I struggle with...

[razzelflabben]

I'd say a world created by a benevolent God would have a lot of similarities with how most of us picture Heaven. We could just skip over the bits that contain the sexual exploitation of innocent children and that kind of thing. There wouldn't be a litmus test that weeds out the people that withhold belief in things they aren't convinced of. And there most assuredly wouldn't be a realm of existence where people are infinitely tortured for finite crimes.

so many misunderstandings about the Bible in this I really don't know where to begin...but let's take the two most prominent...remember, at this point in our discussion we are not looking at theology but only what the bible states and nothing more or less, no theology, no doctrine, no church teaching, etc. just what scripture says.

1. suffering...according to scripture suffering exists in this world because we opened the door for sin to come into our world. So from the standpoint of what a creator would have created it would be like you are arguing, no the cup wasn't created because it is laying on the floor broken in pieces....that just doesn't make sense to what something created would look like. For example, if we find a piece of broken pottery laying on the ground we don't dismiss it as not being created because it was broken, rather we look for evidence that it was created. Likewise your argument is flawed for the same reason.

2. eternal torture...from the standpoint of scripture hell is the consequence of sin not the punishment for it. so whereas hell is torment it is NOT torture in the traditional sense of the word. So, what that would be like if the world was created...let's say that your computer gets a worm and starts malfunctioning...that does not mean it wasn't created, it means that the nature of the creation makes it vulnerable to worm attack. Likewise just because there is a hell doesn't mean there isn't a creator it means that the nature of the creation is such that it is vulnerable to sin which causes death which is what hell is, eternal death according to scripture. So again the two primary excuses you give are falsified by the evidence that we have already of the creations in the world around us.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

[Staff edit].

If I understand correctly, you take the position that micro evolution occurs and that the origin of all life is the God of the Bible. Can your position be falsified and if so can you give an example of something that would falsify it?

 

[razzelflabben]

If I understand correctly, you take the position that micro evolution occurs and that the origin of all life is the God of the Bible. Can your position be falsified and if so can you give an example of something that would falsify it?

sure it can be falsified, the most likely way and the most obvious way would be for us to discover that something can come from nothing....there are others but that would be the most dramatic.

 

[Jimmy D]

You are asking questions here as someone who has been taught to believe a certain thing, which isn't your fault nor are you necessarily wrong to do so, at least you are asking questions and I fear we can't answer all of them here in this post on this thread.

But the bible has been around a lot longer than modern science, presumably 300 years ago most people would have believed in some form of creationism. Our modern naturalistic understanding of the diversity of life on Earth came about from observing the natural world and trying to make sense of those observations. Up until then the default would have been "God did it".

Short cut...assume for just a moment that there is a creator...no harm is assuming for just a moment you won't explode or anything...what would His/Her/Their creation look like? Base your hypothesis off of how we know if anything in our world today is created or spontaneously exists. I was able to do this test when I was about 6 it's not that hard of a test to think through. (test meaning looking at critically) I presented a couple, you can think of more I am sure

The problem is I can't imagine how it would look with out some clues to base my hypothesis on. Back to the OP, the clues that creationists can use to formulate an explanation are in Genesis, unfortunately it seems those clues don't match up with what we observe in the natural world so we need to formulate another hypothesis. The question is why do creationists reject modern learning in favour of what is basically an ancient fable? The answer is probably a mixture of cognitive dissonance and faith.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

so many misunderstandings about the Bible in this I really don't know where to begin...but let's take the two most prominent...remember, at this point in our discussion we are not looking at theology but only what the bible states and nothing more or less, no theology, no doctrine, no church teaching, etc. just what scripture says.

I get that everyone understands scripture differently. It's filled with so many vague descriptions about seemingly important things.

1. suffering...according to scripture suffering exists in this world because we opened the door for sin to come into our world. So from the standpoint of what a creator would have created it would be like you are arguing, no the cup wasn't created because it is laying on the floor broken in pieces....that just doesn't make sense to what something created would look like. For example, if we find a piece of broken pottery laying on the ground we don't dismiss it as not being created because it was broken, rather we look for evidence that it was created. Likewise your argument is flawed for the same reason.

The sin door God left for us, right? And I am not making an argument that states that God didn't create the world because it is broken. I don't currently believe this world was created by a god, so I don't have to do that. I'm describing what I think a world would look like if a benevolent god created it.

2. eternal torture...from the standpoint of scripture hell is the consequence of sin not the punishment for it. so whereas hell is torment it is NOT torture in the traditional sense of the word. So, what that would be like if the world was created...let's say that your computer gets a worm and starts malfunctioning...that does not mean it wasn't created, it means that the nature of the creation makes it vulnerable to worm attack. Likewise just because there is a hell doesn't mean there isn't a creator it means that the nature of the creation is such that it is vulnerable to sin which causes death which is what hell is, eternal death according to scripture. So again the two primary excuses you give are falsified by the evidence that we have already of the creations in the world around us.

So you did ask what a world by a creator would look like, which can be ANYTHING. It could be a perfect creation, it could be something like what we know, it could be miserable for everyone. I did specify benevolent so at least there would be some direction. And in the case of a benevolent creator, I'd say a place of torment as a consequence for sin would not be in the blueprints. I'd create something like how most of us understand heaven. This is a place I imagine where 100% of the population has no desire to rape children.

EDIT: Also, if my computer gets a worm, I'd say the programmers involved couldn't foresee this problem to prepare a proper defense for it. This is to be expected from an imperfect non-omniscient creator, but yes, still a creator.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

sure it can be falsified, the most likely way and the most obvious way would be for us to discover that something can come from nothing....there are others but that would be the most dramatic.

Yeah, that's true. It could falsify it. It would falsify a lot of things since that would be pretty world-shattering. But since you indicated others, can you imagine anything more practical that could falsify it? Something we could actually physically look into?

 

[razzelflabben]

But the bible has been around a lot longer than modern science, presumably 300 years ago most people would have believed in some form of creationism. Our modern naturalistic understanding of the diversity of life on Earth came about from observing the natural world and trying to make sense of those observations. Up until then the default would have been "God did it".

two things....1. that is why I presented a list of modern day scientists who are creationists, which testifies to the fact that it is not against the scientific evidence nor method to be a creationist and 2. Do you really think ancient people did not observe the world around them? let's throw in a third, shall we? 3. I personally hate the "God of the gaps" theory and if you try to twist what I am saying into that argument we will have strong words since you have been clearly warned.

The problem is I can't imagine how it would look with out some clues to base my hypothesis on. Back to the OP, the clues that creationists can use to formulate an explanation are in the Genesis, unfortunately it seems those clues don't match up with what we observe in the natural world so we need to formulate another hypothesis. The question is why do creationists reject modern learning in favour of what is basically an ancient fable? The answer is probably a mixture of cognitive dissonance and faith.

But as I explained in great detail, many many christians and the number is growing accept that science and the bible are not only tolerant of each other but are actually confirmed by each other. Just because you can't see it doesn't make your objection the only possible.

Let's take the flood for example since it was already brought up and talked about you can review the discussion....scripture does NOT specify that it was global or massive local. it does specify that all flesh was destroyed so if we look at the claim we can hypothesis that we should see a bottle neck in the genetic record, right? right! And when we take that hypothesis to the scientific method what do we find? A bottleneck just like we would expect.

When we take what the account says without adding to it or taking from it, the evidence lines up which is the problem with dismissing all forms of creation belief, because scientifically it can't be done at this time.

 

[razzelflabben]

Yeah, that's true. It could falsify it. It would falsify a lot of things since that would be pretty world-shattering. But since you indicated others, can you imagine anything more practical that could falsify it? Something we could actually physically look into?

since you asked me for an example and I gave one and you were not happy with it and I also showed you how your assumptions were wrong because we aren't testing to see if you are the creator how about you tell us how you falsify the creation account as it is given without traditions added in?

