Why the Christian creation myth

[DogmaHunter]

Except evolution says an ape leaves Boston, takes baby-steps to Los Angeles, and arrives as y-Adam.

Que?

I'm sorry, I don't speak AV1611VET-ish.

 

[Strathos]

Like it or not, humans are apes. Complaining that God chose to incarnate Himself in an ape body is as pointless as complaining that He chose a body made of atoms.

 

[AV1611VET]

Like it or not, humans are apes. Complaining that God chose to incarnate Himself in an ape body is as pointless as complaining that He chose a body made of atoms.

Oh, I realize it's falling on deaf ears. People plug their ears with good money.

 

[pitabread]

Look up Exploring Biblical Creation by Eric Hovind, if you can handle it, uses science to basically prove Biblical Worldview as fact.

Y'know, I'd noticed the decline of Hovind-bots ever since Kent got himself thrown in jail. Good to know Eric is keeping the tradition alive!

 

[Jimmy D]

Y'know, I'd noticed the decline of Hovind-bots ever since Kent got himself thrown in jail. Good to know Eric is keeping the tradition alive!

"Family business" would probably be a more accurate term.

 

[Speedwell]

by creation i mean creation de novo and not a stepwise evolution.

When? How? By who? If you are going to reject evolution you must have something to replace it with.

Right now all you are saying is "Life forms were created de novo by some entity (a god?) who wasn't smart or powerful enough to make it happen by stepwise evolution."

That is just not convincing to me--I'm going to stand by my own creator God.

 

[xianghua]

When? How? By who? If you are going to reject evolution you must have something to replace it with.

Right now all you are saying is "Life forms were created de novo by some entity (a god?) who wasn't smart or powerful enough to make it happen by stepwise evolution."

That is just not convincing to me--I'm going to stand by my own creator God.

why you believe in evolution if we have no evidence to support it?

 

[Speedwell]

why you believe in evolution if we have no evidence to support it?

If there really was no evidence to support it nobody would believe it, not even atheists.

Why do believe in a weak and stupid creator who is unable to create by stepwise evolution? There is no evidence for such a being.

 

[pitabread]

why you believe in evolution if we have no evidence to support it?

It's a myth that there is no evidence for biological evolution including common descent. Scientific theories are by their very nature a result of compiling evidence and rigorous testing of hypotheses. Ergo, the Theory of evolution is well supported in that regard.

 

[xianghua]

If there really was no evidence to support it nobody would believe it, not even atheists.

many believed in the past in a flat earth too (some even today). many believe in bigfoot or nessie. so what?

 

[Speedwell]

many believed in the past in a flat earth too (some even today). many believe in bigfoot or nessi. so what?

Until they learn otherwise through science.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's a myth that there is no evidence for biological evolution including common descent. Scientific theories are by their very nature a result of compiling evidence and rigorous testing of hypotheses. Ergo, the Theory of evolution is well supported in that regard.

Ditto for Phlogiston theory?

 

[Speedwell]

Ditto for Phlogiston theory?

You make a good point. Phlogiston theory was falsified by the evidence and eventually replaced by modern thermodynamic theory. But if modern themodynamic theory was falsified in turn by new evidence it would not "revive " phlogiston theory. Some new theory would have to be devised because once a theory is falsified it stays falsified.
The same is true of creationism. Creationsim has been falsified by the evidence. Falsification of the theory of evolution in turn would not bring creationism back.

 

[AV1611VET]

The same is true of creationism.

Don't you mean the "theory of creationism"?

I don't believe in a theory of creationism.

I believe in creationism.

And it has zero evidence behind it.

That's why it's not a theory per se.

 

[Speedwell]

Don't you mean the "theory of creationism"?

I don't believe in a theory of creationism.

I believe in creationism.

And it has zero evidence behind it.

That's why it's not a theory per se.

Right.

 

[xianghua]

Creationsim has been falsified by the evidence

are you refer to any creation de novo or just to a young earth creationism?

 

[Speedwell]

are you refer to any creation de novo or just to a young earth creationism?

Young Earth creationism, of course. As to your version of creation de novo, you haven't given us enough information about it to tell. But by the evidence it would have to have been so long ago and involve such a small a number of different kinds of creatures created "de novo" as to be functionally equivalent to universal common ancestry.

 

[AV1611VET]

But by the evidence it would have to have been so long ago and involve such a small a number of different kinds of creatures created "de novo" as to be functionally equivalent to universal common ancestry.

Is this the ol' Darwin's TREE OF LIFE vs God's ORCHARD argument?

 

[Speedwell]

Is this the ol' Darwin's TREE OF LIFE vs God's ORCHARD argument?

I see it as the God's tree of life vs. God's orchard argument.

 

[Ophiolite]

many believed in the past in a flat earth too (some even today). many believe in bigfoot or nessie. so what?

Specify the name, or names, of any educated person, who applying the scientific method, believed this to be the case. The Greeks had measured the Earth's circumference a couple of centuries before Christ.
Name a reputable scientist who insists upon the reality of bigfoot.