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

[KWCrazy]

This erroneous statement is repeated here by creationists over and over.
True or false:
1. The past leaves its mark on the present.

Sometimes. Sometimes not.

2. The present is created by actions that occurred in the past.

False assumption. The present is a combination of elements of causation the reaction to those elements. An event cannot create anything, only influence it.

3. Therefore, we can learn about what happened in the past by examining the present.

Inductive reasoning can be highly inaccurate, and all you have is inductive reasoning. As you get further removed from what is known you rely increasingly upon assumptions you can't validate. If I reach into a vat of marbles and produce two which are red, I can then conclude that MANY are red. If I remove 100 and all 100 are red, I can conclude that ALL the marbles are red. However, there could easily be 10,000,000 marbles, only o.5% of which are red. However, the red marbles are at the top. Without knowing things you can't possibly know, inductive reasoning fails every time.

Yes, we can only study the past based on evidence we have today, but there is nothing inherently wrong with that.

Where we err is when we say that our interpretation based on what we currently observe is the only possible interpretation, which is what you have done.

It is not lying to say we can make inferences on the origin of a virus by examining its genetic sequence today. Inferences are not speculations.

Nor do those inferences provide concrete proof of anything, which is what you are claiming when you declare that a single common progenitor is the only explanation for life.

1. 4,000 years isn't enough time for widespread adaptive radiation.

Only by your calculations. God-directed speciation has a different timetable.

2. What we would find are many smaller nested hiearchies that are independent from each other, unless the lifeforms he brought were related through common descent.

Balgerdash. Having never created any living thing, you aren't qualified to say how it must and must not be done. Commonalities can come from a common designer and common design.

3. The reason we say it is unreasonable to reject evolution, is because that is where the evidence clearly leads us...

Speak for yourself. It doesn't lead me there. I have other evidence and other experiences which led me to a far different conclusion.

Once again, inference is not speculation.

Nor is it provable fact.

Jesus didn't write anything in scripture. You have no eyewitness.

Eyewitnesses state what they saw. Haven't you ever seen Law and Order?

Even if one accepts that scripture is influenced by God, why would he tell us about evolution?

Why would He make up a story about a six day creation and base the Fourth Commandment on it?

The bible is about theology, not science.

At last we can agree.

The cases of miracles you mentioned were isolated instances, not general processes.

Creation was one of those miracles. If they were part of a general process, they wouldn't be miraculous.

Why would God create laws just to violate them from the very start?

Laws control the creation, not the creator. Physical laws cannot effect spiritual entities.

The definition of a fool is someone who rejects reality because dogma they believe says to do so.

According to Psalms 14:1, a fool is someone who says there is no God.
According to Dictionary.com, a fool is "a silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgment or sense." Are you reinventing the language like you've reinvented the provability of things science cannot study?

Really? How about:
Deuteronomy 33:15
"with the choicest gifts of the ancient mountains and the fruitfulness of the everlasting hills;"

In full Context:

“May the Lord bless His land
with the precious dew from Heaven above
and with the deep waters that lie below;
14 with the best the sun brings forth
and the finest the moon can yield;
15 with the choicest gifts of the ancient mountains
and the fruitfulness of the everlasting hills;
16 with the best gifts of the earth and its fullness
and the favor of him who dwelt in the burning bush.
Let all these rest on the head of Joseph,

His land, meaning the Lord's. You were saying...?

 

[Loudmouth]

Everything? You mean that if God created the world as He said He did, then we no longer know the boiling point of water? The kindling point of paper? We no longer understand that objects in motion tend to stay in motion? The horror. The HORROR!!!!

Or should I say, the ignorance.

Would there be a speed of light, and stars billions of lightyears away? Would there be rocks with billions of years worth of radioactive decay within them?

The ignorance is yours.

 

[KWCrazy]

Would there be a speed of light, and stars billions of lightyears away? Would there be rocks with billions of years worth of radioactive decay within them?

Absolutely, because the speed of light has nothing to do with the origination of light, and the universe was created in its maturity, able to support life at the moment of its creation.

 

[Loudmouth]

Absolutely, because the speed of light has nothing to do with the origination of light, and the universe was created in its maturity, able to support life at the moment of its creation.

It takes billions of years for light to travel from those galaxies to the Earth. All of science and physics would have to be wrong if the universe is as young as you claim.

Also, supporting life does not require billions of years of radioactive decay in rocks.

 

[Split Rock]

Sometimes. Sometimes not.

In most cases.

False assumption. The present is a combination of elements of causation the reaction to those elements. An event cannot create anything, only influence it.

Everything that exists today is the resut of actions and events of the past.. even according to your dogma.

