• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Why do creationists insist that the theory of evolution is inherently atheistic?

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,844
52,562
Guam
✟5,139,463.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You know AV, most people realize there was no global flood.

That's their prerogative, but then I don't think they have a right to say one explanation is worse than someone else's.

If I don't believe water exists, what difference does it make to me if someone tells me it rained or snowed?

By the same token, if one doesn't believe in the Flood story, what difference does it make if one person believes the water was annihilated, or one person believes the water was taken to Neptune?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,844
52,562
Guam
✟5,139,463.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yeah, right, because that is obviously something you have never claimed. You haven't spent years claiming that and arguing that position in endless threads. Not you, obviously.

Link ... please?
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,464
597
✟87,895.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
just because some hypothesis allegedly contradicts the Bible does NOT logically require that that hypothesis denies the existence of God.
If the hypothesis contradicts the Bible, the hypothesis is denying God's inspired word, which is also a denial of the God who inspired the word.

A denial of my word is a denial of me. If my word is not true, then I am considered a liar. But if my word is true but is rejected, then I am being denied.

Any hypothesis that contradicts God's inspired word (the Bible) is a denial of God's inspired truth.
 
Upvote 0

verysincere

Exegete/Linguist
Jan 18, 2012
2,461
87
Haiti
✟25,646.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Originally Posted by TheReasoner
You know AV, most people realize there was no global flood.

except true believers of the bible:preach:

The ol' No True Scotsman Fallacy.

But as a former young earth creationist, I certainly understand how a young person [just like me in my YEC days] can feel absolutely convinced that the Bible refers to a "global flood" ---even though the Bible says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about a planet-wide flood. It is fascinating how the traditional translation choice of the word "earth" can be assumed to mean "planet earth" instead of "the ground" or "the land".

For newcomers, here it is one more time:

1) ERETZ in Genesis means "land", "country", or "region". Even today, ERETZ ISRAEL means "Land of Israel" or "Nation of Israel", never "Planet Israel."

2) "Everything under heaven" (or "everything under the sky") is a Hebrew expression that refers to everything we see in the world that is not above us.

3) ERETZ is not a modern term from astronomy that names this planet. It is the ancient Hebrew view of where we live: a circular disk of land which extends to the horizon in all directions. The "universe" to the ancient children of Israel was "land and sky" and "the earth and the heavens"---but the latter was not about astronomy and a solar system model. It was a way to describe the world upon which we live and the reality which was up above: the sun, moon, stars, comets, etc.

4) Indeed, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" uses "the heavens and the earth" virtually as an idiom for "In the beginning God created everything."

Yes, the presumption of a planet-wide flood is a great example of the Anachronism Fallacy. Just because we think of "the earth" as a huge planet hurtling through space does NOT mean that the writer of Genesis had any such concept in mind. To him, "the earth" was simply that circular disk of LAND which extended to the horizon and was covered by a dome known as "the firmament" and was part of "the heavens" (Plural: HASHAMAYIM.)

So, Frenchfrye, I certainly understand why you feel certain that Noah's flood was global and you even think that Genesis TELLS you that the flood was global. But if you read very very carefully ---especially if you read the original Hebrew Masoretic Text----you will find that there is absolutely NO indication that the Noahic Flood was planet-wide in scope. None. Zilch. Nada. But tradition is a powerful force and it held me in its sway for decades. Indeed, even now my greatest "blinder" whenever I read the Bible is my tendency to want to impose my own impressions and traditions upon what the Biblical text ACTUALLY states. It takes a lot of practice and determination to allow the text to speak for itself.

So don't feel discouraged. I was once in your shoes. Thankfully, there are many good commentaries and even Hebrew helps which can walk you through the basics of understand what the Biblical text does and DOES NOT state.

And welcome to this venue where you can have those opportunities to hear perspectives which CHALLENGE TRADITIONS.
 
Upvote 0

Mr Strawberry

Newbie
Jan 20, 2012
4,180
81
Great Britain
✟27,542.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Link ... please?

Just pick one of your endless fruit challenge threads at random.

Now, are you going to explain how your Bible quote about Jesus was a good comparison now? or are you just going to hope the question goes away if you keep repeating "link please/"
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
SFS clearly has you pegged accurately and that is why you went ballistic over his dead-on post.

Nobody is fooled, Mark.

