark is second century, and it was only then that tradition began to consider Mark (who was not even one of the twelve disciples) it's author. The other Gospels were written even later than Mark. So if Mark wasn't one of the twelve, where do you think he got his information from? I challenge you to write an account of a friend's life thirty to fifty years later. How accurate do you think it would be?

Additionally, if the life of Jesus was so monumental, why are there no other contemporary, extrabiblical accounts of his life? The Romans don't mention him. The Jews don't mention him. The Egyptians don't mention him. Why?

 

[ToBeInChrist]

Just pre-empting the christian response here:

In the Bible we find that your efforts have been anticipated.

Isaiah 45:7 (as presented in various translations):

Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I am Jehovah, doing all these things. -- Young's Literal Translation

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. -- NIV

I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things. -- ESV

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. -- KJV

The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these. -- NASB

Job 40:1-2,6-8,10-14

1 Then the LORD said to Job,
2 “Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty?
Let him who reproves God answer it.”
...
6 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm and said,
7 “Now gird up your loins like a man;
I will ask you, and you instruct Me.
8 “Will you really annul My judgment?
Will you condemn Me that you may be justified?
...
10 “Adorn yourself with eminence and dignity,
And clothe yourself with honor and majesty.
11 “Pour out the overflowings of your anger,
And look on everyone who is proud, and make him low.
12 “Look on everyone who is proud, and humble him,
And tread down the wicked where they stand.
13 “Hide them in the dust together;
Bind them in the hidden place.
14 “Then I will also confess to you,
That your own right hand can save you.

 

[Ar Cosc]

So you're saying that the millions killed in natural disasters were killed by God? Are you okay with that? Why?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

In the Bible we find that your efforts have been anticipated.

Isaiah 45:7 (as presented in various translations):

Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I am Jehovah, doing all these things. -- Young's Literal Translation

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. -- NIV

I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things. -- ESV

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. -- KJV

The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these. -- NASB

Job 40:1-2,6-8,10-14

1 Then the LORD said to Job,
2 “Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty?
Let him who reproves God answer it.”
...
6 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm and said,
7 “Now gird up your loins like a man;
I will ask you, and you instruct Me.
8 “Will you really annul My judgment?
Will you condemn Me that you may be justified?
...
10 “Adorn yourself with eminence and dignity,
And clothe yourself with honor and majesty.
11 “Pour out the overflowings of your anger,
And look on everyone who is proud, and make him low.
12 “Look on everyone who is proud, and humble him,
And tread down the wicked where they stand.
13 “Hide them in the dust together;
Bind them in the hidden place.
14 “Then I will also confess to you,
That your own right hand can save you.

Which is why I maintain that I hold a higher morality than your god, and it's followers.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

As I stated earlier, I have read "The Case For Christ" and "The Case For Easter." In both books, his entire appeal is one of incredulity. His arguments fall apart when you begin to look at his claims individually.

I seem to remember seeing some of his other works and having similar reactions to yours.

I'm talking about two different books, though. I think in the Case for the Real Jesus, and the Case for the Resurrection, in particular, the way he focuses, the way he handles the material avoids a lot of those sorts of problem, because he's looking so much at other's alternative scenarios, and then going through the evidence we do have, and simply looking at what people think is plausible, versus what he thinks is plausible.

Are you even aware of the fact that the Gospel According to Mark, which is considered to be the earliest, wasn't even written until approximately thirty years after Jesus died. The earliest extant copy of Mark is second century, and it was only then that tradition began to consider Mark (who was not even one of the twelve disciples) it's author.

Yeah. Amazing, isn't it, written after only a few decades, and after all these years we find a copy so close to the time of the events.

When you look at other religious and philosophical and historical writings, generally the gap between the events and the writing is far greater, and the copies that have survived are far later. Like for various Roman emperors, Plato, Buddha, Mohammad.

The other Gospels were written even later than Mark. So if Mark wasn't one of the twelve, where do you think he got his information from? I challenge you to write an account of a friend's life thirty to fifty years later. How accurrate do you think it would be?

Depends on a lot of things, doesn't it? It's not all THAT long after Jesus' ministry in Palestine, and there were people around to check things with, in case of faulty memory or misunderstanding. Luke indicates that he checked with numerous people who knew Jesus while he walked the earth. Paul says Jesus appeared to over 500 people at the same time, and many of those people were still alive when he wrote this in his letter to the Corinthians.

