• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

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

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by verysincere, Feb 24, 2013.

  1. KWCrazy

    KWCrazy Newbie

    +1,904
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    That's about as irrelevant as could be. How about the use of that world in other places in Twelfth Night? If it was used 357 other times in the same play, all meaning the same thing, would it not make sense that it meant the same in act one? The meaning in the dictionary maens nothing if the author is consistent. Even if he has the meaning wrong, you can't say that he meant different things by it throughout the play. Your analogy is ludicrous.
    Irrelevant. It's usage has nothing to do with people's daily interactions. We're talking about its usage in the Bible. when used as it is in Genesis, it ALWAYS means a single 24 hour day. Period. 357 times out of 357 after Genesis.
    Irrelevant.
    Irrelevant. 357 out of 357.
    And I expect you to answer how long the evenings and mornings were. You're on here as a minister's wife arguing against the verbiage of the Bible. That's not exactly the position I would expect.
    Once again, were aren't talking about Hebrew linguistics, were are talking about what is written in the Scriptures and how it is used throughout the Bible. Knowledge of Hebrew is useless if you don;t know how it was used THEN. For example, just in my lifetime the meanng of words in our lexicon have taken on entirely different meanings. You have to be consistent with the time frame. If the meaning of the designated evening and morning meant the same thing 357 times out of 357 times, then one would think it meant exactly that. It is used differently when it means long periods of time, such as "in the days of Noah." You know this. Why are you misrepresenting it?
     
  2. MrsLurking

    MrsLurking Retired Biblical scholar; Verysincere's wife.

    208
    +2
    Christian
    Married
    I would by all means encourage you to read the Book of Proverbs for a full appreciation of what it has to say about those who mock instruction and who refuse knowledge and wisdom. It is a marvelous book which summarizes various types of people and how to deal with them. It also talks about those who enjoy creating strife, attacking others, and routinely promoting folly and a contempt for what they could learn from others if they would but be willing to hear and heed.
     
  3. KWCrazy

    KWCrazy Newbie

    +1,904
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Isn't that what you've done? You still haven't answered how long the days of creation were.
    While I have not attacked you, you HAVE attacked me personally. I still haven't received an accurate explanation of what you meant by "my type."

    You haven't imparted knowledge and wisdom. You've blathered on about how day can be used to mean other than one day, but you have yet to cite any Scriptural references to indicate that the days of Genesis could mean anything else.

    Moreover, while I'm defending the intergrity of the Scriptures, you're insinuating that creation took longer than six days, which would falsify Exodus 20:11. You post as a minister's wife, but seem to have an antipathy toward the Scriptures and those whe believe them to be the inspired word of God.

    You remind me of 2 Peter:
    2 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
    2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

    20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

    You are blending the miracle of creation wth the assumptions of man. God's word doesn't work that way.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 2, 2013
  4. KWCrazy

    KWCrazy Newbie

    +1,904
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Why is it that, when people make proclamations in the name of the Scriptures that are contrary to the Scriptures that they can never, NEVER seem to find anything in the Bible to support their positions?
     
  5. MrsLurking

    MrsLurking Retired Biblical scholar; Verysincere's wife.

    208
    +2
    Christian
    Married
    And yet (1) they do, but (2) you simply ignore them and pretend that they don't support their positions from the scriptures.

    You decided long ago that simple DENIAL of anything you didn't like (and ignoring it) was both a simple and effective strategy. It is much like the cliches "There's no evidence for evolution" and "There's zero transitional fossil forms." When you have no evidence for your position, an effective strategy is to simply deny that the other side has lots of evidence.

    Goodbye. Those who simply misstate the facts provide no meaningful discussion.
     
  6. KWCrazy

    KWCrazy Newbie

    +1,904
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    You have yet to back up anything you've said other than an obtuse and unreleated passage from Hosea that had absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter. I've asked you multiple direct questions and you've failed to answer any of them. Like any God denying atheist or uninformed person who contends that mutually exclusive positions are equally true, I haven't seen anything to separate you form anyone else who comes to this forum to attack the Scriptures, their veracity and their relevance.
    Once more you are bearing false witness against me. You don't know me, what I've decided or when. I've repeatedly asked for verses of Scripture to give validity to ANYTHING that you or any of the others who attack God's word say, and I get nothing but bluster and falsehood. If you were married to a minister, surely he could have taught you some verses SOMEWHERE along the line that would support what you say.
    You aren't one for staying on topic are you? As for evidence of evolution, there is plenty of evidence that speciation happened both before and after the Great Flood. If you believe that all of life evolved from a single common progenitor, how can you possibly justify that position through the Scriptures? I can understand those arguments coming from atheists. but from a Christian and the wife of a minister I would expect SOME kind of response. When a teacher tells me that the Bible is false, then the Bible tells me the teacher is false.
    I've given evidence of my position. You have not. You claimed to have knowledge of the Scriptures and I haven't seen a single word of it. You talk about the Hebrew language and i showed you exactly how it was used in the Bible 357 times outside of Genesis 1. You have yet to provide a single rational explanation of anything. You have done nothing but insult, attack and inflame. I've answered everything you've asked and you've answered nothing. You've stated things that were intentionally false and have made assumptions about me personally that you can't validate. Why did you even involve yourself in this if you have nothing to offer but platitudes and falsehoods?
    That's true. You haven't. You've presented no facts, no logical argument, and other than re-stating the same things I hear from atheists about the Hebrew language, I've seen nothing. Sorry. You've contributed nothing here.
     