Inductive reasoning can be highly inaccurate, and all you have is inductive reasoning. As you get further removed from what is known you rely increasingly upon assumptions you can't validate. If I reach into a vat of marbles and produce two which are red, I can then conclude that MANY are red. If I remove 100 and all 100 are red, I can conclude that ALL the marbles are red. However, there could easily be 10,000,000 marbles, only o.5% of which are red. However, the red marbles are at the top. Without knowing things you can't possibly know, inductive reasoning fails every time

I can conclude all the marbles on top are red. Your dogma would insist they are all blue. Which is more accurate? Funny thing is that eye-witness testimony is the least accurate evidence, yet you guys hang everything on it.

Where we err is when we say that our interpretation based on what we currently observe is the only possible interpretation, which is what you have done

I have NEVER said that here. The theory of evolution is the best (and only) scientific explanation for the diversity and distribution of life on earth. I also happen to believe that it is the best explanation, period. It is also the only explanation that has predictive power. However, I have never claimed it is the only one.

Nor do those inferences provide concrete proof of anything, which is what you are claiming when you declare that a single common progenitor is the only explanation for life.

In science we do not prove anything.

Only by your calculations. God-directed speciation has a different timetable.

According to who... you? The bible doesn't even claim anything about speciation after the flood, God-directed or otherwise.

Balgerdash. Having never created any living thing, you aren't qualified to say how it must and must not be done. Commonalities can come from a common designer and common design.

I am talking about a nested hierarchy, not just "similarities." The only thing that produces a nested hierarchy is genetic descent. Could a designer produce a nested hierarchy, assuming he could do anything? Yes.... but why would he? It is quite counter-intuative and not even optimal.

Speak for yourself. It doesn't lead me there. I have other evidence and other experiences which led me to a far different conclusion.

You never looked at the physical evidence before you came to your "different conclusion." The physical evidence leads to the conclusion of common descent, whether you think it is trumped by your religious dogma or not.

Nor is it provable fact.

One more time... we do not prove in science.

Eyewitnesses state what they saw. Haven't you ever seen Law and Order?

I am saying you have no witness... at least none that left you a record to read.

Why would He make up a story about a six day creation and base the Fourth Commandment on it?

He didn't write GEN 1-2. GEN 1-2 is based a great deal on earlier creation stories learned by the Hebrews and adapted to theor own religion. It was not intended to be somekind of historical document. It is theology.

Creation was one of those miracles. If they were part of a general process, they wouldn't be miraculous.

They are exceptions.

Laws control the creation, not the creator. Physical laws cannot effect spiritual entities.

Only a very inefficient god (much like one of you guys) would create a universe with specific laws and then violate them from the very start.

According to Psalms 14:1, a fool is someone who says there is no God.
According to Dictionary.com, a fool is "a silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgment or sense." Are you reinventing the language like you've reinvented the provability of things science cannot study?

You are the one telling scientists what science can and cannot accomplish. What science have you ever done?

In full Context:

“May the Lord bless His land
with the precious dew from Heaven above
and with the deep waters that lie below;
14 with the best the sun brings forth
and the finest the moon can yield;
15 with the choicest gifts of the ancient mountains
and the fruitfulness of the everlasting hills;
16 with the best gifts of the earth and its fullness
and the favor of him who dwelt in the burning bush.
Let all these rest on the head of Joseph,

His land, meaning the Lord's. You were saying...?[/COLOR]

OECs do not claim otherwise, now do they??

 

[KWCrazy]

It takes billions of years for light to travel from those galaxies to the Earth.

Unless they were created more or less as they are today. Why do you insist on putting YOUR idea of limitations on what was created? We both know that there isn't a single viable scientific explanation for origination. If none of it is scientifically possible, how can you say that one version is more scientific than the other? We can say that light takes billions of years to get here, but if the intent of that light was to shine on the earth God needn't have waited billions of years.

All of science and physics would have to be wrong if the universe is as young as you claim.

They would have to be wrong with their unprovable theories of age, yes, just as they are with their unprovable theories of origination.

 

[KWCrazy]

Everything that exists today is the resut of actions and events of the past.. even according to your dogma.

You said created, which was false.

I can conclude all the marbles on top are red. Your dogma would insist they are all blue.

False. Nobody suggested that any of the marbles were blue, and inductive reasoning would make no such observation about layers. You cheated because I gave you information you would not have had had you reached into the vat.

Which is more accurate? Funny thing is that eye-witness testimony is the least accurate evidence, yet you guys hang everything on it.

Religion is an interesting thing. Rather than proof creating faith in the results, you have to have faith before you get proof. How illogical is it to demand proof when you aren't allowed to receive it?

I have NEVER said that here.

