If the beginnings of Genesis aren't literally true, then what way are they true?

[AV1611VET]

So far they don't have one lick of scientific evidence that supports their position.

And that's the strength of creationism, not its weakness.

Bruce Lee??

The events of the creation week did not go through scientific channels.

Hence, to use SZ's words, they don't have one lick of scientific evidence that supports their position.

Thus no evidence is evidence.

 

[HitchSlap]

The events of the creation week did not go through scientific channels.

Hence, to use SZ's words, they don't have one lick of scientific evidence that supports their position.

Thus no evidence is evidence.

Right, because no evidence for nothing is total evidence of anything. Got it.

 

[[serious]]

If the beginnings of Genesis aren't literally true, then what way are they true?

God Bless!

a few options:
as a recounting of early jewish oral traditions
as an allegory for the move from hunter/gatherers to agriculture
as an allegory for an age of accountability
as an allegory for the evolution of man from a more innocent species

 

[Xalith]

@AV1611VET : That's what no athiest will ever, ever, EVER tell you the explanation behind.

Science cannot validate or invalidate Creation in any sense (regardless of how you believe it came to be), because

1). It is not reproducible,
2). It was not observed.

Therefore, it isn't true science. They will go "but blah blah sciences say that blah blah happens this way blah blah" but yet they are assuming that all things continue along and have always continued along at the same pace and has never changed for any reason, at all.

Radiocarbon dating relies upon the rate of decay of C-14. We assume[ that C-14 has always decayed at the same rate.

We use geological samples, and assume the ages of stuff found in the same sediment (even non-organic things like stone that cannot be C-14'd), based upon other things we assume are true, because they are true today.

These sciences have been in existence for 100 years or less in some cases, and just because the rate has not changed noticeably in the last 100 years, we assume that they've never changed, at all.

That's a lot of assumptions to make.

And yes, yes, yes, "show me your PROOF" some Athiest will say.

There's a point in time where you have to just accept something. Mankind will never be able to understand, or know everything. If such a man ever were to do so, then would that man not become God?

And since Athiests cannot accept the idea of the existence of God, then they must surely accept the impossibility that man could eventually become God, right?

So if man cannot become God because they believe God does not exist, then they must accept that there will always be things that we will never know the answers to without undeniable proof?

So if there are things we will never know the answers to without undeniable proof, then are there not things you just have to make your own judgments about and/or choose what to believe in, out of faith?

 

[crjmurray]

@AV1611VET : That's what no athiest will ever, ever, EVER tell you the explanation behind.

Science cannot validate or invalidate Creation in any sense (regardless of how you believe it came to be), because

1). It is not reproducible,
2). It was not observed.

Therefore, it isn't true science. They will go "but blah blah sciences say that blah blah happens this way blah blah" but yet they are assuming that all things continue along and have always continued along at the same pace and has never changed for any reason, at all.

Radiocarbon dating relies upon the rate of decay of C-14. We assume[ that C-14 has always decayed at the same rate.

We use geological samples, and assume the ages of stuff found in the same sediment (even non-organic things like stone that cannot be C-14'd), based upon other things we assume are true, because they are true today.

These sciences have been in existence for 100 years or less in some cases, and just because the rate has not changed noticeably in the last 100 years, we assume that they've never changed, at all.

That's a lot of assumptions to make.

And yes, yes, yes, "show me your PROOF" some Athiest will say.

There's a point in time where you have to just accept something. Mankind will never be able to understand, or know everything. If such a man ever were to do so, then would that man not become God?

And since Athiests cannot accept the idea of the existence of God, then they must surely accept the impossibility that man could eventually become God, right?

So if man cannot become God because they believe God does not exist, then they must accept that there will always be things that we will never know the answers to without undeniable proof?

So if there are things we will never know the answers to without undeniable proof, then are there not things you just have to make your own judgments about and/or choose what to believe in, out of faith?

Well I sure am glad you set that straight.

 

[HitchSlap]

@AV1611VET : That's what no athiest will ever, ever, EVER tell you the explanation behind.

Science cannot validate or invalidate Creation in any sense (regardless of how you believe it came to be), because

1). It is not reproducible,
2). It was not observed.

Therefore, it isn't true science. They will go "but blah blah sciences say that blah blah happens this way blah blah" but yet they are assuming that all things continue along and have always continued along at the same pace and has never changed for any reason, at all.

Radiocarbon dating relies upon the rate of decay of C-14. We assume[ that C-14 has always decayed at the same rate.

We use geological samples, and assume the ages of stuff found in the same sediment (even non-organic things like stone that cannot be C-14'd), based upon other things we assume are true, because they are true today.

These sciences have been in existence for 100 years or less in some cases, and just because the rate has not changed noticeably in the last 100 years, we assume that they've never changed, at all.

That's a lot of assumptions to make.

And yes, yes, yes, "show me your PROOF" some Athiest will say.

There's a point in time where you have to just accept something. Mankind will never be able to understand, or know everything. If such a man ever were to do so, then would that man not become God?

And since Athiests cannot accept the idea of the existence of God, then they must surely accept the impossibility that man could eventually become God, right?

So if man cannot become God because they believe God does not exist, then they must accept that there will always be things that we will never know the answers to without undeniable proof?

So if there are things we will never know the answers to without undeniable proof, then are there not things you just have to make your own judgments about and/or choose what to believe in, out of faith?

*atheist

 

[AV1611VET]

Right, because no evidence for nothing is total evidence of anything. Got it.

"Nothing" is the prima facie term for the creation week.