  7. Mr Strawberry

    Mr Strawberry Newbie

    +64
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    It's interesting that after your list of supernatural claims all you have as a pay-off is the limp threat "you'd better be right". One would have thought that a defender of 'the good news' would have something better than an impotent threat as their last line of defence.

    Of course, the reciprocal of your otherworldly threat is the very real tragedy of you wasting your finite existence trying to uphold the delusions of people long dead who were wrong.
     
  8. driewerf

    driewerf a day at the Zoo

    +235
    Atheist
    Married
    I want to spend a little space to the typical creationist fallacy of the mature creation. When confronted with observetations of an old Universe creationists fall back on this kind of argument.

    There is a certain logic that god created Adam as an adult and not as a helpless baby. There is a certain logic that god created the trees fruit bearing etc. The creation wouldn't work without these

    But this does not address the question of the many features on earth that point to an old age. If we draw a time line from 4.5 billion years ago to know, I am quite sure that there will be not one stretch of a million years in which geolgists can place an event. The many magnetic revearsals on the ocean floor, the formation of the Deccan traps, the many layers of the Great Canyon, the different Ice Ages, hundreds of known impact craters (and many more if we include the Moon and Mercury). These are all features that are not necessary for the creation to work (unlike mature trees etc), yet that we see.
    And then there are astronomical features, like supernovae. We see stars much further away then 6000 Ly, so there light has had to travel longer than the available 6000 years (see the starlight problem) (*)(**) . Creationists claim that god created light "en route". But What about supernovae. There we reseve what -- light from a star that never existed. Checkmate, creationists!
    To present on a par these the mature trees with all these "useless" features (or, as creationists go, remain silent about) needs to be exposed.




    (*) Starlight problem - RationalWiki
    (**) Creationists limit there science always to "cute science". When discussing the ToE they limit themselves to easy animals like monkey cats and dogs, never, more "exotic" animals with difficult names. When speaking about dynosaurs they lilit themselves to dynosaurs, never mention any species like Apathosaurus. When discussing astronomy they limit themselves to stars, never venturing to galaxies or clusters of galaxies.
     
  9. MrsLurking

    MrsLurking Retired Biblical scholar; Verysincere's wife.

    208
    +2
    Christian
    Married
    Yes, a kind of logic is in the "embedded age" hypothesis---but it simply represents a "bad guess" from centuries ago when readers of the Biblical text had no knowledge of the scientific evidence to draw upon. Now we have a better understanding of how the biosphere would have developed gradually in order to "work".

    Adam was "man" as a species; the word is NOT saying that he was a mature adult male. English readers often misunderstand this. In fact, elsewhere in the same chapter of Genesis the same Hebrew word refers to BOTH the man and the woman, so we know that it is NOT "adult male" that is the meaning.

    Nothing in Genesis states that creation was created in some sort of "mature state" with billions of years of embedded age already present. No "false history" is mentioned.
     
  10. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,289
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
    Genesis 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.


    From Adam Clarke's Commentary on Genesis 2:5 ...
    As you said, no false history is mentioned.
    That is correct; embedded age is maturity without history.
     
  11. TLK Valentine

    TLK Valentine You will be who you will be. We are our choices.

    +15,675
    Agnostic
    Single
    Maturity without history is an illusion.
     
  12. TheReasoner

    TheReasoner Former christian, current teapot agnostic.

    +641
    Atheist
    Married
    Can you show one example where supernaturalists have been right in their predictions? ONE testable example? Just one?

    Only thing is, you appear to claim that's when things started. We know for a fact that is not true. So we have a case here where you and your brethren actively preach a known falsehood, and despite your position being thoroughly falsified you keep preaching it. Often to usually or in some cases darn near always without a touch of integrity, logical consistency or decency.

    I wonder why you believe as you do. you have to violate your own belief in order to believe what you do; You guys violate the ninth commandment unbelievably often. So the question I have is then; Do you REALLY believe? Because it does not seem that way. It really does not. Not when you must resort to deceit and dishonesty to maintain that faith.