 

[Speedwell]

two things....1. that is why I presented a list of modern day scientists who are creationists, which testifies to the fact that it is not against the scientific evidence nor method to be a creationist

But too many of them merely believed that God is author of our being, which does not necessarily make them creationists. Or, while it may make them creationists of some kind, it is not necessarily that kind of creationist who any of us or any scientist, atheist or otherwise, is going to take issue with. YEC is really the wrong term, because there are some biblical creationists who don't insist on a young Earth. The test is whether the individual thinks science is wrong because of "what the Bible says."

 

[Gene Parmesan]

since you asked me for an example and I gave one and you were not happy with it and I also showed you how your assumptions were wrong because we aren't testing to see if you are the creator how about you tell us how you falsify the creation account as it is given without traditions added in?

Since everything that doesn't line up with our scientific understanding is written off as "poetic" it is unfalsifiable. Naturally, anything that does line up with our scientific understanding is evidence for the creation account. So that's cool.

 

[JCarp]

Hey Barry,

Is anyone prepared to give an honest, clear explanation as to why they believe in creationism?

It really comes down to how one approaches the Bible. That is all it is, really. Every appeal to authority is in vain before that is settled.

Regards,

 

[razzelflabben]

Hey Barry,

It really comes down to how one approaches the Bible. That is all it is, really. Every appeal to authority is in vain before that is settled.

Regards,

I would have to say that I mostly agree with this but slightly disagree in that our belief in the bible does affect what we believe but is not the sole identifier as you seem to be applying here...maybe you intended something different than what I see you implying?

 

[Aman777]

...trying to understand the creationist mentality. I've been struggling with this for years. Is anyone prepared to give an honest, clear explanation as to why they believe in creationism?

It's because God is the Truth in every way. Genesis agrees with the latest discoveries of Science and tells us of life from beyond our cosmos, where Humans (descendants of Adam) had our true origins. The first 34 verses of Genesis tell the complete History of God's creation, including future events which happen AFTER Jesus returns to this planet. Gen 1:28-31 is prophecy of future events at the end of the present 6th Day. Its an OUTLINE which is supported by the details of each of the 7 Days/Ages of the creation of God's perfect 3rd Heaven. The entire Bible, from Gen 2:4 to the end of Revelation is where you find the details of the events of the outline of the 7 Days, found in the first 34 verses. God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

What is alien to me is how anyone can believe a woodenly literal interpretation Genesis.

I do and you cannot refute me (prove me wrong) ole buddy. Amen?

 

[JCarp]

[Our] belief in the bible does affect what we believe but is not the sole identifier

I meant the nature of the Bible. Is it the verbatim word of God, or is it a message? Or is it something else?

Before we can understand what a message conveys, we must first understand its language. Agree or disagree?

 

[Astrophile]

[Staff edit].

First, do you really think that it is not a fact that the Earth and the other planets revolve around the Sun, or that it is not a fact that atoms exist and that bacteria, viruses and other micro-organisms cause diseases? Do you think that because heliocentrism is a theory, that means that people who accept that the Earth revolves around the Sun believe it on faith, without any evidence?

Second, scientific theories explain facts. The theory of evolution explains the observed facts of anatomy, genetics, embryology, biogeography and palaeontology, facts that can be found in books about biology. Of course the theory will need changing in the face of new facts, but, as Darwin pointed out in The Origin of Species, if his theory had been entirely wrong, it would not have been able to explain as many facts as it did.

Third, you can't say that because theories of evolution or gravitation or fluid dynamics or electromagnetism or relativity or quantum chromodynamics, etc. are not facts or not laws you can simply disregard them or deny that they are true. If you want to revolutionise science by overthrowing any of these theories, you have to propose a new theory that explains the observed facts better than the present one. If you can't do that, scientists will continue with their present theories until they find evidence against them, or until somebody does propose a better theory with more explanatory and predictive power. If you reject evolution, what new theory will you put in its place, how does it explain the facts, and what new phenomena does it predict?