Additionally, if the life of Jesus was so monumental, why are there no other contemporary, extrabiblical accounts of his life? The Romans don't mention him. The Jews don't mention him.

You do find some references that there was a preacher/wonder-worker who was sentenced to death, and that followers continued to worship Him and claim that He rose from the dead. Ancient Jews make some mention.

How much do you expect from people who didn't believe Him but instead saw him as a trouble-maker, and either executed him as a criminal or approved of such treatment or thought He was best forgotten? How much do you expect to survive from so long ago?

 

[ToBeInChrist]

Which is why I maintain that I hold a higher morality than your god, and it's followers.

Where do you think you get your sense of judgment from, and why do you think your opinion in such judgments should matter to anyone else?

 

[Cabal]

Yeah. Amazing, isn't it, written after only a few decades, and after all these years we find a copy so close to the time of the events.

When you look at other religious and philosophical and historical writings, generally the gap between the events and the writing is far greater, and the copies that have survived are far later. Like for various Roman emperors, Plato, Buddha, Mohammad.

No, it's not amazing. We don't take 30 minute old second hand accounts of eyewitness testimony seriously if it doesn't corroborate, never mind 30 years old, so being required to accept this as a valid account is ridiculously inconsistent.

It's interesting though that you mentioned Roman emperors - the standard of evidence for some of them is up there, if not better than, the evidence for the existence of Jesus - and many of them were deified. Do we worship them? No - again, people would think that's silly. Consistency.

I get the idea of batting for your team, I really do, but there are some Christians who would have you believe that the resurrection is the most airtight account of anything that ever happened in recorded history, which is simply not the case.

How much do you expect from people who didn't believe Him but instead saw him as a trouble-maker, and either executed him as a criminal or approved of such treatment or thought He was best forgotten? How much do you expect to survive from so long ago?

I suspect this is a unfalsifiable argument you're putting forward here, which is rather futile. If there was more evidence I don't think you'd be calling that evidence AGAINST Christ.

 

[Ar Cosc]

Where do you think you get your sense of judgment from, and why do you think your opinion in such judgments should matter to anyone else?

I believe I got mine from the evolution of social behaviour in complex hierarchical groups of individuals. And my opinion should matter to other people because it is structured around what causes the greatest amount of benefit and welbeing, as opposed to arbitrary commands, or a "might makes right" approach.

 

[Jazer]

So if Mark wasn't one of the twelve, where do you think he got his information from?

Mark was Mary's son. She owned the upper room where Jesus and the deciples would stay when they were in Jerusalem. There are lots of stories about Mark when he was younger. Just like there were stories about some of the servants. These were people that were just hanging around and the disciples did not consider them to be a disciple. Still they had lots of first hand things that they saw and experanced. If you remember Paul and Mark went on a mission trip together and they had a parting of the way. Mark even then was considered to be young and immature. But later on he grew up and Paul accepted him as he became more mature.

2Ti 4:11Only 3441 Luke 3065 is 2076 with 3326 me 1700. Take 353 Mark 3138, and bring him 71 with 3326 thee 4572: for 1063 he is 2076 profitable 2173 to me 3427 for 1519 the ministry 1248.

 

[Jazer]

I believe I got mine from the evolution of social behaviour in complex hierarchical groups of individuals. And my opinion should matter to other people because it is structured around what causes the greatest amount of benefit and welbeing, as opposed to arbitrary commands, or a "might makes right" approach.

Gee I wonder who paid for that study? Was it called how to get your moneys worth out of your employees? Or perhaps the interdynamics of office workers and how to get them to be more productive.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Where do you think you get your sense of judgment from, and why do you think your opinion in such judgments should matter to anyone else?

We all have an innate sense of justice. Nobody likes to be duped or taken advantage of, and as a result, societies have evolved to reflect this. Treat others in a way that you would expect to be treated. In a society, especially in modern times when we are seeking to "expand our circles of sentiment," opinions become quite important and should matter to you. Your Bible is irrelevant when it comes to morality. If your god says, for instance, that slavery is ok, and that there is a right and wrong way to beat your slave (Exodus, Luke), and as a society, we have decided that owning another person and beating them is bad, then societal morality trumps an ancient text. Societies opinions are reflected in our laws. Fortunately for us (and unfortunately for Christians), you are no longer allowed to own another human being. I consider this a higher morality than your ancient text.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Mark was Mary's son. She owned the upper room where Jesus and the deciples would stay when they were in Jerusalem. There are lots of stories about Mark when he was younger. Just like there were stories about some of the servants. These were people that were just hanging around and the disciples did not consider them to be a disciple. Still they had lots of first hand things that they saw and experanced. If you remember Paul and Mark went on a mission trip together and they had a parting of the way. Mark even then was considered to be young and immature. But later on he grew up and Paul accepted him as he became more mature.

2Ti 4:11Only 3441 Luke 3065 is 2076 with 3326 me 1700. Take 353 Mark 3138, and bring him 71 with 3326 thee 4572: for 1063 he is 2076 profitable 2173 to me 3427 for 1519 the ministry 1248.

So who do you think told Mark what the Centurion said in Mark 15:39?

 

[Phred]

Sadly, there isn't any verifiable evidence that Jesus ever actually existed.

He could have been just like the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot. Creations of an area that wanted tourists. Just about everything about him is based upon earlier, other "gods". Even his golden rule was borrowed from Rabbi Hillel.

But... "Come to Jerusalem. See where the Messiah walked and preached. Here, this is the account of his life. He fulfills all the Biblical prophecies see? Born of a virgin. House of David. Everything you need to be a Messiah. But not just one of the everyday messiahs that are popping up out of the woodwork no... Jesus was the ONE TRUE messiah." First century marketing.

And even if we want to grant that a guy actually existed whom the myth is based upon there is no evidence that anything like the "miracles" purported in the Gospels really happened. Certainly if you read some of the Gnostic gospels that the early Christians missed when they torched the library at Alexandria in their zeal to wipe out knowledge and contradictory accounts you find that Jesus was a lively little sprite. Making boards in his father's workshop longer when Joseph cut them too short. Stuff like that. Why is that sort of "miracle" not valid when loaves and fishes is?

Then... to keep shoving the whole thing at us. If you think that our intelligence could not exist without an intelligence to create it that just begs for an intelligence to have to exist to create the intelligence that created THAT intelligence. But you simply, arbitrarily cut things off at what you call "god" because you want to.

With no better reason than that I still choose to say that I don't reject your god. I reject YOU. Your god doesn't exist so there's nothing to reject. It's YOU I reject and all your holier than thou preaching that causes my intellect to scream out in agony. You're not offering me a better way, you're offering me YOUR way. A way that insists that I abandon actual thought and concentrate upon making contradictions seem reasonable.

I can't do it. I won't do it. I don't need to do it. I'm not afraid of whatever you're afraid of.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I seem to remember seeing some of his other works and having similar reactions to yours.

I'm talking about two different books, though. I think in the Case for the Real Jesus, and the Case for the Resurrection, in particular, the way he focuses, the way he handles the material avoids a lot of those sorts of problem, because he's looking so much at other's alternative scenarios, and then going through the evidence we do have, and simply looking at what people think is plausible, versus what he thinks is plausible.



Yeah. Amazing, isn't it, written after only a few decades, and after all these years we find a copy so close to the time of the events.

When you look at other religious and philosophical and historical writings, generally the gap between the events and the writing is far greater, and the copies that have survived are far later. Like for various Roman emperors, Plato, Buddha, Mohammad.



Depends on a lot of things, doesn't it? It's not all THAT long after Jesus' ministry in Palestine, and there were people around to check things with, in case of faulty memory or misunderstanding. Luke indicates that he checked with numerous people who knew Jesus while he walked the earth. Paul says Jesus appeared to over 500 people at the same time, and many of those people were still alive when he wrote this in his letter to the Corinthians.



You do find some references that there was a preacher/wonder-worker who was sentenced to death, and that followers continued to worship Him and claim that He rose from the dead. Ancient Jews make some mention.

How much do you expect from people who didn't believe Him but instead saw him as a trouble-maker, and either executed him as a criminal or approved of such treatment or thought He was best forgotten? How much do you expect to survive from so long ago?

No, not amazing. And I agree, the Bible should not be elevated higher than any other ancient historical text. Yes Jesus was a rabble rouser, seems they were a dime a dozen in Israel. Which is why the Gospels make a tenous effort to show that Jesus was somehow special in that he was both Jewish royalty and priestly.

Again, if Jesus were indeed the son of a supernatural god, I would expect his book be slightly better than other historical texts, and it's not.