The Creationist Corner

[Job8]

Because you cannot show that God exists and even if you could, you have not shown any causality between the two.

Let's make this really simple. You purchase a box of LEGO pieces and let them sit somewhere. What is the probability that they will arrange themselves into any kind of structure? On the other hand, you put the structure together and invite a friend and ask "Did someone build that, or did it just come together by happenstance?" You already know the answer.

So the fact that a creature like the hummingbird exists should cause any rational, intelligent person to ask the question "How could such a creature come about without a Creator?" And there you have your answer. And then you look around all of creation, all of the creatures, and how they function, and all the heavenly bodies, and how they function, and the only LOGICAL explanation is the existence of the Creator.

An atheist is one who denies reality, and lives in a fantasy of his own making, in which he considers himself to be far superior to those poor deluded mortals who believe in God and the Lord Jesus Christ. It is not enough to simply believe in the Creator. Unless one fully believes that the Creator also became our Savior, he continues in his delusions.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Alright.

Was just being nosey.

No worries.

Sounds like you do your homework.

I try to.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

483

You asserted that someone had made the statement that even if no fossils existed that evolution would still have enough evidence to support it, but this is a link to someone saying that fossils provide evidence for evolution beyond simply being transitional. These are two very different statements.

 

[AV1611VET]

You asserted that someone had made the statement that even if no fossils existed that evolution would still have enough evidence to support it, but this is a link to someone saying that fossils provide evidence for evolution beyond simply being transitional. These are two very different statements.

5

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So the fact that a creature like the hummingbird exists should cause any rational, intelligent person to ask the question "How could such a creature come about without a Creator?"

This is a reasonable question to ask.

And there you have your answer.

This is a less reasonable second step. You ask a question, your first instinct is to say "I don't know", and your next step is to conclude that therefore the answer must be God. Isn't it more logical for your next step after the answer "I don't know" to be to try to find out? As it is, the theory of evolution by natural selection provides a good explanation.

And then you look around all of creation, all of the creatures, and how they function, and all the heavenly bodies, and how they function, and the only LOGICAL explanation is the existence of the Creator.

I'm not sure you can hold up how creatures function as evidence of a creator, or at least not one that's supposed to be perfect. There are all sorts of inefficiencies and redundancies in nature, which you'd expect not to be the case in something that was designed by something that was perfect.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

5

Thank you.

 

[joshua 1 9]

This is unfair. You mentioned the archaeological evidence of civilisation beginning 6,000 years ago, while also saying that Adam and Eve were the first humans to exist 6,000 years ago.

Yes they were the first humans to exist. But the people that existed before them looked very human. What makes us human is the freedom of choice. I could easily write a whole book about what made Adam and Eve different. In fact that is what the whole Bible is all about. Look at their son who was afraid that he would be killed. Who would have killed him if Adam and Eve were the only people alive? I do not reject science. All I am saying is that Science does not conflict with the Bible. They are in perfect harmony. We just need a better understanding of the Bible and Science helps us to have a better understanding of the written word of God. God gave us Science, God gave us the Bible, they both come from God. He can not contradict Himself, that is impossible. No one except for country singers understands that there is a difference between a female and a women. There is a difference between a male and a man. You have male and female but Adam and Eve were the first women and the first man. They were the first husband and the first wife. You have male and female animals, but you have to be human to be man and women. To be human you have to have freedom of choice, ie free will and you have to have love. You can have sex and reproduce without love, but you have to have love to have a marriage.

 

[TheQuietRiot]

The first human artifacts go back about 40,000 years. They find fishing hooks, fishing nets & sowing needles. In order for people to come up out of Africa they need to be able to make clothing and they needed food to eat. 20,000 years ago you will find grinding stones that they used to grind their grains. Also they were able to weave baskets to store many different kinds of grains in. We have NO artifacts for Eden, we are looking at the history of Agriculture. We are looking at the domestication of wild plants and animals. Science knows a lot about all of this. They know how farming and civilization spread from the Furtile Crescent to the rest of the world. WE know that there were at least 18 Edens in the world. There was one in China in the Yellow River area. This is where rice came from. In the Middle east they had grains like wheat and barley. They made bread in the middle east they made noodles in China.