SFS was indeed dead on, I agree.

Mark isn't trying to fool us.... he is trying to fool himself. Or at least, trying to keep himself fooled.. otherwise his little world collapses and there is no God, etc., etc.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,844
52,562
Guam
✟5,139,463.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
1) ERETZ in Genesis means "land", "country", or "region".

Really?

Doesn't the tongues version of Genesis 1:1 say ...

In the beginning, God created the heaven and the eretz?

Isn't it true that the first time 'eretz' is used, it is referring to planet earth?
 
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟90,577.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It would have killed off vast amounds of marine life we have today - whales for example.
Last time I checked, marine life could swim. Although some might have been trapped on land as the waters receded. If the flood really happened, we might even see whale fossils in the dessert.
Water does not inundate landmasses without any trace. What's more, there is not enough water on earth.
Ever look a a picture of the earth from space? 2/3 of its surface is covered by water. You're assuming that the massive amounts of water the covers the earth and the water vapor the makes up the atmosphere were always the same. The fact is, without knowing exactly what the world was like before the flood we can't know what all the effects were. Beyond that, there's the simple fact that the flood was a miracle. NONE of the natural forces we might assume were in play neccessarily functioned as we think they did. Miracles defy science. They are not bound by the laws of science.
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,464
597
✟87,895.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I could list about 10 other theories that are at least as good, if not better than evolution.
A theory better than evolution? What's is it?
rubbing-hands-in-excitement-smiley-emoticon.gif
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
If the hypothesis contradicts the Bible, the hypothesis is denying God's inspired word, which is also a denial of the God who inspired the word.
What if it just contadicts your fallible interpretation of the bible.... same thing in your mind, isn't it? ;)

A denial of my word is a denial of me. If my word is not true, then I am considered a liar. But if my word is true but is rejected, then I am being denied.

Any hypothesis that contradicts God's inspired word (the Bible) is a denial of God's inspired truth.
No TE here is denying God's inspired truth. They are just being accussed of doing so by their creationist "brothers in Christ." :preach:
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,844
52,562
Guam
✟5,139,463.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Just pick one of your endless fruit challenge threads at random.

Now, are you going to explain how your Bible quote about Jesus was a good comparison now? or are you just going to hope the question goes away if you keep repeating "link please/"

Mr. Strawberry, you claim I was the one who brought Last Thursdayism into this thread, and you did so by accusing me of saying something I have never said.

Either show me a link where I claim God embedded history into His creation, or admit (at least to yourself) you were wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Frenchfrye

spreading the bible
May 17, 2012
528
7
28
✟15,732.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
Originally Posted by TheReasoner
You know AV, most people realize there was no global flood.



The ol' No True Scotsman Fallacy.

But as a former young earth creationist, I certainly understand how a young person [just like me in my YEC days] can feel absolutely convinced that the Bible refers to a "global flood" ---even though the Bible says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about a planet-wide flood. It is fascinating how the traditional translation choice of the word "earth" can be assumed to mean "planet earth" instead of "the ground" or "the land".

For newcomers, here it is one more time:

1) ERETZ in Genesis means "land", "country", or "region". Even today, ERETZ ISRAEL means "Land of Israel" or "Nation of Israel", never "Planet Israel."

2) "Everything under heaven" (or "everything under the sky") is a Hebrew expression that refers to everything we see in the world that is not above us.

3) ERETZ is not a modern term from astronomy that names this planet. It is the ancient Hebrew view of where we live: a circular disk of land which extends to the horizon in all directions. The "universe" to the ancient children of Israel was "land and sky" and "the earth and the heavens"---but the latter was not about astronomy and a solar system model. It was a way to describe the world upon which we live and the reality which was up above: the sun, moon, stars, comets, etc.

4) Indeed, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" uses "the heavens and the earth" virtually as an idiom for "In the beginning God created everything."

Yes, the presumption of a planet-wide flood is a great example of the Anachronism Fallacy. Just because we think of "the earth" as a huge planet hurtling through space does NOT mean that the writer of Genesis had any such concept in mind. To him, "the earth" was simply that circular disk of LAND which extended to the horizon and was covered by a dome known as "the firmament" and was part of "the heavens" (Plural: HASHAMAYIM.)

So, Frenchfrye, I certainly understand why you feel certain that Noah's flood was global and you even think that Genesis TELLS you that the flood was global. But if you read very very carefully ---especially if you read the original Hebrew Masoretic Text----you will find that there is absolutely NO indication that the Noahic Flood was planet-wide in scope. None. Zilch. Nada. But tradition is a powerful force and it held me in its sway for decades. Indeed, even now my greatest "blinder" whenever I read the Bible is my tendency to want to impose my own impressions and traditions upon what the Biblical text ACTUALLY states. It takes a lot of practice and determination to allow the text to speak for itself.

So don't feel discouraged. I was once in your shoes. Thankfully, there are many good commentaries and even Hebrew helps which can walk you through the basics of understand what the Biblical text does and DOES NOT state.

And welcome to this venue where you can have those opportunities to hear perspectives which CHALLENGE TRADITIONS.

7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”
He said all so I'm going to assume he meant all
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Really?

Doesn't the tongues version of Genesis 1:1 say ...

In the beginning, God created the heaven and the eretz?

Isn't it true that the first time 'eretz' is used, it is referring to planet earth?

Do you understand what an idiom is?
 
Upvote 0

TheReasoner

Atheist. Former Christian.
Mar 14, 2005
10,294
684
Norway
✟37,162.00
Country
Norway
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
If the hypothesis contradicts the Bible, the hypothesis is denying God's inspired word, which is also a denial of the God who inspired the word.
OR you're wrong. It has happened before. People used to say the bible supported slavery, racial segregation, gender discrimination, wars, geocentrism and even a flat world. You would consider all of these people obviouslt wrong (I hope) yet somehow you do not see that you are guilty of the same 'sin'.
A denial of my word is a denial of me. If my word is not true, then I am considered a liar. But if my word is true but is rejected, then I am being denied.
Yet a denial of YOUR INTERPRETATION would not be so. Yet you blaspheme and put your own interpretation in your god's place. It is not his word you revere, if it were you would admit to your own fallibility in it's interpretation. Despite people making the same mistake time and time again before you, you refuse to learn and arrogantly state that this time you are absolutely right in your human understanding. So right in fact that annoying things like evidence and facts that contradict your opinion can be readily dismissed without further thought.
Such fanaticism is dangerous, doveaman.
Any hypothesis that contradicts God's inspired word (the Bible) is a denial of God's inspired truth.

Well, in these questions, such as the age of the universe, whether a global flood occurred or not, whether evolution is real... We're not talking about hypotheses, but solidly confirmed theories.
A believer would say that the study of god's creation would not possibly contradict god, but only help him cleanse himself of misconceptions about god. Yet you deny what you think your god gave you in terms of creation in favor of your own mind's shoddy, unwise and gridlocked thinking.
 
Upvote 0

TheReasoner

Atheist. Former Christian.
Mar 14, 2005
10,294
684
Norway
✟37,162.00
Country
Norway
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”
He said all so I'm going to assume he meant all

If so, why does nothing indicate there was a global flood?

Which is more likely to be true, that you misunderstood or that your god lied consistently through his entire creation?
 
Upvote 0

Mr Strawberry

Newbie
Jan 20, 2012
4,180
81
Great Britain
✟27,542.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Mr. Strawberry, you claim I was the one who brought Last Thursdayism into this thread, and you did so by accusing me of saying something I have never said.

Either show me a link where I claim God embedded history into His creation, or admit (at least to yourself) you were wrong.

I told you, pick any of your fruit challenge threads. There have been many of them and you say the same thing in every one.

Now, you are aware that the main problem with what you say is that it leads to your God being called a deceiver, which leads us back to your original post in which you talk about your God being called a deceiver and then use a Bible quote about Jesus as a comparison. I'm asking you how that comparison fits.
 
Upvote 0

Frenchfrye

spreading the bible
May 17, 2012
528
7
28
✟15,732.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
If so, why does nothing indicate there was a global flood?

Which is more likely to be true, that you misunderstood or that your god lied consistently through his entire creation?

Well God can't lie and that says all of the people were killed and it later says all the animals and plants were destroyed so unless the whole earth was flooded, it couldn't have happened:hug:
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Well God can't lie and that says all of the people were killed and it later says all the animals and plants were destroyed so unless the whole earth was flooded, it couldn't have happened:hug:

Do you understand that the authors were not refering to all life on the planet?
 
Upvote 0