"Nothing" ... as in ... creatio ex nihilo.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science cannot validate or invalidate Creation in any sense (regardless of how you believe it came to be), because

1). It is not reproducible,
2). It was not observed.

 

[Xalith]

*atheist

Well, that was worthy of a whole post, let alone actually debating/refuting/discussing anything in that post, you choose to correct my spelling.

Right.

Shake the dust off my shoes indeed.

 

[[serious]]

*atheist

could be describing something that is the most like athi.

 

[HitchSlap]

Well, that was worthy of a whole post, let alone actually debating/refuting/discussing anything in that post, you choose to correct my spelling.

Right.

Shake the dust off my shoes indeed.

Nothing in your post was even worth discussing. You were simply projecting and certainly not interested in discourse.

BTW, I responded to a previous post of yours that you ignored.

BBTW, if you're going to disparage atheists, you should at least spell it right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The events of the creation week did not go through scientific channels.

Hence, to use SZ's words, they don't have one lick of scientific evidence that supports their position.

Thus no evidence is evidence.

If their beliefs were correct they would find support through scientific channels. That is one of the reasons that the scientific method is so successful. It does not matter what the false beliefs a person may have, it only works off of their beliefs that they can show to be correct.

 

[Xalith]

BTW, I responded to a previous post of yours that you ignored.

I didn't "ignore" anything. I chose not to respond. *shrugs*

I, however, didn't nitpick about something like spelling instead.

No offense, but seriously. Nitpicking about spelling while choosing not to mention anything in the post is just a waste of everybody's time to scroll past. That is almost report-worthy, but I'm not here to pick fights to be honest.

 

[crjmurray]

Nothing in your post was even worth discussing. You were simply projecting and certainly not interested in discourse.

BTW, I responded to a previous post of yours that you ignored.

BBTW, if you're going to disparage atheists, you should at least spell it right.

I'm more offended by the implication that all evolutionists are atheists.

 

[HitchSlap]

I didn't "ignore" anything. I chose not to respond. *shrugs*

I, however, didn't nitpick about something like spelling instead.

No offense, but seriously. Nitpicking about spelling while choosing not to mention anything in the post is just a waste of everybody's time to scroll past. That is almost report-worthy, but I'm not here to pick fights to be honest.

Maybe. But at least you'll spell atheist correctly next time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@AV1611VET : That's what no athiest will ever, ever, EVER tell you the explanation behind.

Science cannot validate or invalidate Creation in any sense (regardless of how you believe it came to be), because

1). It is not reproducible,
2). It was not observed.

That does not matter. We did not directly observe the Big Bang, but we can still see its effects. Why can't we see the effects of this supposed creation event? And you do realize that to believe in a young Earth means that one has to believe in a dishonest God, don't you? All of the evidence in nature, not man made evidence, supports what you will hear in a standard science class. The universe began 13.7 billion years ago. The Earth was formed roughly 4.55 billion years ago. Life evolved.

Therefore, it isn't true science. They will go "but blah blah sciences say that blah blah happens this way blah blah" but yet they are assuming that all things continue along and have always continued along at the same pace and has never changed for any reason, at all.

Yes, your views are not scientific, ours are. And no we do not assume. That is a creationist sin.

Radiocarbon dating relies upon the rate of decay of C-14. We assume[ that C-14 has always decayed at the same rate.

Wrong again, those rates are tested by several means. The problem is that creationists make crazy claims that they cannot support and then demand others show them to be wrong. We really don't need to. You never showed that you were right in the first place.

We use geological samples, and assume the ages of stuff found in the same sediment (even non-organic things like stone that cannot be C-14'd), based upon other things we assume are true, because they are true today.

Again your ignorance knows no bounds.

These sciences have been in existence for 100 years or less in some cases, and just because the rate has not changed noticeably in the last 100 years, we assume that they've never changed, at all.

That's a lot of assumptions to make.

Nope, new science is always built upon old science. There are very very few assumptions. The only assumptions made are that the Earth is really here and that we can find answers to problems. That has worked very well so far.

And yes, yes, yes, "show me your PROOF" some Athiest will say.

Wrong again. We say show me your evidence. Sadly you have none.

There's a point in time where you have to just accept something. Mankind will never be able to understand, or know everything. If such a man ever were to do so, then would that man not become God?

And since Athiests cannot accept the idea of the existence of God, then they must surely accept the impossibility that man could eventually become God, right?

So if man cannot become God because they believe God does not exist, then they must accept that there will always be things that we will never know the answers to without undeniable proof?

So if there are things we will never know the answers to without undeniable proof, then are there not things you just have to make your own judgments about and/or choose what to believe in, out of faith?

This last part is only a nonsensical rant that illustrates you have no understanding of atheism or even how to debate.

 

[HitchSlap]

I'm more offended by the implication that all evolutionists are atheists.

I know, right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm more offended by the implication that all evolutionists are atheists.

I should have picked up on that. Not even most Christians are creationists. Let alone all deists.

 

[crjmurray]

I should have picked up on that. Not even most Christians are creationists. Let alone all deists.

Eh, maybe I overstated when I said offensive. One, it is irritating for someone to assume that you're an atheist just because you have a firm grasp on basic scientific knowledge. Two, it just shows how ignorant a person is when they make a comment about how deep time or evolution is somehow inherently atheistic.

 

[dlamberth]

If the beginnings of Genesis aren't literally true, then what way are they true?

I take the Genesis Creation story as an awareness of God's creative activity as the very essence of matter and life itself.

.