Science knows a lot more now then what they knew back at the time of Bishop Ussher. Yet his book is still accurate and true today if you were to read it (on line). Also the Bible continue to be accurate and true today. NO new knowledge has surfaced that contradicts the Bible in any way. OF COURSE our understanding of the Bible has changed. Science helps us to have a much better understanding then what we had before. Just as Daniel tells us the wisdom, knowledge and understanding will increase at the end of this age. People will go to and fro, they will travel a lot at the end of this age. All of this helps us to understand the Bible better then we were able to understand. God put a record into creation. He left us dinosaur bones so we could study and see the work He was doing when He created this world. God has left us the natural record and he has left us the Bible to show us what HE does in the spiritual.

Nothing contradicts the Bible?

You are in denial.

The Bible contradicts itself in multiple areas, nevermind science.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Yes they were the first humans to exist. But the people that existed before them looked very human.

Thank you for elucidating.

I note that you still call those who were around before Adam and Eve "people", despite denying their humanity.

What makes us human is the freedom of choice.

Does this mean that humans who do not have a freedom of choice (babies, say, or those with severe mental impairments) are not human? And how do you know that Adam and Eve were the first to have this freedom of choice?

Perhaps it would help if you defined "freedom of choice" more precisely.

All I am saying is that Science does not conflict with the Bible.

Although you haven't answered as to how the two different creation myths in the Bible can be said to conform with reality when the order of events described don't match between both accounts, nor with the current scientific understanding.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The Bible contradicts itself in multiple areas, nevermind science.

The Bible actually does not contradict itself. Written by approximately 40 men of diverse backgrounds over the course of 1500 years, you would expect contradictions but there are none. There are paradoxes but that can be resolved. I spent years researching what looked like contradictions and everyone of them I was able to resolve. I spend many many years searching for contradictions between Science and the Bible and there are none. God gave us science and God gave us the Bible and God CAN NOT contradict Himself.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Does this mean that humans who do not have a freedom of choice (babies, say, or those with severe mental impairments) are not human?

Some people that are damaged may not show the qualities that make us human. They are only human by association with other members of their species.

And how do you know that Adam and Eve were the first to have this freedom of choice?

Because I read the Bible. Clearly you need to read the Bible and be taught by the Holy Spirit of God. You can not expect others to teach you. Each individual has to discover the truth for themselves.

Perhaps it would help if you defined "freedom of choice" more precisely.

This is what we read in the Bible:

19"I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,20by loving the LORD your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them."

God gives us a choice. He will not make the choice for us. Each individual has to make the choice for themselves. If you want length of days that may not be an easy choice to make. We have to eat right, exercise, pray to control out stress and so on. Some people call this temperance if we want to add years to our life and maintain good health. Still it is a choice and no one can make that choice for us. We have to make that choice for ourselves.

Although you haven't answered as to how the two different creation myths in the Bible

I think this is a little to difficult for you to understand right now. This is a level of understanding that you just have not obtained yet. At this point it would just take to much to explain it all to you.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I note that you still call those who were around before Adam and Eve "people", despite denying their humanity.

This is a word that you used and it does pertain. There is a lot that takes place with Adam and Eve. Science has put a huge amount of effort into trying to understand what happens when man went from being a food gather to a food producer. Just why did humans start to build cities and how did they become civilized. The Bible answers these questions. Science does not have a clue and does not even come close.

When you read the Bible you have to really really pay attention to what you are reading. You usually only have one word to work with. For example: "2:4These are the generations" You are given the word "generations" so you know what you are working with here. I am sure you know about common ancestors and matriarchs and patriarchs. Also I am sure you know about genealogy. All of this is contained in the Hebrew word for "generations". So you can see an expository approach is essential. You have to look to see what words are used and the meaning of the words.

"LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a livingsoul."

LOOK and SEE what is going on here. First God "Formed" man from the ground. We know the elements that God used to make man and we know all of those elements are found in the ground. Even those elements have a value. Next we have: "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Again very few words, very simple but many many books could be written to explain what these five words mean. Even there are 32 verses in Genesis that talks about creation. Science has hundreds of thousands of books that talks about what we read in five words in the Bible. Even if we were to talk about all that Jesus did all the books in the world would not be enough to explain it. You could spend your whole life to study what it means for man to become a living soul. Even then you would only be starting.

