Why won’t creationists participate in open and honest debate?

[Chalnoth]

Fossils are created by catastrophes such as floods, not by a gradual process. Dead things begin to decay very quickly on land or in water so would have decayed before it became a fossil if an evolution time-scale is applied.

Not all fossils. Burial in volcanic ash can cause fossilization. As can mudslides. Animals can be buried in tar pits and fossilized, or trapped in tree sap. The measurement of the age of the Earth at 4.6 billion years allows lots of time for a great number of very different natural disasters to have occurred to fossilize a great number of very different organisms.

Recent research by a Yale mathematician, Joseph T. Chang, presented models showing that the most recent person who was a direct ancestor of all humans currently alive may have lived just a few thousand years ago.

That's purely a statistical statement. There is no evidence that there were only two humans alive at any one point in time. Think about it this way: we have two parents, four grandparents, eight great grandparents, and so on back. As you go further back, you have more and more ancestors. If you go far enough back, there must be one person that every person alive today shares as their common ancestor. But that doesn't mean that was the only person, or pair of people, alive at the time.

Dating the earth by counting layers of sediment as a year is not accurate. Mt. St. Helens laid down 25 ft of fine layers in one afternoon

Very true. And such dating is only done in very specific locations (see varves). The most reliable dating methods rely upon radiometric dating. In order to have a reliable dating of any object, you want to have multiple, independent measures of its age.

If you think there is too much coal on the Earth for the Earth to be young, that is wrong, too, because it assumes that the climate before and after the flood were the same. Also, the flood would have created much more coal than a swamp would because it buried vegetation very quickly.

This argument doesn't concern me too much. There are much better reasons not to believe in a global flood, in particular the total lack of evidence of a global flood in the geologic record.

Looking at the Bible, we can see that the account in Genesis one must be taken literally because if evolution is true than there would have been millions of years of death before the fall. Death didn't enter the world until the fall, which happened after everything, including humans, was created.

Well, I agree with you, in that it doesn't make sense to believe in the Bible without taking it literally. That's why I'm now an atheist: reality cannot be incorrect, and there is ample evidence in reality that a literal interpretation of the Bible cannot be correct.

For example, our own galaxy is something like 300,000 light years across and contains around 400,000,000,000 stars. The size of our own galaxy can be measured to a good deal of accuracy using very simple and reliable techniques, such as parallax (which uses the simple fact that the Earth will have moved to the other side of the sun in 6 months, and so nearby stars will have moved slightly with respect to far away ones). How much sense does it make that the universe could be a mere 6,000 years old if we can see light that took longer than that to reach us? And that's just our own galaxy. There are many, many, many more out there:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2004/07/image/a
As you can read in the above link, that image was taken of a patch of the sky one tenth the diameter of the full moon. I'd recommend taking a gander at the full resolution image found here:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2004/07/image/a+warn
Each and every one of those galaxies is going to be somewhere around 100,000 light years in diameter itself. Now, can you honestly look at these pictures and tell me that the universe is young? That God just decided to deceive us into believing that these things are out there?

After all, it's not just that there are this many galaxies out there, but we detect events occurring in them all the time. Some of the easier to see ones are supernovae, and we now have the experimental accuracy to detect a few supernovae a day. So if the universe was a mere 6,000 years old, then God would be deceiving us not only as to the mere existence of stars in our own galaxy, not to mention other galaxies far away, but also events occurring in these far away galaxies.

 

[sonfleur]

Since I'm only one person, I don't have time to answer all of three people's arguments, but, seeking to be fair, I'll try to answer at least one of each of your arguments.

For example, our own galaxy is something like 300,000 light years across and contains around 400,000,000,000 stars. The size of our own galaxy can be measured to a good deal of accuracy using very simple and reliable techniques, such as parallax (which uses the simple fact that the Earth will have moved to the other side of the sun in 6 months, and so nearby stars will have moved slightly with respect to far away ones). How much sense does it make that the universe could be a mere 6,000 years old if we can see light that took longer than that to reach us? And that's just our own galaxy. There are many, many, many more out there...

Cosmic Microwave Background readings are the same throughout the universe, implying that light has had time to travel from one end of the universe to the other. With an evolutionist time frame, this is not possible. So evolutionists then hypothesize about how CMB readings are all the same. They don't know what to do with the evidence they have.


As of yet, creationists hypothesize, too. Cosmetology is very complex. God is all powerful and is not limited to doing things that we can understand. However, we can take evidences we can more clearly see and understand to know that the Bible is true.

First, lots of places did not have flood stories. If you map those who did, you will map riparian and sea side cultures. Cultures that grew up in places where it did not customarily flood do not have such stories.

...

Those early stories were collected primarily by western missionaries who were looking for noahic flood examples. now that professional anthropologists go back and talk to the people they find that this stories are often not genuine but the result of probing questions, akin to false childhood memories of abuse brought on by subtle questioning.



But the big issue is that these stories are not at all common themed except for the presence of a lot of water. They differ immensely in meaning and the significance that those communities attach to them.

