If creationism is true, then why is it useless?

[joshua 1 9]

You're not giving me the impression AT ALL that you think there is a possibility that it's YOU who has it wrong (instead of 99.9% of the scientific community).

I think you win the prize for the most crazy statement ever. I am saying the Bible agrees with "99.9% of the scientific community". They know nothing about the Bible. It could be they do not even have a third grade level of understanding of the Bible even if they have a Phd in science because a degree in science teaches you nothing about the Bible.

If you want to hunt dogma then you don't have to leave your own back yard. You got all the dogma there that anyone could ever want or imagine. Let me know if you ever manage to get your own back yard cleaned up.

 

[Ophiolite]

I think you win the prize for the most crazy statement ever. I am saying the Bible agrees with "99.9% of the scientific community". They know nothing about the Bible. It could be they do not even have a third grade level of understanding of the Bible even if they have a Phd in science because a degree in science teaches you nothing about the Bible.

More than 0.1% of the scientific community is Christian. Are you asserting that this sub-set of Christianity knows nothing about the Bible? If so, please provide evidence to support that assertion. If not please retract your statement.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think you win the prize for the most crazy statement ever. I am saying the Bible agrees with "99.9% of the scientific community". They know nothing about the Bible. It could be they do not even have a third grade level of understanding of the Bible even if they have a Phd in science because a degree in science teaches you nothing about the Bible.

You say that, and provide no examples at all where the bible and scientific conclusions agree.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You say that, and provide no examples at all where the bible and scientific conclusions agree.

I do that constantly, but people ignore it because they are not able to refute my findings.

 

[joshua 1 9]

More than 0.1% of the scientific community is Christian. Are you asserting that this sub-set of Christianity knows nothing about the Bible? If so, please provide evidence to support that assertion. If not please retract your statement.

I have no idea what your talking about. You lost me on that one.

 

[Speedwell]

I have no idea what your talking about. You lost me on that one.

You said that 99.9% of the scientific community knows nothing about the Bible. But quite a few of the scientific community are Christians who know a good deal about the Bible--more than the 0.01% of the scientific community who are left from the Bible-ignorant 99.9% you mentioned. And that does not even include atheists who know quite a bit about the Bible, who often know more about it than creationists, if the posters here are in any way typical.

 

[Strathos]

My son is in his second year at the university and he is wanting to study computer engineering. He was required in his humanity class to read this book. Why do you suppose the university requires him to read a book that is so old? There must be some value in it or they would not require their students to read it.

Archaeologists used to believe that the Trojan War was nothing but a myth and that Troy never existed, until they found it.

 

[Herman Hedning]

My son is in his second year at the university and he is wanting to study computer engineering. He was required in his humanity class to read this book. Why do you suppose the university requires him to read a book that is so old? There must be some value in it or they would not require their students to read it.

Maybe you should ask your son that question. I'm sure that is well explained in the humanities course he's taking. Maybe it has something to do with studying the literature from different ages and cultures to gain an understanding how people then thought and reasoned.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Maybe you should ask your son that question.

He always comes up with a good answer. I love talking to him and his friends. He signed up for the advanced class and his friends are very intelligent and fun to talk to.

 

[Ophiolite]

You said that 99.9% of the scientific community knows nothing about the Bible. But quite a few of the scientific community are Christians who know a good deal about the Bible--more than the 0.01% of the scientific community who are left from the Bible-ignorant 99.9% you mentioned. And that does not even include atheists who know quite a bit about the Bible, who often know more about it than creationists, if the posters here are in any way typical.

Thank you for clarifying my post to Joshua 1 9. I doubt it will do much good, or lead to a coherent response, but the effort is appreciated.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I do that constantly, but people ignore it because they are not able to refute my findings.

-_- then give me a link to a time you gave an example, or re-type one and post.

 

[pitabread]

I tend to think all the stories really happened. Real or not all the stories in the Bible can be applied to our lives.

I never said they couldn't. That's the beauty of storytelling; it's possible to convey meaning without it necessarily being literally true.

So trying to convince yourself it is not a real story with real people does not make any difference at all.

There is no "trying" about it. Based on my research into Biblical scholarship and the veracity of the Bible insofar as literal history goes, there are a lot of things that are not real history. This includes the Garden of Eden, Noah and the flood story, the Exodus, etc.

