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

Loudmouth · Feb 26, 2013

KWCrazy said:
Blatant falsehood. When talking about the Scriptures, everything I say is based on the Scriptures and backed up by chapter and verse.

But it isn't backed by the Creation itself. That seems to be a very serious problem. Either you are interpretting the Scriptures incorrectly, or Genesis is not an accurate account of history. Take your pick.

We can se various methods of dating things, but much of that is subjective because it presumes static conditions that we can't validate.

They aren't assumed, and they have been validated. We can directly look back at time when looking at stars, and we observe the same laws and even the same decay rates in those stars. There are numerous ways that science has tested the constancy of conditions in the past, and they have been found to be constant.

A fossil can form in a few thousand years. It can also form in days. Without knowing the conditions, we can only speculate as to formation. That's why it's all theory. That's why bones that are supposed millions of years old have sooft tissue. Nobody knows what the condition of the earth was like before the flood.

Floods do not sort fossils so that they are always found under rocks with specific dates as determined by radiometric dating.

AV1611VET · Feb 26, 2013

CabVet said:
Then your mention of "earth's rotation" can take a hike.

Fine, then you can scratch yourself silly wondering about the first four days of creation sans our sun.

AV1611VET · Feb 26, 2013

KWCrazy said:
They forget that light was created on day one. If light existed, one rotation = one day regardless of distance.

Indeed.

CabVet · Feb 26, 2013

AV1611VET said:
Fine, then you can scratch yourself silly wondering about the first four days of creation sans our sun.

Nope, that does not bother me one bit because it is not part of the way evidence indicates how things happened. The only ones that have to wonder about that are Genesis literalists.

CabVet · Feb 26, 2013

AV1611VET said:
Indeed.

Indeed what? Where was light coming from? Your interpretations just generate more questions.

AV1611VET · Feb 26, 2013

verysincere said:
But these are obvious common sense conclusions one can reach even without sharing my life-long career in Biblical studies and Biblical languages. KWCrazy is simply repeating the popular myths he's been told.

Speaking of common sense, how long do you think these YOMs were?

If the universe is 13.7 billion years old, then on average, a YOM is 2.28 billion years.

That means that angiosperms grew on the earth for 2.28 billion years without the sun.

So go ahead and reject a 24-hours explanation; it will only make your explanation look worse.

And for the record, after almost seven years here, not one single "scientist" has ever answered me, when I've asked how long they think these YOMs are.

(Anyone care to break the record?)

AV1611VET · Feb 26, 2013

CabVet said:
Nope, that does not bother me one bit because it is not part of the way evidence indicates how things happened.

Evidence aside, if you can't - even in a hypothetical - understand how a 24-hour period could occur on the earth without a sun, then ... well ... qv my movie file.

Subduction Zone · Feb 26, 2013

KWCrazy said:
They forget that light was created on day one. If light existed, one rotation = one day regardless of distance.

That only shows that at the time of the Genesis myth that the writers of it did not realize that the Sun was the source of light for the Earth. Common sense says that they are right since how could such a small ball of fire light up the whole Earth?

AV1611VET · Feb 26, 2013

CabVet said:
Indeed what? Where was light coming from? Your interpretations just generate more questions.

It doesn't really matter if light existed or not though.

What matters is one rotation of the earth (and even that doesn't matter, but we won't get into that).

Don't you think it's ironic that Internet scientists are bothered as to how the earth could have had three days go by without a sun, yet don't even think to question how the earth went without a sun for three eons -- revolving around what?

In any event, how many years, in your opinion, was a YOM in Genesis 1?

(Be specific please -- we are.)

Loudmouth · Feb 26, 2013

AV1611VET said:
Don't you think it's ironic that Internet scientists are bothered as to how the earth could have had three days go by without a sun, yet don't even think to question how the earth went without a sun for three eons -- revolving around what?

Yes, just like I am worried as to how bean sprouts could grow so quickly from magic beans, and how they could reach a domain in the sky that houses giants. Yes, the things that keep me up at night.

AV1611VET · Feb 26, 2013

Subduction Zone said:
That only shows that at the time of the Genesis myth that the writers of it did not realize that the Sun was the source of light for the Earth.

You interviewed them, did you?

Subduction Zone said:
Common sense says ...

There's that phrase that Internet scientists love to say, but have trouble applying.

AV1611VET · Feb 26, 2013

Loudmouth said:
Yes, just like I am worried as to how bean sprouts could grow so quickly from magic beans, and how they could reach a domain in the sky that houses giants. Yes, the things that keep me up at night.

Obviously you guys' lack of worry shows in your question marks.

If I didn't care a lick about algebra, then it will show on test day, won't it?

Subduction Zone · Feb 26, 2013

AV1611VET said:
You interviewed them, did you?

There's that phrase that Internet scientists love to say, but have trouble applying.

Wrong, I was using it the way that creationist use the term "common sense".

Scientists try to avoid common sense because it is really a synonym for "presonal prejudice".