Many have. I speak to the collective "you" as a group, since this is not limited to a personal discussion.

I also happen to believe that it is the best explanation, period.

You have your beliefs, I have mine. In 51 years I've seen many things that science could not possibly explain, which more than validates the existence of things which are outside of the natural world. You have apparently not been so fortunate.

In science we do not prove anything.

Please inform your brethren who are convinced that evolution has been proven.

The bible doesn't even claim anything about speciation after the flood, God-directed or otherwise.

"Be fruitful and multiply..." "After its kind.."

"... it is not correct to assume that a few thousand species would have produced the millions of species extant (alive) today. There are fewer than 30,000 extant species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and possibly land-reproducing amphibians (many salamanders) that were represented on the Ark. The millions of other species are the invertebrates (>95 percent of all animal species), fish, and a few aquatic mammals and reptiles that survived in the water during the Flood. The processes of speciation discussed above need to only double the number of animal species from 15,000 to 30,000. This is certainly a feasible process based on observable science."

You never looked at the physical evidence before you came to your "different conclusion."

Wrong. I was an OEC who believed that evolution was a tool of God until a closer study of the Scriptures demonstrated that there was no possible way it could have happened.

I am saying you have no witness... at least none that left you a record to read.

You said that since Christ didn't write the Gospels His testimony could not be used. However, a witness does not have to write anything to give testimony, which He certainly did. You may not believe the recorded testimony, but many of us do.

They are exceptions.

How can natural law have exceptions?

Only a very inefficient god (much like one of you guys) would create a universe with specific laws and then violate them from the very start.

How does one prove He is a God without proving He can do the impossible?

You are the one telling scientists what science can and cannot accomplish. What science have you ever done?

Internet scientists do not count as salaried researchers. A real scientist admits that things which he cannot study cannot be proved or disproved. For example, you know that a ball on a level surface cannot roll without a force applied to it to overcome inertia. If that ball rolls on its own, it's considered unexplained. The action of the ball defies scientific explanation. In a purely physical world the ball cannot move on its own. However, the ball moved. Science cannot provide the answer.

 

[lasthero]

The millions of other species are the invertebrates

All invertebrates could have survived the flood? You want to stand by that statement?

 

[Loudmouth]

Unless they were created more or less as they are today. Why do you insist on putting YOUR idea of limitations on what was created?

Why does all of science have to be wrong in order for your creation myths to be true?

We both know that there isn't a single viable scientific explanation for origination.

Of course there is. We know how rocks originate. We can observe it. We know that zircons, when they form, exclude Pb while including radioactive U. U decays into Pb. The origin of Pb in zircons is the decay of U. The decay of U takes millions of years, and we see a ratio of U and Pb in some zircons that takes billions of years. All of chemistry and physics would have to be wrong in order for these zircons to be just thousands of years old.

We can say that light takes billions of years to get here, but if the intent of that light was to shine on the earth God needn't have waited billions of years.

Therefore, all of physics needs to be wrong in order for your creation myths to be true.

 

[lasthero]

We can say that light takes billions of years to get here, but if the intent of that light was to shine on the earth God needn't have waited billions of years.

If God truly lives outside of time, waiting is no problem for him.

 

[joeboonda]

Jesus (who was there in the beginning with God and is God) took Genesis literally. He talked about Adam and Eve being "in the beginning" when he rebuked the hard-heartedness of the religious leaders concerning divorce. He talked about Noah and the Flood that "carried them all away". Peter warned that in the last days men would not believe the Flood happened but would believe all things continued the same, or uniformitarianism.

 

[Loudmouth]

Jesus (who was there in the beginning with God and is God) took Genesis literally. He talked about Adam and Eve being "in the beginning" when he rebuked the hard-heartedness of the religious leaders concerning divorce. He talked about Noah and the Flood that "carried them all away". Peter warned that in the last days men would not believe the Flood happened but would believe all things continued the same, or uniformitarianism.

Since there was no Adam and Eve, nor a recent global flood, this is only evidence that Jesus could not have been the son of the god who created the universe. Genesis is wrong if you insist on a literal interpretation. If Genesis is meant to be taken literally then it could not have been inspired by the god who created this universe, if in fact it was created.

 

[biggles53]

Religion is an interesting thing. Rather than proof creating faith in the results, you have to have faith before you get proof. How illogical is it to demand proof when you aren't allowed to receive it?

Illogical...??

You start with a conclusion and then attempt to arrange the evidence to justify it, and you want to talk about "illogical"....?

You're funny......

 

[KWCrazy]

Why does all of science have to be wrong in order for your creation myths to be true?

Why do the Scriptures have to be wrong for your naturalism myth to be true?

Of course there is. We know how rocks originate. We can observe it.