And this isn't my opinion. It's the opinion of modern Bible scholars.

God is going to hold us all accountable and on the day people are judged for what they did with their life they will have no excuse. One pastor said all their attempts to produce and excuse will shatter like glass before the throne. Your excuse this is not a real story about real people will shatter like glass before the throne because this excuse has no substance and it does not hold any thing.

Yeah yeah, heard it all before, got the T-shirt.

You have to understand that to non-believers, these promises of future judgement are not compelling. Especially since after learning about Christian theology, I find it fundamentally illogical. I can't force myself to believe something I honestly don't believe.

All I can do is be honest with myself, and no amount of veiled threats from believers will change that.

 

[joshua 1 9]

And this isn't my opinion. It's the opinion of modern Bible scholars.

This is not the opinion of the people that represent God. You make it abundantly clear that everyone is able to know who is walking with God and who does not represent God and the Bible. John talks about this quite a bit in his letters.

"They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us." 1 John 2:19

 

[joshua 1 9]

after learning about Christian theology, I find it fundamentally illogical.

We have to have the mind of Christ and the Divine thoughts of God. This is what it means to be born again and a new creation in Christ. We know that those who are not regenerated by definition have a reprobate mind. We even see skeptics, scoffers and infidels that are willing to reject science in their attempt to deny the truth found in the Bible.

NO doubt there are stories in the Bible that Science is not able to verify. Science is also not able to falsify them. Science is not able to verify that hell is a literal place. Science can not verify the story in Luke about the rich man and Lazarus. Science is also not able to falsify or prove the story to be wrong.

Luke 16:25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony."

The Buddists talk about Karma. Out on the streets they say what goes around comes around. There is a general feeling that what the Bible says about sowing and reaping is true. That in the end people get what they deserve. If they do good they get good in return. If they do evil they get evil in return. This is one version of the Golden rule in that we are to always treat others the way we want to be treated.

The prisons are filled with people that thought they were going to get away with it and not have to suffer the consequences of their actions. Turns out they were wrong. They got caught and they did not get away with breaking man's law. All the more people that break God's laws are not going to get away with it. God's laws are a part of the very fabric of the universe. His moral laws are just as valid as the laws of science that we follow every day of our lives.

As Beretta said: "If you can not do the time then don't do the crime". As I get older and suffer more and more of the consequences for my actions I realize more and more it just was not worth it. What I got was not worth the price I had to pay for a lot of my transgressions.

 

[joshua 1 9]

-_- then give me a link to a time you gave an example, or re-type one and post.

You can search my posts if you want to see what I have said.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

You can search my posts if you want to see what I have said.

A quick search shows the following inconsistencies between the Bible and Science as you've been shown...:

You have to read the Bible in the original language. Even the translations going back to the 1600's have translation errors. What was flooded was "Adamah" or the land of Adam, not the whole Earth or Erets (Hebrew).

Then @Jimmy D adequately refutes this with the following:

That's a poor excuse. There is no way that Noah's story is describing a local flood.

“I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth"

" I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish."

"all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered"

"Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind."

"Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth.BB)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-183BB"> Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark."

"Bring out every kind of living creature that is with you—the birds, the animals, and all the creatures that move along the ground—so they can multiply on the earth and be fruitful and increase in number on it.”

"And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done."

Then in another post:

Yes, as history Genesis is extremely accurate.

Which of course is plain nonsense, because earth (or its waters, etc.) didn't exist before the sun, which in turn didn't exist before the universe full of stars (or at the very least, our own galaxy), nor was all life specially and separately created, all humans are not descended from Adam and Eve - or from any two individuals living at the same time for that matter , nor are we bottlenecked by a world-wide flood that wiped out all but 8 people (and a single mating pair of all wild fauna that breathes air) on an ark several thousand years ago, etc.

I could go on but the point is surely made... Then, there's the following statements:

Here we go with that reading comprehension again. I said that Adam and Eve were real people that lived in the Garden of Eden around 6,000 years ago exactly as the Bible says. The earth can be whatever age you want it to be. The point is that everyone we read about in the Bible were real people. As a history book the Bible is extremely accurate.

