Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Biblical Creation

[Doveaman]

You seem to think that this means scientists are fighting other scientists. Whichever scientist is still alive at the end is correct! Please. That sort of "truth determined by fighting" belongs in cheesy stories about Tarzan.

You are creating a strawman here since this is not what I said. Scientists do fight (verbally). They even insult each other’s work and sometimes each other.

Yes, there may be scientists who think a particular phenomenon has different causes, but they aren't fighting with each other. This difference of opinion motivates them to investigate and test so as to find the truth.

You sound somewhat naive. Perhaps you need to get out more.

Geez, why does it seem like all creationists have no idea what science actually is?

Yes, you are naive.

 

[LOCO]

A literal interpretation of Genesis is not a flaw. The flaw is in not interpreting it literally. This then leads to other passages of scriptures being completely ignored.
Me too. He caused dust to evolve into a man, and then He caused that man to evolve into mankind.

“The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground...From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth.”(Gen 2:7, Acts 17:26).

Did you know that at the future resurrection God will cause billions of people to evolve from dust into mankind again?

"When You take away their breath, they die and return to the dust...all come from dust, and to dust all return...The multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." (Ps 104:29, Eccl 3:20, Dan 12:2).

This future evolutionary process from dust to mankind is not going to take billions of years, that's for sure.
There are no “SOULS” in evolution theory. You are mixing religion with science. You are not allowed to do that. Fail.
Believe what you want. The Gospel is not dependent upon our beliefs.
There is nothing in Scripture that even suggests the Jewish authors did not intend for Genesis to be interpreted literally. In fact, there are scriptures to the contrary, as quoted here. All sources outside of Scripture are irrelevant.

Dust to human is evolution??? Oh dear, I didn't realise your understanding of science was that limited.

Now that I think about, you may actually be convinced by scientific evolution, you're just in denial.

You think that if you agree that scientific evolution actually occurs that you will not be considered Christian. That is not true, you have nothing to fear.

Believing in evolution or creationism is irrelevant. It does not determine whether you are a Christian or not. It is not doctrine and therefore not salvific. It does not determine heaven/hell.



If all sources outside Scripture are irrelevant what do you make of this.

2 Thess 2:15: "Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a letter from us."

Phil 4:9: "Keep on doing what you have learned and received and HEARD and SEEN IN ME. Then the God of peace will be with you."

1 Corinth 11:2: "I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the Traditions, just as I handed them on to you."

2 Thess 3:6: "We instruct you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the TRADITION they received from us."

1 Peter 1:25: "...but the Word of the Lord REMAINS FOREVER. This is the Word that has been PROCLAIMED TO YOU (i.e., orally)."


We might have to agree to disagree.

Blessings

 

[Belk]

Hang up the Arab phone, will you please?

Just as soon as you stop asserting you are correct without addressing any of the evidence that shows you to be wrong. I'm going to guess never on that one but I have been wrong before.

 

[Belk]

Why are atheists so quick to try and prove that the Bible is not true? Of course they fail every time to accomplish their objective, but sometimes they are so deceived that they do not realize that.

Just as a guess for others , but likely it's because we don't believe it to be true? Hence the whole atheist thing.

 

[Doveaman]

Ah, yes. Confirmation bias. A very powerful tool in establishing what you think is right.

We know it's right because of the confirmation.

Those writers of the bible stories knew a lot more about human nature than they are given credit for.

That's correct.

 

[Doveaman]

And the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster told us centuries ago that the decline of pirates would lead to an increase in global temperature. And you can see that this has indeed come to pass.

When you see the flaw in that argument, you'll see the flaw in yours.

I'm not seeing it, so you are wrong again.

 

[Doveaman]

Wrong again, doppler shift is not an assumption.

The expansion of the universe due to Doppler shift is the assumption. Please follow.

 

[Doveaman]

Good question, Dovebro.

Max depo age is a technique specific to determining the age of sedimentary rocks and low-temp metamorphic rocks with sedimentary protoliths. Because detrital sedimentary rocks do not form their own crystals (as in igneous and metamorphic rocks), it is difficult to date them directly using absolute dating methods. So we must date crystals that were inherited from pre-existing igneous and metamorphic provinces that contributed sediment to the rock through erosion. The stratigraphic principle of inclusion states that any grain or clast included in a rock must be older than the rock itself. Thus, the rock itself must be younger than the youngest grain it incorporates.

The grains typically used in this type of analysis are zircon crystals, which are dated using the U-Pb isotope system. Many zircons (typically ~100) are gathered from the rock and analyzed, usually resulting in a range of ages. As previously stated, the maximum depositional age of a sedimentary rock must be younger than the youngest grain it incorporates, so the rock must be younger than the youngest zircon. If the youngest zircon analyzed comes out to, say, 210 Ma, then the rock must not be older than that date. This can, in some cases, suffice. But because scientists typically desire a bit more rigorous standards, the max depo age is usually stated as the mean age of the three youngest grains with overlapping 2-sigma age ranges.