This is why you need the Holy Spirit of God to guide you and to lead you into the truth. You will not discover the truth for yourself apart from God.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

They do not show the qualities that make us human.

They are of our species. By the scientific definition they are human.

You're free to define the word "human" however you wish, but you'll have to accept that I will stick with the scientific definition and do not accept your definition as valid.

Because I read the Bible.

I have read religious texts from several religions, the Bible being just one of them. I see no reason to accept the religious teachings of any of them as true.

This is what we read in the Bible:

19"I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,20by loving the LORD your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them."

God gives us a choice. He will not make the choice for us. Each individual has to make the choice for themselves. If you want length of days that may not be an easy choice to make. We have to eat right, exercise, pray to control out stress and so on. Some people call this temperance if we want to add years to our life and maintain good health. Still it is a choice and no one can make that choice for us. We have to make that choice for ourselves.

If the ability to choose life is how you define being human, then every piece of fauna on this planet is human. Survival is almost the largest biological drive that exists.

I think this is a little to difficult for you to understand right now.

What is it about me that makes you believe that I will be unable to understand your explanation?

I don't want to put words into your mouth (or onto your keyboard), but taken in context it seems that what you're hinting at is that I must first accept the infallible veracity of the Bible before I can accept an explanation for why the Bible says, for example, that the Earth was created before the Sun yet contemporary science says that the Sun was created before the Earth. If that is what you're saying, then you have it backwards. I would need to see the contradictions reconciled before I could accept the infallible veracity of the Bible.

I form my conclusions based on evidence and at present the evidence seems to me to point to the Bible being fallible and at odds with observed reality in at least one or two places. I'm open to persuasion, but the only way to change my conclusion is to present good evidence and cogent arguments.

But, of course, that could not be what you are saying. So why not elucidate for me? Tell me why I cannot understand.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Science does not have a clue and does not even come close.

I'm not sure that's a fair characterisation.

When you read the Bible you have to really really pay attention to what you are reading. You usually only have one word to work with. For example: "2:4These are the generations" You are given the word "generations" so you know what you are working with here. I am sure you know about common ancestors and matriarchs and patriarchs. Also I am sure you know about genealogy. All of this is contained in the Hebrew word for "generations". So you can see an expository approach is essential. You have to look to see what words are used and the meaning of the words.

"LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a livingsoul."

LOOK and SEE what is going on here. First God "Formed" man from the ground. We know the elements that God used to make man and we know all of those elements are found in the ground. Even those elements have a value. Next we have: "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Again very few words, very simple but many many books could be written to explain what these five words mean. Even there are 32 verses in Genesis that talks about creation. Science has hundreds of thousands of books that talks about what we read in five words in the Bible.

All of this reads like you have started with your conclusion and are working to make the evidence fit it. I see people do this all the time with Doctor Who. There's an entire film devoted to people doing this with The Shining. I've studied semiology and I know how easy it is to create novel narratives from small details by attaching significance to them. It can make a text seem richer, but it can do so by imposing your own meaning onto a text when that text itself doesn't contain that meaning.

As it is, looking at your quote and reading your links, it's clear to me that one, simple, valid interpretation of the sentence quoted is simply that Adam was given life by God. This means that the particular interpretation that you give it, of becoming more than the creatures around him, is not necessarily implied. I would need more evidence to believe that that was the preferred reading of the author.

You could spend your whole life to study what it means for man to become a living soul. Even then you would only be starting.

I would first need to be convinced that this happened as described in the Bible.

This is why you need the Holy Spirit of God to guide you and to lead you into the truth. You will not discover the truth for yourself apart from God.

This is, again, assuming that the Bible is the truth. This is something I will always keep an open mind on, but I will need actual evidence to convince me that it is actually the case. I will not assume any conclusion without evidence.

 

[joshua 1 9]

They are of our species. By the scientific definition they are human.

You're free to define the word "human" however you wish, but you'll have to accept that I will stick with the scientific definition and do not accept your definition as valid.

By human we are talking about human like qualities. These are the qualities that make us different from the animals or the other mammals. Even though we do hold things in common with the other mammals because we have a lot of the same hormones as they have. Still there are qualities that make us human, different and distinct from all the other mammals and all the other animals. Science really does not have a clue as to WHY we are different. They put a lot of work into trying to find out, but they can not figure it out. Look at just consciousness sense I just read a book written by a neurologists that spent 15 years on the staff at Harvard University. You would think he would know a little bit of something about what constitutes consciousness. Clearly science has a LOT to learn about this and they have hardly begun to understand. That is why I wonder about you and how old you are, because you seem to understand so little about this subject that you are wanting to talk about. Even the kubbalists say you can not begin to understand until you are at least 40. The mind just will not grasp understanding until you reach that stage. However many stages you think there are in life, but it 7 or 11 or whatever you think they are.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

By human we are talking about human like qualities.

You may be. I'm talking about the species Homo Sapiens.

Science really does not have a clue as to WHY we are different.

How are you defining the word "why", here? If you mean by it that science does not yet have a complete picture of what is different about our brains from animal brains (and, indeed, that there is still no consensus on whether or not we are different to animals through a matter of degree of cognition or whether we actually have truly unique thought processes), then that is correct. But it is being worked on, and we are closer to an answer than we were even a decade ago.

If you mean by it that we do not know the point of our increased cognitive abilities, then I would say that those kinds of "why" questions aren't ones that science concerns itself with.

They put a lot of work into trying to find out, but they can not figure it out. Look at just consciousness sense I just read a book written by a neurologists that spent 15 years on the staff at Harvard University. You would think he would know a little bit of something about what constitutes consciousness.

I don't believe we've yet come up with a coherent definition of "consciousness". Perhaps we never will. This does not imply that the answer is "God", "souls", or anything of that ilk. In fact, not knowing the answer, rather implies exactly that - we do not know the answer. That is not a call to stop asking the questions, but instead to keep asking them.

However many stages you think there are in life, but it 7 or 11 or whatever you think they are.

I think the idea of thinking of life as having distinct, clearly-delineated "stages" is rather simplistic and not supported by observational data.

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Let's make this really simple. You purchase a box of LEGO pieces and let them sit somewhere. What is the probability that they will arrange themselves into any kind of structure? On the other hand, you put the structure together and invite a friend and ask "Did someone build that, or did it just come together by happenstance?" You already know the answer.

So the fact that a creature like the hummingbird exists should cause any rational, intelligent person to ask the question "How could such a creature come about without a Creator?" And there you have your answer. And then you look around all of creation, all of the creatures, and how they function, and all the heavenly bodies, and how they function, and the only LOGICAL explanation is the existence of the Creator.

An atheist is one who denies reality, and lives in a fantasy of his own making, in which he considers himself to be far superior to those poor deluded mortals who believe in God and the Lord Jesus Christ. It is not enough to simply believe in the Creator. Unless one fully believes that the Creator also became our Savior, he continues in his delusions.

But when you turn your own logic towards the Creator then doesn't it demand that he himself had to be created by a greater intelligence?

 

[TheQuietRiot]

The Bible actually does not contradict itself. Written by approximately 40 men of diverse backgrounds over the course of 1500 years, you would expect contradictions but there are none. There are paradoxes but that can be resolved. I spent years researching what looked like contradictions and everyone of them I was able to resolve. I spend many many years searching for contradictions between Science and the Bible and there are none. God gave us science and God gave us the Bible and God CAN NOT contradict Himself.

There are numerous simple and complex contradictions within the Bible.

I can show them too you if you like.

 

[KWCrazy]

This is probably the most famous example

OH MY HEAVENS!!! A bacteria added citrus to its diet. This is the best you can do?
I guess this means you have nothing.
By the way, have you seen anyone giving birth to babies with leaves instead of hair? If humans share the same ancestry as trees, them we should still have that genetic information in our DNA.

 

[KWCrazy]

Although you haven't answered as to how the two different creation myths in the Bible can be said to conform with reality when the order of events described don't match between both accounts, nor with the current scientific understanding.

There are no myths in the Bible. There is one creation account, not two. Genesis two begins with Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. How, then, could it be a creation account? It is not. It is the beginning of the history of man. Perhaps you should learn something about the Scriptures if your intent here is to attack them.