A good place to start is with Bryan Sykes book the "Seven Daughters of Eve". The Eve in the Bible Sykes refers to as Jasmine. She would be human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup: J2b3. Luke records the geneology from Adam to Christ Jesus. Lots of people in the Bible show up in the geneology.

Luke 3:23-38(ESV)
The Genealogy of Jesus Christ
23 Jesus, the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim H), 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34" the son of Isaac, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

to which @tas8831 adequately responds:

Which in this case would not be Eve.

Of course, you are relying on your take that Sykes is 100% accurate and correct.

Why do you think his claims are correct?



Well, if you are going to use one person's take on the 'mt Eve hypothesis,', you should probably understand that gene coalescence indicates that she lived much longer ago than the bible tales indicate - about 150,000-200,000 years.



So bats really are birds?

Can you give any actual examples of DNA science supporting bible tales (sorry, but the mt Eve story isn't doing it).



Yeah, so actually, mitochondrial Eve lived in Africa, not the middle east.

Are you still going with the 'DNA proves the bible"?
Even Wikipedia has a nice take-down of your position:

Mitochondrial Eve lived later than Homo heidelbergensis and the emergence of Homo neanderthalensis, but earlier than the out of Africa migration,[2] but her age is not known with certainty; a 2009 estimate cites an age between c. 152 and 234 thousand years ago (95% CI);[3] a 2013 study cites a range of 99–148 thousand years ago.[4].....

The name "Mitochondrial Eve" alludes to biblical Eve.[10] This has led to repeated misrepresentations or misconceptions in journalistic accounts on the topic. Unlike her biblical namesake, she was not the only living human female of her time. The title of "Mitochondrial Eve" is not permanently fixed to a single individual, but rather shifts forward in time over the course of human history as the Eve maternal mtDNA lineage becomes extinct. Her female contemporaries, though they may have descendants alive today, no longer have an unbroken female line of ancestors (daughter's daughter's daughter's … daughter) connecting them to living people.​

Sorry.

so, you are demonstrably wrong about the bible and science being 100% in agreement.

 

[Jimmy D]

so, you are demonstrably wrong about the bible and science being 100% in agreement.

All reasonable points but you forgot one thing....You're an atheist, so you don't understand the bible as well as Joshua.

 

[Ophiolite]

You're an atheist, so you don't understand the bible as well as Joshua.

No one understands the Bible as well as Joshua.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You can search my posts if you want to see what I have said.

-_- at a bare minimum, direct me to a specific thread and a specific page to look for.

 

[pitabread]

This is not the opinion of the people that represent God.

I actually consider that a plus. When I first started reading up on the Bible and Christianity, I didn't realize there was such disparity between Biblical scholarship versus more literal interpretations of the Bible. Consequently, I consider a lot of the information I receive from so-called literalists to be suspect at best.

The way I see it is the historical veracity of the Bible is completely independent of one's specific beliefs with respect to it. If events described in the Bible like Noah's flood or the Exodus were factual, historical events then independent evidence should bear them out regardless of one's beliefs.

The fact that Biblical literalism seems a pre-requirement to take some of these Biblical tales as historically valid casts doubt on their historical veracity.

We have to have the mind of Christ and the Divine thoughts of God. This is what it means to be born again and a new creation in Christ. We know that those who are not regenerated by definition have a reprobate mind. We even see skeptics, scoffers and infidels that are willing to reject science in their attempt to deny the truth found in the Bible.

The problem though is that from an outside perspective I have no way of verifying what you say is true. It's especially problematic when you have various people of different denominations, philosophies, religions, etc, all claiming that their way is the True Way(TM). Why I should I take what you say as any more valid than say a Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or atheist, etc?

This is largely why I view all religions as being man-made. In my view, everyone is already in the same boat.

All the more people that break God's laws are not going to get away with it. God's laws are a part of the very fabric of the universe. His moral laws are just as valid as the laws of science that we follow every day of our lives.

These so-called moral laws appear to ebb and flow as society changes. The evolution of religion is quite fascinating in itself and certainly is not the static system of beliefs that many seem to think it is.

And insofar as these claims of future consequences, again, there is no way to verify anything you are saying as true. And no reason I should take your word over any one else's.

Like I said, in the end I can only be truly honest with myself. And I can't force myself to believe something that I don't honestly believe is true.