 

[razzelflabben]

First, do you really think that it is not a fact that the Earth and the other planets revolve around the Sun, or that it is not a fact that atoms exist and that bacteria, viruses and other micro-organisms cause diseases? Do you think that because heliocentrism is a theory, that means that people who accept that the Earth revolves around the Sun believe it on faith, without any evidence?

how many times must I answer the same question before you all read my response...if they believe it as truth, yes it is by faith since they are after all theories...if that isn't enough of an answer for you, go back to the post where I answered it already and you can waste your time looking it up, I am a stickler for consistency.

Second, scientific theories explain facts. The theory of evolution explains the observed facts of anatomy, genetics, embryology, biogeography and palaeontology, facts that can be found in books about biology. Of course the theory will need changing in the face of new facts, but, as Darwin pointed out in The Origin of Species, if his theory had been entirely wrong, it would not have been able to explain as many facts as it did.

and...what exactly, I agreed that speciation is evidenced, in fact, it is as I have repeatedly said given a head nod in Gen. so no problem for an understanding of Gen. like I am talking about.

Third, you can't say that because theories of evolution or gravitation or fluid dynamics or electromagnetism or relativity or quantum chromodynamics, etc. are not facts or not laws you can simply disregard them or deny that they are true. If you want to revolutionise science by overthrowing any of these theories, you have to propose a new theory that explains the observed facts better than the present one. If you can't do that, scientists will continue with their present theories until they find evidence against them, or until somebody does propose a better theory with more explanatory and predictive power. If you reject evolution, what new theory will you put in its place, how does it explain the facts, and what new phenomena does it predict?

and yet when I demonstrate that creation as stated in scripture without tradition added in is equally able to explain the evidence (observed facts) thus the "theory" is equal to the "theory of evolution" no one has anything to offer in disagreement other than "cause I say so"...but remember, we are talking here about what the text actually says without traditions placed on it...and since it is not a scientific treatise we cannot treat it as such but we can build a "theory" off of what it does say. I think this is what is tripping you all up so bad.

 

[Astrophile]

and yet when I demonstrate that creation as stated in scripture without tradition added in is equally able to explain the evidence (observed facts) thus the "theory" is equal to the "theory of evolution" no one has anything to offer in disagreement other than "cause I say so"...but remember, we are talking here about what the text actually says without traditions placed on it...and since it is not a scientific treatise we cannot treat it as such but we can build a "theory" off of what it does say. I think this is what is tripping you all up so bad.

Can you demonstrate how creation explains the observed facts of biology as well as the theory of evolution? For example, why are there no indigenous placental mammals in Australia? Why do lemurs exist only in Madagascar? Why are (or were) flightless birds more common on oceanic islands than on continents? Why are there no indigenous amphibians on oceanic islands? Why are there no fossil mammals, ichthyosaurs or plesiosaurs in Paleozoic rocks? Why do fossil australopithecines occur only in the same continent as gorillas and chimpanzees? How does creation answer these questions?

 

[Aman777]

Can you demonstrate how creation explains the observed facts of biology as well as the theory of evolution?

Evolution is nothing more than descent with modification within His and Their kinds. The ToE is incomplete since it "made up" it's godless view and forgot about the flood which totally destroyed Adam's small world/firmament/heaven. 2Pet3:3-7 God's Truth tells us of the first Human who never took a step on the present Earth. Amen?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Evolution is nothing more than descent with modification within His and Their kinds. The ToE is incomplete since it "made up" it's godless view and forgot about the flood which totally destroyed Adam's small world/firmament/heaven. 2Pet3:3-7 God's Truth tells us of the first Human who never took a step on the present Earth. Amen?

I do believe the question asked for a demonstration, not assertions...