Why do YE Creationists insist on a simplistic literal reading of the bible?

[Split Rock]

Evolution is an explanation for the so called "evidence" that they find in the natural world. Just because the evidence is real does not mean their explanation is true.

If the evidence is real, why did you use "so-called" and put "evidence" in quotes? Make up your mind.

For example in geology catastrophic theory can be valid at times. The scabland is an example. Yet evolutionists want to disregard the evidence to say catastrophic theory is not valid.

According to uniformitarianism, as it is used today, natural processes that occur today, occurred in the past. The geological column was formed by these same processes. This includes, vulcanism, tectonic activity, floods, tsunamis, meteor impacts, and other natural catastrophic events.

 

[Loudmouth]

Unless you can prove how the matter in the universe created itself out of nothing, it is not an assumption.

kermit

The matter in our universe created itself from energy that preceded it, not from nothing. We can observe matter condensing from energy in particle accelerators. No deity is required for matter to condense from energy.

 

[KWCrazy]

The matter in our universe created itself from energy that preceded it, not from nothing.

Preceded it from what source? The energy that preceded it can no more be created or destroyed than matter itself, which of course everyone knows. This makes your response not an answer, but a DUCK!

"The evolutionary explanation for origins, although impossible either to prove or to test scientifically, is nevertheless defended by its proponents on the basis that it is the only explanation which is naturalistic, not involving the 'supernatural' element of a divine Creator."
Henry M. Morris

"While the laws of physics and chemistry in our universe do indeed allow life to exist, they do not allow life to evolve. The laws of physics and chemistry simply are not favorable to the evolution of life.

For decades, creationists have pointed out the insurmountable difficulties with “chemical evolution” scenarios. These difficulties don’t vanish simply because someone claims that other (unobservable) universes exist. Even if the laws of physics and chemistry in every single one of these other supposed universes did allow for life to evolve, those laws from another universe could not explain the existence of life in this universe. This should have occurred to the atheists—but their argument demonstrates “vain imaginations” and “foolish, darkened hearts” (Romans 1:21-23)."
source

 

[Lord Emsworth]

You can't explain the universe came into being. I can.

You can't explain how life started or what it was. I can.

No, that is not true. All you have is fairly meaningless talk, like God-did-it or something along those lines. But that does neither mean a lot, nor can it actually mean a lot. God is incomprehenisible and uses incomprehensible "mechanism" (in want for a better word, lol) in order to do stuff that may actually not be all that well understood.

But of course you have your talk, and feel in the know. But you aren't. You just have the illusion. And that is your God. Literally.

 

[Loudmouth]

Preceded it from what source? The energy that preceded it can no more be created or destroyed than matter itself, which of course everyone knows. This makes your response not an answer, but a DUCK!

We don't know where that energy came from, but it wasn't nothing as creationists keep proclaiming. If you want to claim that God created the energy then lets see your evidence.

"The evolutionary explanation for origins, although impossible either to prove or to test scientifically, is nevertheless defended by its proponents on the basis that it is the only explanation which is naturalistic, not involving the 'supernatural' element of a divine Creator."

Henry M. Morris

"While the laws of physics and chemistry in our universe do indeed allow life to exist, they do not allow life to evolve. The laws of physics and chemistry simply are not favorable to the evolution of life.

For decades, creationists have pointed out the insurmountable difficulties with “chemical evolution” scenarios. These difficulties don’t vanish simply because someone claims that other (unobservable) universes exist. Even if the laws of physics and chemistry in every single one of these other supposed universes did allow for life to evolve, those laws from another universe could not explain the existence of life in this universe. This should have occurred to the atheists—but their argument demonstrates “vain imaginations” and “foolish, darkened hearts” (Romans 1:21-23)."
source

You need to supply evidence for those claims.

 

[EternalDragon]

So in a nutshell, if an observation supports a scientific hypothesis or theory it is evidence for that theory. The fossil record is evidence for evolution since every fossil found to date fits the evolutionary paradigm.

I do believe it is quite the opposite although they have done a very good job of trying to fit it in. Coupled with DNA and biological information, it fits evolution theory even less.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do believe it is quite the opposite although they have done a very good job of trying to fit it in. Coupled with DNA and biological information, it fits evolution theory even less.

That is simply another empty claim of yours. It would be easy to disprove evolution if I was wrong. All you need to do is to find a fossil out of order. Find that Cambrian rabbit or an Ordovician whale.

DNA is even stronger evidence for evolution. It has the nested hierarchy predicted by evolution that creationists cannot explain.

 

[EternalDragon]

That is simply another empty claim of yours. It would be easy to disprove evolution if I was wrong. All you need to do is to find a fossil out of order. Find that Cambrian rabbit or an Ordovician whale.

DNA is even stronger evidence for evolution. It has the nested hierarchy predicted by evolution that creationists cannot explain.

Um, yeah. Been over that before with others here. There is no perfect nested hierarchy. On the surface it may look that way but in the details it has lots of problems that make life not fit a nested hierarchy.

Fossils have been found out of order. And what about the Cambrian fossils? Nothing below to suggest any sort of evolution took place. They just appear there.