A much more thorough, if a bit longer winded, explanation of detrital zircon analysis and its applications can be found here:
http://cig.museo.unlp.edu.ar/docencia/geohis/miWeb/pdf%20archivos/10.Detrital%20Zircon%20Analysis%20of%20the%20Sedimentary%20Record%20.pdf

Thanks a lot. Very helpful.

 

[Tiberius]

And you missed my point completely, didn't you?

Nope. British Bulldog made a statement about Bible literalists. You said his statement was wrong because it didn't apply to you. There are other Bible literalists out there other than you, AV.

So what was your point anyway? You see, so often you don't have a point, and when you do have a point, it's usually flawed deeply, so I just don't look that hard any more.

The THEORY is formed from the assumption. Therefore the THEORY is based on the assumption.

Assumption: Doppler redshift (expanding universe).

Theory: The Big Bang.

That word you used there? Assumption? The words you are looking for is "Observed evidence".

I linked to a post explaining further why He is reality.

Repeating the same claim is not further explanation."

But God does exist. You just don’t know it yet.

But God doesn't exist. You just don’t know it yet.

The dark matter/energy are the gods, the gods of the gaps in scientific knowledge of how the universe works.

And how have you determined this?

The theological literature is reviewed and tested by our own peers in the theological community.

And how do they test the claims to make sure the original paper is correct?

There is only one original version and the essential message of that version is found in all the other recognized versions.

I meant versions of Christianity, not the Bible. Some who think that faith is the only thing that gets you into heaven, others think you need works too. That seems like a rather significant difference in the "essential message".

 

[Doveaman]

Who cares what the majority thinks. True believers were always in the minority.

He's claiming to be a "True Believer," unlike others who disagree with his interpretation of scripture and are thus not "true" believers. I would consider that to be arrogant, yes.

When did I claim anyone was not a true believer because they disagree with me?

I was simply addressing the appeal to popularity fallacy.

 

[LOCO]

When did I claim anyone was not a true believer because they disagree with me?

I was simply addressing the appeal to popularity fallacy.

You sound like my 3yo niece when she is caught with her hand in the cookie jar and then denies it.

We know you meant that those Christians who don't agree with your interpretation of Sacred Scripture are not true believers.

Its okay to own it.

Blessings

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope. British Bulldog made a statement about Bible literalists. You said his statement was wrong because it didn't apply to you. There are other Bible literalists out there other than you, AV.

So what was your point anyway?

My point is, I disagree with what he said.

I've never quite understood why bible literlists are so desperate to prove their flood story is true.

I doubt that very seriously.

When someone comes on here and tries to make it look like we're desperate, I disagree.

If you disagree with my disagreement, q.v. our Bill of Rights; as well as your Magna Charta.

 

[AV1611VET]

When did I claim anyone was not a true believer because they disagree with me?

I was simply addressing the appeal to popularity fallacy.

You sound like my 3yo niece when she is caught with her hand in the cookie jar and then denies it.

We know you meant that those Christians who don't agree with your interpretation of Sacred Scripture are not true believers.

Its okay to own it.

Blessings

-- Didn't I tell you, Dove?

You don't determine what it is you said, or even if it is right or wrong -- they do.

If Jesus walked on water, they'll let you know when the time comes.

(And stop hating pigeons -- there's enough hate in this world!)

 

[Doveaman]

That word you used there? Assumption? The words you are looking for is "Observed evidence".

The expansion of the universe is not an observation. It is an assumption based on redshift.

Redshift is observed. Expansion is the assumption. Big Bang is based on the assumption.

Repeating the same claim is not further explanation."

Repeating the same claim with further explanation is further explanation.

But God doesn't exist. You just don’t know it yet.

If that makes you feel better.

And how have you determined this?

The blue 4% is known. The rest is unknown. The dark gods of the gaps are invoked to explain the unknown.

And how do they test the claims to make sure the original paper is correct?

The original paper predicts what we would expect if God is influencing us. When we experience those predicted effects, the success of those predictions then serve as confirmation that God is influencing us just as the original paper claimed.

I meant versions of Christianity, not the Bible. Some who think that faith is the only thing that gets you into heaven, others think you need works too. That seems like a rather significant difference in the "essential message".

Not all scientists agree despite peer review. It’s human nature.

 

[Doveaman]

We know you meant that those Christians who don't agree with your interpretation of Sacred Scripture are not true believers.

It's not possible for you to know that. So stop acting like you do.

 

[LOCO]

It's not possible for you to know that. So stop acting like you do.

Its called logical deduction. You are upset because we called you on it.

 

[Doveaman]

-- Didn't I tell you, Dove?

You don't determine what it is you said, or even if it is right or wrong -- they do.

Perhaps if we start saying what we don't mean then they'll agree with us.

"They think it strange that you do not run with them in the same flood of dissipation, speaking evil of you." (1 Peter 4:4).

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT


This thread is being closed for staff review
​