Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Biblical Creation

[Davian]

Wouldn't you have to believe in God before you would believe that he has influence in your life? What if you only imagine that God has influence in your life?

How it works is that the Bible 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.

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

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

 

[Davian]

I doubt that very seriously.

I don't feel a need to prove it's true, let alone feel 'desperate' about it.

And yet you probably think I'm just as difficult to understand as anyone else.

You guys don't fool me one bit.

I'm the opposite of what a lot of your targets think, yet just as anathema to you -- if not more.

It's not what we believe that counts in your eyes; it's what we are.

When you use the word "we" I really have no idea for whom you speak.

 

[Aeneas]

When you use the word "we" I really have no idea for whom you speak.

An interesting question, certainly.

 

[LOCO]

An interesting question, certainly.

Count me out. I am a Christian who does not believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[Tiberius]

How it works is that the Bible 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.

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

Once again, AV, your ego knows no bounds. British Bulldog was talking about Biblical literalists, and only you could be vain enough to think he must be talking about you and you alone.

Get off your high horse.

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

 

[Belk]

I doubt that very seriously.

I don't feel a need to prove it's true, let alone feel 'desperate' about it.

And yet you probably think I'm just as difficult to understand as anyone else.

You guys don't fool me one bit.

I'm the opposite of what a lot of your targets think, yet just as anathema to you -- if not more.

It's not what we believe that counts in your eyes; it's what we are.

That is because you simply assume it to be true and refuse to address any data that contradicts this view. Well, other then your "God cleaned it all up" idea. The fact that you refuse to deal with the evidence rather then simply claim the evidence is wrong/misinterpreted does not make you as different from your fellow creationists as you seem to think AV.

And I disagree, it is what you refuse to address that drives us nuts. Not what you are.

 

[Doveaman]

Sorry, but scientific theories are not "assumptions." Try looking that word up again, becasue you clearly don't know what it means...

SCIENTIFIC THEORY, not assumption.

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

Assumption: Doppler redshift (expanding universe).

Theory: The Big Bang.

 

[Doveaman]

determine a maximum depositional age. Find an index fossil within the rock. There are many ways to determine the age of a rock.

How do you determine a maximum depositional age of a rock?

 

[Split Rock]

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

Assumption: Doppler redshift (expanding universe).

Theory: The Big Bang.

Wrong again, doppler shift is not an assumption. I guess you have never stood by while a train passed by you. Let me give you an example of an assumption you should be familiar with. "God dictated the bible and therefore wrote it all himself." That's an assumption, because there is no basis for it, yet it is held by some as true. Got it now?

 

[Doveaman]

"As evidence, I present to you the huge amount of "peer reviewed" theological literature that does require a God to work." Well, no. It is what they imagine is true about God, and considering the different branches and denominations of Christianity have different opinions about God and what He wants us to do, they can't all be right, but they could all be wrong, or all but one wrong.

All but one is wrong.

 

[Doveaman]

I love this. You claim that God is reality and to support it, you link to a post where you say God is reality.

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

If there is no God, then reality must be something else. That's obvious, isn't it? Or did you think that the world ceases to exist for atheists?

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

I'm sorry, I must have missed the bit where it was determined that dark matter/energy can only exist if there's a god. Could you provide a source please?

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

lol, peer reviewed theological literature. How exactly is that peer reviewed, considering that no one can actually test it?

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

And if it's peer reviewed, why are there so many different versions of it?

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

 

[Orogeny]

How do you determine a maximum depositional age of a rock?

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/docenc...ircon Analysis of the Sedimentary Record .pdf

 

[Doveaman]

Then why was the literal viewpoint of Genesis creation story not taken by the Jewish authors or Christianity from the beginning until recently when hyper-literal Christians decided to transform Genesis into a science text,

The Jewish authors and Christianity did have a literal viewpoint of Genesis creation:

Genesis says:
“The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground.” (Gen 2:7).

Acts says:
“From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth.” (Acts 17:26).

Mark says:
“Jesus said to them, ‘At the beginning of creation God made them male and female.’” (Mark 10:5-6).

Timothy says:
“For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived.” (1 Tim 2:13-14).

I could go on and on.

Genesis is primarily a religious text originally interpreted allegorically or metaphorically.

If that makes you feel better, indulge yourself.

The majority of Christians disagree with literal interpretation of Genesis, it is a modern introduction.

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

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” (Matt 7:13-14).

 

[Split Rock]

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

Good to know that you are one of the "True Believers." The arrogance from you guys just never ends.. does it?

 

[AV1611VET]

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

I don't feel a need to prove it's true, let alone feel 'desperate' about it.

That is because you simply assume it to be true and refuse to address any data that contradicts this view.

Hang up the Arab phone, will you please?

 

[AV1611VET]

The arrogance from you guys just never ends.. does it?

Why is that 'arrogance'?

If I'm a white boy at a Black Panther meeting, would I be 'arrogant'?

 

[Jazer]

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

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.

You'd think they'd try and downplay the fact that their god is a genocidal ogre.

You do not believe that God is a "genocidal ogre" because if you did then you would fear Him. But that seems to be the concept of God that you have created for yourself. Is that really the best you can do? Funny how people love to study evolution and science because they are amazed at God's Creation. But they do not want to acknowledge Him as the Creator. Perhaps He is happy that people find His Creation Awesome. Perhaps it is for our sake that we acknowledge Him as the Creater. What benefit does He receive from you knowing the truth?

 

[Split Rock]

Why is that 'arrogance'?

If I'm a white boy at a Black Panther meeting, would I be 'arrogant'?

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.

 

[Doveaman]

No. I am saying that the pseudo-science used by YEC/ID/AIG proponents is masquerading as serious Science to prop up their theory based on a flawed interpretation of Genesis.

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.

I believe God used an evolutionary process to create mankind.

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.

However, all SOULS are given to us on conception by God, we don't inherit souls from our parents like our bodies etc.

There are no “SOULS” in evolution theory. You are mixing religion with science. You are not allowed to do that. Fail.

I don't believe a day to us is the same as a day to God. I don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story.

Believe what you want. The Gospel is not dependent upon our beliefs.

I believe like the Jewish authors that the Genesis creation story was not intended to be interpreted literally.

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.