 

[Vaccine]

The hierarchy of the genome doesn't fit evolution, gene comparisons give conflicting evolution history all the time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Um, yeah. Been over that before with others here. There is no perfect nested hierarchy. On the surface it may look that way but in the details it has lots of problems that make life not fit a nested hierarchy.

Fossils have been found out of order. And what about the Cambrian fossils? Nothing below to suggest any sort of evolution took place. They just appear there.

E.D., you are pushing the boundaries on the Ninth Commandment again. If that was the case creationists could prove it. I keep asking for evidence and you never provide any.

And there are fossils older than Cambrian. They are very rare. The reason is that the atmosphere and therefore dissolved gases in the ocean were not quite at the right level yet for animals to form CaCO3. Once enough O2 had built up the evolution of animals to use this new resource was quite rapid. The fossils we see before the Cambrian are what we would expect. They are impressions of animals that have not yet developed hard shells. For example this one, it may be a soft bodied forerunner to the trilobite:

 

[Subduction Zone]

The hierarchy of the genome doesn't fit evolution, gene comparisons give conflicting evolution history all the time.

Please give examples from valid sources.

 

[EternalDragon]

E.D., you are pushing the boundaries on the Ninth Commandment again. If that was the case creationists could prove it. I keep asking for evidence and you never provide any.

What evidence do you need? We all, of course, have the same evidence. The evidence you are asking for, you already have. It's all around us and under us.

And there are fossils older than Cambrian. They are very rare. The reason is that the atmosphere and therefore dissolved gases in the ocean were not quite at the right level yet for animals to form CaCO3. Once enough O2 had built up the evolution of animals to use this new resource was quite rapid. The fossils we see before the Cambrian are what we would expect. They are impressions of animals that have not yet developed hard shells. For example this one, it may be a soft bodied forerunner to the trilobite:

I thought before you said rapid evolution wasn't possible. That evolution could not be sped up. How does that work anyway?

You are merely trying to explain away evolution problems with more guesses on paper. What you explain has not been observed nor tested nor repeated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What evidence do you need? We all, of course, have the same evidence. The evidence you are asking for, you already have. It's all around us and under us.

Quit dodging. I want specific scientific evidence that supports your claims. Perhaps you should look up the definition of scientific evidence before you do so.

I thought before you said rapid evolution wasn't possible. That evolution could not be sped up. How does that work anyway?

It depends upon your definition of "rapid". Rapid evolution is evolution on the order of millions of years. Or for eyes only about half a million years. The sort of evolution that is impossible is the kind that creationists try to claim exist when defending the Flood myth.

You are merely trying to explain away evolution problems with more guesses on paper. What you explain has not been observed nor tested nor repeated.

What evolution problems? You are right that they are still nailing down exactly how life evolved in the Cambrian. There is no doubt that life did evolve.

 

[lasthero]

Fossils have been found out of order

When? What fossils? What order were they out of?

 

[SkyWriting]

I thought before you said rapid evolution wasn't possible. That evolution could not be sped up. How does that work anyway?

Evolution or change can occur at nearly any speed. There was a huge variation built into dogs as we know them that could occur very quickly. Perhaps sharks have the same ability but due to less environmental pressure, they change very little. Plus the DNA of organisms can change while the organism is alive, evolving on the fly as needed before offspring are even conceived. The species are not immutable, the scriptures never said they were.

 

[Amora]

The animals were first, in both chapters 1&2.

Genesis 1 NIV - The Beginning - In the beginning God - Bible Gateway


I'm glad that crisis is over......phewww.

Hmm. I have no crisis.
Ok lets see. In Chapter 1, Man (or Mankind) was created after the animals. We are in agreement here.
In Chapter 2, the animals were created AFTER Man. Please see Chapter 2, verses 18 and 19. The animals were created as an attempt to find a mate for Man (not yet male or female) as the concept of wife/ woman did not yet exist, according to Chapter 2.
Only after He created the animals and did not find an appropriate mate for Man, did He then create wife/ woman. And this is in clear contradiction to Chapter 1, verse 27.

These are just 2, easily seen, contradictions if you go by the literal reading of the text.

There is no connection between the creation of man and evolution either. Which do you believe?
There is no connection between a 6,000 year old creation and a 13.5 billion year old earth. Which do you believe?
There is no connection between a global flood and the "scientific" claim in never happened. Which do you believe?
There is no connection between the 333 miracles listed in the Bible and a naturalistic view which denies that miracles happen. Which do you believe?
There is no connection between the Scriptures which tell us that we struggle against principalities not of this world and scientists who claim that anything they cannot see, touch, hear, smell, taste or test simply does not exist. Which do you believe?

SNIP

What do you believe?

I believe that God used nature as a mechanism to create the world.
I believe that God created man through evolution.
I believe that the universe as we can measure it, started 13.4 BYO.
I believe that 5774 YO, God started to get involved in Human existence.