Nooooooo, you can see them form. You can't see them originate. You can only see a mass of material reorganized into an equal mass of material. You can not see a rock coming into existence from nothingness. You don't originate a cake, you assemble it from ingredients and add heat to cause it to rise and solidify. Starting with an empty pan, you can originate nothing; not a cake, not a rock, not life, and certainly not a planet.

All of chemistry and physics would have to be wrong in order for these zircons to be just thousands of years old.

If it served God's interests to create a zircon crystal the size of a car by speaking it into existence, he could do so. Apparently your mind is incapable of grasping the fact that creation was not a natural process. However, creation is the only viable explanation for origination. Anyone who tells you they have a scientifically viable theory of origination is lying to you. The fact is, none of the elements that comprise anything could have come into existence by any natural process. If you adhere strictly to the laws of physics, either the universe was created by some force outside of nature or the universe doesn't exist. If the universe was created, then the Creator could form it in its mature state as God did and as He said He did.

If eternal life were given out freely to everyone it would have little value. The earth was created exactly as it was so that foolish people could make stupid decisions and have evidence enough to convince them their stupidity was actually wisdom. People with no faith look for answers and they find them; not the right answers, but answers enough to placate them. Plato's allegory of the cave, while very much resembling a movie theater, is indicative of the real world VS the preceived world. To those who will venture out by faith and explore the scary reality that our existence is only a temporary stop on an eternal journey, there is a much greater understanding to be found. Those whose eyes are blinded by their unwillingness to accept that there are things in this world that can never be explained through logic alone are doomed to follow their foolish misunderstanding to their own destruction.

Science can't tell you where you came from. Only God can do that.

 

[KWCrazy]

You start with a conclusion and then attempt to arrange the evidence to justify it, and you want to talk about "illogical"....?

Your statement is blatantly false. You really have no understanding whatever. Your inability to comprehend the information that is all around you doesn't make you right and another wrong. If you don't understand the limitations of science then you cannot possibly comprehend its proper application.

 

[OllieFranz]

Religion is an interesting thing. Rather than proof creating faith in the results, you have to have faith before you get proof. How illogical is it to demand proof when you aren't allowed to receive it?

Illogical...??

You start with a conclusion and then attempt to arrange the evidence to justify it, and you want to talk about "illogical"....?

You're funny......

Your statement is blatantly false. You really have no understanding whatever. Your inability to comprehend the information that is all around you doesn't make you right and another wrong. If you don't understand the limitations of science then you cannot possibly comprehend its proper application.

How odd that you would call his statement blatantly false, when he is just repeating what you have said. You said that you start with faith and because of that faith, you know your conclusion is right, and only then can you even understand the evidence and start ordering it to fit the "truth" you already believe in. Are you calling yourself a liar?

 

[joeboonda]

Since there was no Adam and Eve, nor a recent global flood, this is only evidence that Jesus could not have been the son of the god who created the universe. Genesis is wrong if you insist on a literal interpretation. If Genesis is meant to be taken literally then it could not have been inspired by the god who created this universe, if in fact it was created.

Ok. But I believe Adam and Eve existed as well as in Noah's Flood. The genealogies in scripture are ample evidence of Adam and Eve and I see evidence of a Global Flood all the time. But like I was saying Peter warned people would be so deceived in the last days that they would not believe it:

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of (that's dumb on purpose), that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3

 

[lasthero]

Crazy, do you stand by the statement that all invertebrates could have survive the flood?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok. But I believe Adam and Eve existed as well as in Noah's Flood. The genealogies in scripture are ample evidence of Adam and Eve and I see evidence of a Global Flood all the time. But like I was saying Peter warned people would be so deceived in the last days that they would not believe it:

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of (that's dumb on purpose), that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3

The same science that allows us to tell if a person was innocent of a crime, that allows a day time TV host to say "You ARE the father!", is the same science that says there was no Noah's Ark, there was no Adam and Eve.

There is no scientific evidence that supports creationism or the Ark myth and all sorts that oppose it.

Why do you believe in myths?

 

[KWCrazy]

Crazy, do you stand by the statement that all invertebrates could have survive the flood?

ALL? No. Some? Yes. All didn't need to survive. Aren't you guys the ones who say that 99% of everything that ever lived is extinct? Certainly any carnivorous aquatic life would have dined like kings for the time the earth was flooded, but the ones buried under the silt in the middle of a continent didn't fare so well.

Perhaps I've overlooked it, but would someone mind showing me where in the Bible it states that the Creator stopped creating? I haven't seen it. Everything that is in the Bible is true, but not every truth is in the Bible. Every truth couldn't be contained in a vast library. The important topics are covered. There will always be unanswered questions, however.