    Few people here categorically deny that he exists. What IS said and asked is; Why should we believe when A: It really seems he/she/it/them does/do not exist?
    B: You cannot show neither through reason nor through empirical data that the existence of a god is likely.
    The statement "Okay, you say god is real. Can you show us why we should believe the same?" does not imply denial. We are not denying or rejecting god or gods. We don't believe they exist, and the data appears to support that position.
    And you can claim he is till your face turns blue. That does not make it so either.
    No. I have experienced that holy spirit jazz, and while it is possible that the holy spirit is real and powerful and so on. It is not the most likely explanation. It is possible, and indeed it is regularly done, to put oneself into a trance by way of will or a plethora or arbitrary rituals; Sane or not, one can induce many such experiences by perfectly natural psychological methods. And plenty of religious people from all kinds of religions do.
    Again, no. Been there also. Seen demon possessed people rock back and fprth and spew foam and so on and so forth. Of course said "demon possessed" personages were also survivors of severe abuse and trauma; They were really deeply scarred psychologically. So; More likely explanations exist than demons and trolls. It's just an explanation people attach to what they do not understand.
    Only if you're wrong about your god. Would he really damn people for not believing in something that is totally counterintuitive, is in fact contradicted by the very creation he is said to have created? Not for what one has done, a horrible murderer and rapist will be saved and go straight to eternal reward if he just says a few words before he dies. Hitler, if he died a christian man - will be saved. If M. Gandhi died an unbeliever he would be damned. Not for deeds. Not for purity of heart. Not for loving or hating others. No. Just for saying or not saying a few words and joining your gang.
    Not even for rejecting him/her/it. Just for not believing something someone told you one time without bringing any justification apart from this fear mongery.
    That is neither loving nor just. So, if your god is loving and just as you claim, then we need not fear.
    This deity is also supposedly omniscient. Which means he knows us all better than we know ourselves. This means he knows we (most of us) try our best. Want to do right and good by others, and contribute to making this world a better place. He will also know that our unbelief is not an act of rebellion, but an honest call because of the data available to us. If he despite all this happens to be real and still condemns me to eternal damnation that would be okay. That kind of being is not someone I would want to be around.
    I don't have a whole lot of fear on that point, KWC. I do not really respond well to empty (or non-empty) threats like this random-administration-of-eternal-hellfire-and-brimstone fearmongery you guys have got going on here.
     
  13. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,289
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Cool ... let's see an illusionist do it, then.
     
  14. MrsLurking

    MrsLurking Retired Biblical scholar; Verysincere's wife.

    208
    +2
    Christian
    Married
    I have no idea why you think Genesis 2:5 describes embedded age! Perhaps you simply don't understand King James' English. The verse says that before water was brought to Eden and before man was there to work the soil, the area which would later become known as "the garden in Eden" was devoid of plant life. How can you POSSIBLY construe that to speak of "embedded age"? (Of course, I ask that question after already having noticed that you quite regularly imagine all sorts of things which do not exist in the Bible.)

    And why someone should care whether Adam Clarke long ago agreed with you is unclear. Most of us want to know what the Bible says, not what some long dead commentator said. (If you merely want to establish that the myth of embedded age is an old one, we can all agree with that.)
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2013
  15. Catherineanne

    Catherineanne Well-Known Member

    +4,395
    United Kingdom
    Anglican
    Widowed
    Consistency. Those who are deliberately misinformed about one topic have a higher than average chance of being deliberately misinformed about all other topics.

    I see no real problem with disagreeing with such people on two separate points. A far greater problem would be finding oneself in agreement with them on something; this would necessitate a radical and searching reassessment of whatever it is we happen to agree on, just in case. And preferably changing one's mind to differ as much as humanly possible.

    :wave:
     
  16. Catherineanne

    Catherineanne Well-Known Member

    +4,395
    United Kingdom
    Anglican
    Widowed
    Embedded age is a theory that equates in my opinion to satan worship, and the greatest denial of Biblical authority.

    Here is why. Our God is Truth, and he tells us not to bear false witness.

    The theory of embedded age postulates a god of deception; one who deliberately plants false evidence in his creation, to bear false witness against the age of the earth, inter alia, in order to intentionally mislead the people who find that evidence.

    The only god who could do it is the prince of this world; satan, because he is a liar and the father of all lies. Embedded age is deception, aka a lie, and therefore can only be the product of satan. It cannot under any circumstances whatever be the product of the Living God, who is Truth. He could not do this, and he would not want to even if he could; he is not a liar.

    Therefore, either the world correctly attests to its own age, or else the world attests to the deceptions of satan; its creator. But to regard the world as created by a liar; with lies contained in it, would deny Genesis, which says that God created the world.

    If God created the world, then there can be no false witness contained within it; no embedded age. If there is embedded age, then the world is necessarily the creation of satan.

    Therefore, embedded age is the single greatest denial of Genesis, and of God's sovereignty, ever known.

    Your choice.
     
  17. TLK Valentine

    TLK Valentine You will be who you will be. We are our choices.

    +15,675
    Agnostic
    Single
    According to you, we already have.
     
  18. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,289
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    That's not my problem.
    Perhaps I do.
    I'm familiar with the Garden of Eden being devoid of plant life (on purpose, I might add), and have said so before; but Eden itself (or Pangaea for those who like to speak in tongues), was created fully-mature in a moment of time.

    The Garden of Eden was hypergrown just before God placed Adam in it to be married.

    In other words, God built the chapel that Adam and Eve were married in.
    If you don't understand it, it's not my problem.
    It's better than reducing what is in there to imagination.
    He didn't ... I agree with him.
    Good for most of us.
    Not on your life.
     
  19. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,289
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Thank you -- I'll exercise that right.
     
  20. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,289
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Your turn now.
     
Loading...