I do not believe that God PHYSICALLY created the world 5774 YO.
I believe that the story of creation is Gods way of introducing Himself to us.
I don't believe that the Flood historically happened the way it is told in parashat Noah. Might have. I have no problem with it being allegory.
I believe that the story of Noah come to teach us very important lessons.
I believe that miracles might have happened. I don't NEED them to have happened as described. But I believe that God can choose to change the natural order of things if he needs to. It has no bearing on my belief.

I believe that God almost always works through nature. And that miracles do not have to be overtly supernatural. For example, the 10 plagues. Most of them are not miraculous unto themselves. What is miraculous is the TIMING.

Science does not say anything about that which does not exist. Science cannot prove, nor disprove, God. That's why it's called faith and belief.
Science, by definition, comes to explain the observable. It is agnostic regarding unobservable things.

Scripture, Torah is the manual for life. How to live life, why to live a certain way. The creation stories come to introduce us to God, to his power, to the source of his demand that we listen to Him. That we worship Him.

To think that He was trying to encapsulate all of physics, biology, chemistry, and recent (5-10 KY) human evolution into 11 ish chapters of Scripture, is babyish at best and ludicrous at worst. It's what I teach my young kids, those in kindergarten. It shows a simplicity of thought, it shows that God is trying to convince you to believe in him becasue of magic tricks.

Unfortunately, most people remain with a first grade level understanding of scripture, until the day they die. IMO, scripture is far more than that.

 

[Aman777]

Hmm. I have no crisis.
Ok lets see. In Chapter 1, Man (or Mankind) was created after the animals. We are in agreement here.

Dear Amora, You are confusing the Creation of mankind Spiritually with his formation from the dust of the ground on the 3rd Day, Before the plants, herbs, trees, Stars, and living creatures which were brought forth from the water on the 5th Day. Genesis 1:21

In Chapter 2, the animals were created AFTER Man. Please see Chapter 2, verses 18 and 19. The animals were created as an attempt to find a mate for Man (not yet male or female) as the concept of wife/ woman did not yet exist, according to Chapter 2.

Only after He created the animals and did not find an appropriate mate for Man, did He then create wife/ woman. And this is in clear contradiction to Chapter 1, verse 27.

See what I told you? Here is the chronology. Man was "formed of the dust of the ground" on the 3rd Day. (Gen. 2:4-7) The FIRST Stars of our Cosmos put forth their Light on the 4th Day (Gen. 1:16) which is AFTER Adam was made. The FIRST bacteria appeared 3.7 Billion years ago on our Planet, which was on the 5th DAy. (Gen. 1:21). That is WHY Adam named the beasts of the earth and the birds at the beginning of the 6th Day.

Eve is made on the 6th Day. Gen. 2:22 This shows that Adam and Eve were BOTH "created in God's Image" or born again, in Christ Spiritually, since Adam was made the 3rd and Eve was made the 6th Day, Adam lived with Jesus for Billions of years BEFORE Eve was made, and BEFORE Adam and Eve were "created" Spiritually, Eternally. Genesis 1:27 and Gen. 5:1-2

These are just 2, easily seen, contradictions if you go by the literal reading of the text.

The only contradiction I see is in the traditional religious view which CANNOT be supported Scripturally, Scientifically, nor HIstorically. God's Truth MUST agree with all other discovered Truth or something is wrong with your interpretation of God's Holy Word.


In Love,
Aman

 

[Amora]

Dear Amora, You are confusing the Creation of mankind Spiritually with his formation from the dust of the ground on the 3rd Day, Before the plants, herbs, trees, Stars, and living creatures which were brought forth from the water on the 5th Day. Genesis 1:21



See what I told you? Here is the chronology. Man was "formed of the dust of the ground" on the 3rd Day. (Gen. 2:4-7)
In Love,
Aman

Dear Aman777,
Do I understand how you understand it? Please correct me if I am misunderstanding you. (From NIV BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages.).

I THINK you are connecting the words from 2:4:
(This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.)

with 1:9-10
(And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.)

thus saying that what happens after 2:4 was also on the third day, including when God created Man in verse 7:

(Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.).

thus saying that man was created on the third day.

Just so I understand, you are saying that Man was actualy created on the third day, also according to Chapter 1? And Chapter 2?

 

[lasthero]

Plus the DNA of organisms can change while the organism is alive, evolving on the fly as needed before offspring are even conceived.

I think you're confusing real life with Pokemon.

 

[Split Rock]

Um, yeah. Been over that before with others here. There is no perfect nested hierarchy. On the surface it may look that way but in the details it has lots of problems that make life not fit a nested hierarchy.

Why do you continue to ask for a "perfect" hierarchy?? When is anything perfect? Name some problems that make life not fit into a nested hierarchy... and I mean problems that cannot be explained by known mechanisms such as horizontal gene transfer, etc.

Fossils have been found out of order.

Show us some. Show us the humans who ignored Noah's warnings and got caught with the "slow" amphibians and were buried by the flood waters in Devonian or Mississippian Periods.

And what about the Cambrian fossils? Nothing below to suggest any sort of evolution took place. They just appear there.

They just appear there? What? Where are the eels, fish, starfish, seahorses, crabs, lobsters, shrimp, beavers, otters, whales, etc.? What didn't they all "just appear" there?