AV1611VET · Feb 26, 2013

Subduction Zone said:
Wrong, I was using it the way that creationist use the term "common sense".

Scientists try to avoid common sense because it is really a synonym for "presonal prejudice".

In any event, I would not try to apply science or common sense to Genesis 1, or we'll expose you guys for your inability to reason things out on your own.

Some of you may talk sciency on other subjects, but when it comes to applying your reasoning skills to the Scriptures, you're anything but sciency.

A good example is that passage in Joshua that Internet scientists like to use to say the Bible teaches geocentrism.

Instead of applying ... what is it? ... general relativity (?) to explain the passage, you guys scratch yourselves into a tizzy, until one of us explains it for you; then what do you do ... LOL? you still want to argue the point!

And you wonder why I call you guys "Internet scientists," or put "scientist" in quotes? I mean -- do you really?

If you guys are real scientists, it's no wonder we're 26th on the totem pole.

Split Rock · Feb 26, 2013

KWCrazy said:
Split Rock said:

Baseless assertion on your part. You know there are no exceptions? Do you speak old Hebrew???
No, I was quoting someone who does. Believe it or not there are actually people who study that stuff in the seminary.

Click to expand...

Quoting someone?? I didn't see you quote anyone. Who were you quoting? I was quoting verysincere, who has indeed studied "this stuff."

KWCrazy said:

Blatant falsehood. When talking about the Scriptures, everything I say is based on the Scriptures and backed up by chapter and verse.

Click to expand...

And your interpretation of chapter and verse. You really see no difference between what scripture says and what you think it means... do you?

KWCrazy said:

No. The present is not "created" at all. It's a snapshot in history that we see passing by at 16 frames per second. Time was created many years ago. "In the beginning..." was the beginning of time as we know it. Nothing related to time has been "created" since. Things that exist have two sorces; they were created, or they came from other things.

Click to expand...

I didn't say creation ex nihilo did I? I am talking about things coming from other things. We don't have to go back to the origin of the universe at all. Forget I said "create" (since you seem to want to take that literally too) .. lets use "shape" instead. The present we see now was shaped by events in the past, even if you assume the earth was created 6,000 years ago. There are volcanic islands being formed right now at this very moment, for example. Have not volcanic eruptions recorded in history, hurricane Katrina and the Sumatra tsunami not affected what we see in the present?

KWCrazy said:

We can use various methods of dating things, but much of that is subjective because it presumes static conditions that we can't validate. A fossil can form in a few thousand years. It can also form in days. Without knowing the conditions, we can only speculate as to formation. That's why it's all theory. That's why bones that are supposed millions of years old have sooft tissue. Nobody knows what the condition of the earth was like before the flood.

Click to expand...

Geologists do not assume "static conditions." They examine the rocks and make conclusions based on what they see. They also do not make claims about how long it took for a fossil to form.

CabVet · Feb 26, 2013

AV1611VET said:
In any event, I would not try to apply science or common sense to Genesis 1,

Than don't try to apply Genesis 1 to science. To do that is, quite simply put, dishonest.

CabVet · Feb 26, 2013

AV1611VET said:
And you wonder why I call you guys "Internet scientists," or put "scientist" in quotes? I mean -- do you really?

If you guys are real scientists, it's no wonder we're 26th on the totem pole.

Yeah, resorting to personal attacks now, an unmistakable sign of those who have no more arguments.

Subduction Zone · Feb 26, 2013

AV1611VET said:
In any event, I would not try to apply science or common sense to Genesis 1, or we'll expose you guys for your inability to reason things out on your own.

Some of you may talk sciency on other subjects, but when it comes to applying your reasoning skills to the Scriptures, you're anything but sciency.

A good example is that passage in Joshua that Internet scientists like to use to say the Bible teaches geocentrism.

Instead of applying ... what is it? ... general relativity (?) to explain the passage, you guys scratch yourselves into a tizzy, until one of us explains it for you; then what do you do ... LOL? you still want to argue the point!

And you wonder why I call you guys "Internet scientists," or put "scientist" in quotes? I mean -- do you really?

If you guys are real scientists, it's no wonder we're 26th on the totem pole.

Last charge first, no we are 26th on the totem pole because of actions of people like you. Look at the ranking and the belief in creationism in each country and you will find as a general rule the more a country believes in creationism the less well educated and poorer that it is.

And no, you cannot apply either General or Special Relativity to myths.

AV1611VET · Feb 26, 2013

CabVet said:
Than don't try to apply Genesis 1 to science. To do that is, quite simply put, dishonest.

Um ... okie-doke, chief.

Never have -- never will.

AV1611VET · Feb 26, 2013

CabVet said:
Yeah, resorting to personal attacks now, an unmistakable sign of those who have no more arguments.

How many arguments do I need? isn't one enough?

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

Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Question everything

Question everything

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Regular Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Regular Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Conflation of Blathers

Question everything

Question everything

Regular Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency