Why do some Christian's dismiss Creationism?

[gluadys]

Moses wrote most if not all Genesis, St Luke wrote Luke. why moses is a liar but while Luke isn't?

The majority consensus among biblical scholars today is that Moses wrote none of the Torah.

And whether the author was Moses or someone else, no TE is calling the author a liar.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/2/Judaism/jepd.html

Do you have any authority to decide which book is historically false, which is factual truth? They're all God's words.

No, God did not write the words. God inspired the authors. But it is all a revelation of God's Word, whether it is historical or not.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Moses wrote most if not all Genesis, St Luke wrote Luke. why moses is a liar but while Luke isn't?

Do you have any authority to decide which book is historically false, which is factual truth? They're all God's words.

One is not a liar when one tells a nonhistorical story as a nonhistorical story.

One determines whether something is historical by determining whether the literature's genre is historical (such as a history or biography) or nonhistorical (such as poems, myths, parables, or apocalyptic literature).

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

yeah, omniscience.
there's no history writings regarding God if you don't take Bible as a history book.
I don't see your point.

Parts of the Bible are histories but not all. Some tell us about God through nonhistorical texts. Often, a history is not the best method to teach some things about God since many things are not clear simply from the record of God's dealings with man.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Parts of the Bible are histories but not all. Some tell us about God through nonhistorical texts. Often, a history is not the best method to teach some things about God since many things are not clear simply from the record of God's dealings with man.

So when Bibles says
KJV
[BIBLE]
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
[/BIBLE]

what do you think the historic fact is? do you think God says "I created everything on earth in millions of years" and human writer deliberate distorted it, or God knows he created everything in millions of year and choose to say six days himself?

you should give a clear answer who's not telling the historic fact. God or Bible writers?

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Parts of the Bible are histories but not all. Some tell us about God through nonhistorical texts. Often, a history is not the best method to teach some things about God since many things are not clear simply from the record of God's dealings with man.

Do you think one need to distort history to make people accept God? Do you think God is trying to hide some facts for average Christians/Jews for thousands of years when He gives us the Bible?

btw check post #1, another argument added

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

9. Why a week lasts 7 days?

You do realize that a 7 day week is a man made thing. Some cultures had 8 day weeks. There is no scientific difference between wednesday and thursday.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

You do realize that a 7 day week is a man made thing. Some cultures had 8 day weeks. There is no scientific difference between wednesday and thursday.

1. Catholic and most(if not all) Protestant Churches always teach 7 days a week including a sunday is from God
2. Give me an example of a Christian/Jewish culture that has 8 day a week. there're atheistic cultures that has no concept of week at all.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I never implied nor said that christian or jewish culutres observed anything but a 7 day week. As far as I know, christians and jews have always observed such a week. Seven day weeks were observed by many different cultures in the middle east. There are all based on ancient babyonian atrology which made a week 1/4 of the lunar cycle.

However, not ALL cultures on earth followed 7 day weeks in history. THe ancient chinese followed a 10 day week so did the ancient egyptians. Prior to using a 7 day week (borrowed from the persians), the romans followed an 8 day week. Today the 7 day week has been adopted by the whole world as has the christian method of numbering the years (2006). A 7 day week is as artificial as saying that this is 2006.

Do you honestly think that a 7 day week is a natural occurance?

p.s. ever notice that christians observe the sabbath on the wrong day? Jesus observed the sabbath on saturday.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

I never implied nor said that christian or jewish culutres observed anything but a 7 day week. As far as I know, christians and jews have always observed such a week. Seven day weeks were observed by many different cultures in the middle east. There are all based on ancient babyonian atrology which made a week 1/4 of the lunar cycle.

However, not ALL cultures on earth followed 7 day weeks in history. Today the 7 day week has been adopted by the whole world as has the christian method of numbering the years (2006).

Do you honestly think that a 7 day week is a natural occurance?

1. do Christians and Jews' 7 days a week is based on astrology?
1.1 do you think current 7 days a week is a pagen contribution instead of Christian and Jewish one?
2. 7 days is nothing special without God. you said it yourself.

There is no scientific difference between wednesday and thursday

We have 7 days a week because God said so, he finished the creation in 6 days and rested for 1 day more. that's 7 days.

 

[gluadys]

what do you think the historic fact is? do you think God says "I created everything on earth in millions of years" and human writer deliberate distorted it, or God knows he created everything in millions of year and choose to say six days himself?

you should give a clear answer who's not telling the historic fact. God or Bible writers?

Since the bible writers are inspired of God, the answer is both. The creation account in the bible is not intended to be a historical record. It has other purposes.

The most important purposes were to combat polytheism and to make the sabbath a central element of worship and practice.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Since the bible writers are inspired of God, the answer is both. The creation account in the bible is not intended to be a historical record. It has other purposes.

The most important purposes were to combat polytheism and to make the sabbath a central element of worship and practice.

so you think a little(Hardly a little!) distortion of historic fact in the Bible is more effective to bring people to God.

 

[ebia]

As the early chapters of Genesis aren't intended as historical fact they aren't a "distortion of historical fact" any more than they are a distortion of a recipe for cheesecake.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

As the early chapters of Genesis aren't intended as historical fact they aren't a "distortion of historical fact" any more than they are a distortion of a recipe for cheesecake.

ebia, when can you stop disgracing YOUR allies?
according to you, what does "false witness" mean?

 

[lismore]

Yes. even if Darwin hadn't "discovered" evolution. it would eventually have been "discovered" by someone with little faith. no faithful can challenge teaching of his church

Actually evolution theory was first proposed by pagan greek philosphers 2,500 years before Darwin.

'The Greek philosopher Anaximander, who lived in the 500s bc, is generally credited as the earliest evolutionist'

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761554675_6/Evolution.html#p59

Perhaps this was one of the things St paul warned us about when he spoke aboyt myths and fables.

You cant 'discover' something that is unobservable.......you have to take it by faith.........faith in evolution so to speak. Evolution theory is an unprovable theory that some people believe if they wish to, believing in a missing missing link

 

[Dannager]

You cant 'discover' something that is unobservable.......you have to take it by faith.........faith in evolution so to speak. Evolution theory is an unprovable theory that some people believe if they wish to, believing in a missing missing link

lismore, that would most certainly hold true if we weren't able to observe evolution. Fortunately, we can observe evolution, and it was through these observations that the theory has been constructed over the years. No faith is required, other than the most basic faith that the world around us does not lie. And you are correct that evolutionary theory is unprovable - so is the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, germ theory, and every single other scientific theory that still stands today. Science does not ever prove anything, lismore. It only seeks to propose theories to explain facts, and then test them until they are disproven. Evolutionary theory has not yet been disproven - this means that it is a good theory.

For more information on what a scientific theory is, and how it relates to facts, please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory, and pay close attention to the Science section.

 

[ebia]

ebia, when can you stop disgracing YOUR allies?

After I start.

according to you, what does "false witness" mean?

You had a point to this?

 

[lismore]

lismore, that would most certainly hold true if we weren't able to observe evolution. Fortunately, we can observe evolution, and it was through these observations that the theory has been constructed over the years. No faith is required, other than the most basic faith that the world around us does not lie.
.

You have observed people evolving into something else?

Can you share what these observations are?

 

[ebia]

You have observed people evolving into something else?

Can you share what these observations are?

No-one has observed the future. What we can do is observe the past.

 

[Dannager]

You have observed people evolving into something else?

Can you share what these observations are?

Haha, seeing people evolving into something else would be silly, especially since our lifetimes severely limit what we are capable of observing in the moment. However, we can very easily watch a bacterial culture replicate, adapt, die and procreate in response to the environment it resides in. This is how viruses evolve, and why many months of each year are spent by scientists devising new vaccines to the recently-mutated flu virus.

However, if evolution were confined to viruses it would be one thing. It is, of course, used by all living creatures. Did you know that you are actually living testimony to one of the two parts of evolutionary theory? When you were born, and as your DNA was formed from the recombination of your parents' genetic structures, mutations occured. You are not simply the average of your parents' DNA, but are in fact a completely new sort of creature, with traits of both parents as well as a smattering of random mutations that make you wholly unique as well. Mutations happen every time a new DNA sequence is formed.

I mentioned that mutation is one of two parts, the other being natural selection, of course. Natural selection states that those organisms best adapted to their environment are more likely to survive, and thus pass along their adaptations. What this means is that when a mutation occurs, it is either neutral (most of the time), detrimental (rarely) or beneficial (rarely). Organisms with detrimental mutations don't do as well as those with neutral or beneficial mutations, so their detrimental genes tend not to get passed along (they often die before they reproduce). Those with beneficial mutations, on the other hand, tend to do better than other organisms, and have a higher likelihood of surviving to pass along their beneficial genes. The end result, of course, is that populations of organisms tend to adapt better and better to the environment they live in through a continued process of mutation and natural selection.

A few things to note about mutation and natural selection: mutation, as far as we can tell, is basically random. Most mutations are neutral, but there's no way to predict whether an organism will be created with beneficial or detrimental mutations. Natural selection is not random. It has a direction - that of increasingly more well-adapted and able organisms. This means that evolution as a whole is also not random. The end result of the process of evolution is the production of better-adapted organisms.

Did you get a chance to read the link on what scientific theories are? They also mentioned a few notes on what facts are. Natural selection and mutation are both facts. They are observations we have made. We have observed that mutations occur in DNA recombination, and we have observed that creatures better adapted to their environment tend to pass along their genes more reliably. Evolution is both theory and fact. As mutation and natural selection are both facts, so is evolution as it is simply a combination of the two. It is also a theory, as there exists a set of explanations as to why evolution occurs. These explanations do a good job of making predictions and have not yet been falsified, which means as of this moment, evolutionary theory is a good theory.

If you have any questions about this topic, feel free to ask!

 

[lismore]

If you have any questions about this topic, feel free to ask!

Thanks very much

Haha, seeing people evolving into something else would be silly, especially since our lifetimes severely limit what we are capable of observing in the moment.
!

That was my point friend, its claimed its so slow we will never see any evidences of it. To me this is like the fastest gun in the west routine.

However one would expect literally millions of transitional forms to be in existence in fossils or in bones. These would point, but not prove. However after so much digging there is a few boxes of controversial and many hoaxed and ambiguous bones .

However, we can very easily watch a bacterial culture replicate, adapt, die and procreate in response to the environment it resides in. This is how viruses evolve, and why many months of each year are spent by scientists devising new vaccines to the recently-mutated flu virus.
!

I dont think this is evolution friend. Evolution is bacteria evolving into another species?

However, if evolution were confined to viruses it would be one thing. It is, of course, used by all living creatures. Did you know that you are actually living testimony to one of the two parts of evolutionary theory? When you were born, and as your DNA was formed from the recombination of your parents' genetic structures, mutations occured. You are not simply the average of your parents' DNA, but are in fact a completely new sort of creature, with traits of both parents as well as a smattering of random mutations that make you wholly unique as well. Mutations happen every time a new DNA sequence is formed.
!

So what am I evolving into then?

Unfortnately mutant is also an insulting term......mutants are not steps forward.

I mentioned that mutation is one of two parts, the other being natural selection, of course. Natural selection states that those organisms best adapted to their environment are more likely to survive, and thus pass along their adaptations.
!

But, this is not evidence of evolution. Evolution is when these species change into another species. Having a variety of fast horses is differnt from horses sprouting wings!

What this means is that when a mutation occurs, it is either neutral (most of the time), detrimental (rarely) or beneficial (rarely). Organisms with detrimental mutations don't do as well as those with neutral or beneficial mutations, so their detrimental genes tend not to get passed along (they often die before they reproduce). Those with beneficial mutations, on the other hand, tend to do better than other organisms, and have a higher likelihood of surviving to pass along their beneficial genes. The end result, of course, is that populations of organisms tend to adapt better and better to the environment they live in through a continued process of mutation and natural selection.
!

Do you know of any good mutations that lead to another species?

Did you get a chance to read the link on what scientific theories are? They also mentioned a few notes on what facts are. Natural selection and mutation are both facts. They are observations we have made.

!

Well, they perhaps are both steps backwards...........I still do not see how evolution is proved friend.

Lets put this in the context of Christianity.

The awesome power of the Lord God and the truth of his word are both observations we have made, proved and demonstrated to be true. Therefore when the irrefutable fact of creation as upheld by HIM meets something else?