What your best sources backing creation?

[ydouxist]

Thanks.

 

[Dracil]

http://www.talkorigins.org
If it's a bit more obscure, I check out the actual newsgroup. The google archive is at http://groups.google.com/groups?q=talk.origins&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search

 

[Bushido216]

http://www.talkorigins.org

SHAZAM!

 

[Sinai]

What your best sources backing creation?

Thanks.

1. The Bible--especially the first chapter of Genesis

2. The big bang theory and evidence supporting it

 

[lucaspa]

Thanks.

1. The Bible for the who and why about creation.
2. Pubmed or talkorigins for the how creation happened.

 

[Talcos Stormweaver]

Agreed, the bible shows why.

Evidence for creation, or creationism?

Creation can easily include evolution.

Creationism is not exactly creation, but is rather yet a scientific view of creation in a literal interpretation.

 

[Krichevskoy]

Creationism is not exactly creation, but is rather yet a scientific view of creation in a literal interpretation.

The Creationism you speak of puts God in a scientific context. This is my logic regarding God theories:

-Science can only deal with that which can be observed and measured.
-God is most certainly beyond our abilities to observe and measure.
-Therefore, to place God in our science is to diminish Him to concept that can fit within the limits of human awareness.

This is the purpose of faith- to go beyond what we can know on our own.

 

[Bushido216]

No, we're not putting God into a scientific context. Science is the study of God's creations. All Christian Scientists anywhere, YEC or TE, are trying to do is find the how of God's creation.

 

[Pete Murphy]

Check out the "answers in genesis" website.

I tried to type the address for you but a warning came up that said I don't have enough posts to actually type the address to an external link - but the site name is answersingenesis one word with a .org on the end it. And a www on the front. Hope that gets around it.

 

[lucaspa]

Check out the "answers in genesis" website.

I tried to type the address for you but a warning came up that said I don't have enough posts to actually type the address to an external link - but the site name is answersingenesis one word with a .org on the end it. And a www on the front. Hope that gets around it.

Pete, we've all been there. Yes, it is a resource for creationism. But it isn't a reliable source on creation. That's because the data in God's Creation shows that creationism isn't how God created. AiG has the method of creation wrong. Sorry.

 

[BabbleOn8806]

the Bible.
no regrets.
no compromise. hehehe

 

[Bushido216]

By saying that you're automatically assuming that your literal interpretation is "the" interpretation.

 

[Ark Guy]

The best sorce for proof of creation?

Simple, good old fashion science.

look around.

 

[Ark Guy]

By saying that you're automatically assuming that your literal interpretation is "the" interpretation.

Tell me why anyone should accept a mythological interpretation of Genesis?

....the Old Testament dudes didn't. Neither did the New Testament characters.

Heck, the bible presents it as literal....no where does it even hint at being some sort of allegory.

Of course if you need to filter your bible through mans fallible science, ...evolution in particular.....then there is the need for an allegory.

Of course we all also know that the resurrection was impossible. People just don't rise up on day three. Or so centuries of medical science teaches. So, once again, if your going to filter your bible through science, what about the resurrection? Was it also a simple allegory?

 

[Ark Guy]

Pete, we've all been there. Yes, it is a resource for creationism. But it isn't a reliable source on creation. That's because the data in God's Creation shows that creationism isn't how God created. AiG has the method of creation wrong. Sorry.

Hmmmmm, sounds like you are saying that the author of Genesis, Moses I believe, also has the creation story wrong.

Now that makes me wonder about just how much of the other portions of the bible are true. After all if creation was an allegorical myth....why not the resurrection of Jesus Christ?

 

[Bushido216]

Tell me why anyone should accept a mythological interpretation of Genesis?

....the Old Testament dudes didn't. Neither did the New Testament characters.

Heck, the bible presents it as literal....no where does it even hint at being some sort of allegory.

Of course if you need to filter your bible through mans fallible science, ...evolution in particular.....then there is the need for an allegory.

Of course we all also know that the resurrection was impossible. People just don't rise up on day three. Or so centuries of medical science teaches. So, once again, if your going to filter your bible through science, what about the resurrection? Was it also a simple allegory?

The same hackeney'd arguements over, and over, and over again.

http://christianforums.com/t79831&highlight=lucaspa Read post #16, one of lucaspa's posts.

Have a good day.

 

[Micaiah]

My source -

The One whose strength and wisdom are infinite.
The One who created our universe from nothing.
The One who revealled the essential facts of Creation in His Word.

 

[lucaspa]

Tell me why anyone should accept a mythological interpretation of Genesis?

We've done this several times, Ark Guy. You really need to address the points instead of ignoring them. Not necessary mythological as there is no truth in them, but not literal. See end of post for list.

....the Old Testament dudes didn't. Neither did the New Testament characters.

Actually, both did. Neither the editor of Genesis or Jesus or Paul referred to the creation stories as literal. They all looked upon them as theological stories.

Heck, the bible presents it as literal....no where does it even hint at being some sort of allegory.

Not all of Genesis 1-3 is allegory. Genesis 2-3 is. When the 'names' of the first man and woman are "Dirt" and "Hearth". Big tipoff you are dealing with allegory.

Of course if you need to filter your bible through mans fallible science, ...evolution in particular.....then there is the need for an allegory.

The Midrash and St. Augustine had non-literal interpretations long before there was science. And, BTW, it's also man's fallible interpretation. Christians, for instance, have decided their interpretation of passages on flat and immovable earth were fallible. The entire NT decides that the Jewish interpretations of the passages referring to the Messiah were fallible. The Jews did not agree.

Of course we all also know that the resurrection was impossible. People just don't rise up on day three. Or so centuries of medical science teaches.

Bad science, Ark Guy. This is what atheists try to tell you science says, but science doesn't really say this. I know I've gone over this 3 times in this forum already, but I'll do it once more for the lurkers. And then I expect that I never again will see you use this argument.

Scientifically, what you have with the dead bodies is a THEORY, based upon the individual data points of dead bodies we have observed. The theory states that a person dead will not come back to life. However, you can never prove a theory, you can only test it. So far, all the data supports that theory. BUT, Yeshu's resurrection is DATA. That is the point that has to be kept firmly in mind. The Resurrection is data. Data can always overthrow theory. But you cannot use theory reject data. You cannot generalize from what you have observed to reject the next observation. And that is what you did above. You have used the theory to reject data. Invalid science.

1. There are two (well, really 3) separate creation stories that contradict. One is Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a. The second is Genesis 2:4b - Genesis 5. The third is Genesis 5:1 thru Genesis 8. The contradictions are a clear indication that they are not met to be read literally, because to do so conflicts with Rules 5 and 7 of how to interpret. Call the stories A, B, and C.

Contradictions:
1. The name of God is different between A and B. "Elohim" for A and "Yahweh" for B.
2. In A creation takes 6 days, in B (Genesis 2:4b) it happens in a single day (beyom).
3. In A the order of creation is: plants, water creatures and birds, land creatures, and then plural humans both male and female. In B the order of creation is: no plants but apparently seeds and no rain, a human male, plants, animals and birds (no water creatures), woman. In C males and females plural together are created together.
4. The mechanism of creation is different. In A all entities including creatures are spoken into existence -- "let there be" -- but in B all the animals and birds and the human male are formed from dust or soil. The human female is formed from the rib of the male.
5. Entrance of death for humans. A doesn't mention it. B is internally contradictory. Genesis 2:17 implies that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil will cause death (within the day) but Genesis 3:22 says Adam and Eve are kicked out of the Garden so that they will not eat the fruit of the Tree of Eternal Life and "live forever", saying that they would have died anyway without eating the fruit. C is different. Genesis 6:1-3 says that "heavenly beings" (not mentioned in A and B) are mating with human females. In Genesis 6:3 God decides to make people mortal and limits their lifespan to 120 years. No mention of any fruit of any tree.
6. C says there were "giants" who were the offspring of human females and "heavenly beings". A and B do not mention such offspring.

Names:
"Adam" and "Eve" are not words that are used only as names like "Tom" or "Sally" for us. Instead, "adam" in Hebrew means "dirt" or "earth" and "eve" means "hearth". When the names of characters in stories are those of general characteristics, such as "Pride" or "Death" or "Sower" or "Samaritan", we know we are dealing with allegory and symbolism, not history. We have a story of Dirt and Hearth.

Numerology:
The 6 days of creation in Genesis 1 are organized into 2 three day divisions with each day having 2 major creation events. This fits with the numerology of the time (historical context) where the numbers 2, 3, 6, and especially 7 were thought to have mystical significance. As history, just how likely is it that there were 2 and only 2 major creation events on each day? This is creation story is structured around the numbers, and history does not do that. History is much messier. Of course, creation is structured to culminate in day 7, which is the Sabbath. Since Genesis 1 was written after Israel was a worshipping community, Genesis 1 is not history but artificially devised to give justification for observing the Sabbath.

Singing:
Although written in English as prose, all of the Torah (the original language being Hebrew) is structured to be sung and is still sung by Cantors in Jewish synagogues every Sabbath. Some of the phrases, such as "morning and evening" in Genesis 1, repeat because they are there to give the correct meter to the song.

 

[lucaspa]

My source -

The One whose strength and wisdom are infinite.
The One who created our universe from nothing.
The One who revealled the essential facts of Creation in His Word.

You were doing so well with the first two. The last one, however, isn't "The One" but rather what you think God said in the Bible. And that, of course, turns your back on "The One who created our universe" because you ignore the very universe He created.

Micaiah, who do you think created the universe? Why do you ignore the universe when it comes to figuring out how God created?

 

[Ark Guy]

In the following post you will see how lucaspa reply can be taken apart and easily refuted.

It all sound good when he presents it....but is it? Read on to discover some of the twist lucaspa uses to aid the Theo-Evo approach.