There is no evidence in human testimony of a global flood

At the British Museum of History I saw two tablets from Babylon that spoke of a global flood. They both had these elements that were similar to the Bible: someone was warned in advance and escaped the flood with family and the animals, the entire earth was flooded because a god was upset with his creation, the survivor and his family sacrifice to the god once the flood receded. Other tablets/accounts like these exist that have similarities to the Biblical account(Sumerian myth of Ziusudra, Australian Aborigines' (three legends), Native American (nearly every tribe has a flood legend similar to the Biblical account), Aztec Codex Chimalpopoca, Incas, etc.)

You didn't answer my question about the tree of life. Why was there a tree of immorality, that God banned Adam and Eve from, if they were already immortal? It makes no sense for God to throw them out of the garden, "lest they eat from the tree of life and live forever" if they couldn't die.

The Tree of Life primarily represents favor and fellowship with God; God dwelling with His people and communing with them. There will be a Tree of Life in Heaven (see Revelation 22:2), where we will already have immortal bodies.

Very true. And such dating is only done in very specific locations (see varves). The most reliable dating methods rely upon radiometric dating. In order to have a reliable dating of any object, you want to have multiple, independent measures of its age.

Radiometric dating is typically performed after conclusions have already been drawn about an object's age. If the radiometric dating does not fit into the age that has already been concluded, than scientists try to find a reason why the radiometric dating was not in agreement to what they thought. For example, if they're trying to date a lava dyke and the age appears older in the radiometric dating than they thought it should be, than the scientist may suggest that some of the chemicals have been disturbed.

The most reliable dating method remains eye witness. We know that certain rocks formed at some volcanoes on a certain date because someone witnessed the eruption, thus we know how old they are. We know how old the Earth is because God has supplied us with an accurate account in the Bible.

 

[c'mon sense]

Adam and Eve and the animals could easily have had plenty to eat without any plant death. Grazing doesn't kill a grass plant. Picking apples doesn't kill the tree, nor does picking beans, peas, corn, etc...

Plants are not alive in the respect that they do not have a conscious self.

How can God call the pre-sin world "very good" if there was death before sin?

Here's a simple question for you: why would a perfect world need "feeding" and "food" in the first place?

 

[Aron-Ra]

Cosmic Microwave Background readings are the same throughout the universe, implying that light has had time to travel from one end of the universe to the other. With an evolutionist time frame, this is not possible.

Why not?

So evolutionists then hypothesize about how CMB readings are all the same. They don't know what to do with the evidence they have.

And yet this discovery netted physicists, Penzias and Wilson a Nobel prize in 1978.

As of yet, creationists hypothesize, too. Cosmetology is very complex. God is all powerful and is not limited to doing things that we can understand.

You say that as if there was some way to know that. Is there some way to tell if that's really true? If not, then you're just asserting an opinion that can't be verified and therefore can't be claimed so matter-of-factly. Whenever you can't substantiate a claim, you should preface such comments withe the words "I believe".

However, we can take evidences we can more clearly see and understand to know that the Bible is true.

You need to include the word, "not" here.

At the British Museum of History I saw two tablets from Babylon that spoke of a global flood. They both had these elements that were similar to the Bible: someone was warned in advance and escaped the flood with family and the animals, the entire earth was flooded because a god was upset with his creation, the survivor and his family sacrifice to the god once the flood receded. Other tablets/accounts like these exist that have similarities to the Biblical account(Sumerian myth of Ziusudra, Australian Aborigines' (three legends), Native American (nearly every tribe has a flood legend similar to the Biblical account), Aztec Codex Chimalpopoca, Incas, etc.)

The Australian flood myth was evidently conceived after the influence of Christian missionaries in the area. The native American flood myths are so dramatically different that there's no comparison other than the mere fact that it was a flood myth. The same is true of Chinese flood myth. In most cases, there isn't enough similarity for comparison. Even in the Greek flood myth, there were many survivors in the hills and trees. In all the world, the only flood myths which are notably similar to the Bible's are the ones that inspired the Bible version to begin with. The flood myth in Enuma Elish and in the epics of Gilgamesh and Atrahasis all detail the same event, a flood which can be archaologically verified to have happened. It devastated the Tirgris-Euphrates basin at the end of the Jemdat-Nasr period in about 2900 BCE. That event was also noted in the Sumerian book of the kings. The tablets you say came from Ashurburnipal's library, and they predate any part of the Bible by about 1,000 years.

The Tree of Life primarily represents favor and fellowship with God; God dwelling with His people and communing with them. There will be a Tree of Life in Heaven (see Revelation 22:2), where we will already have immortal bodies.

Again, you forgot to preface these assertions with "I believe". You have to do that whenever you can't support your claims with evidential backing. Otherwise we could just make up anything we want and assert it as 'truth' whether it was evidently true or not.

Radiometric dating is typically performed after conclusions have already been drawn about an object's age. If the radiometric dating does not fit into the age that has already been concluded, than scientists try to find a reason why the radiometric dating was not in agreement to what they thought.

So far you're correct because everything has to be checked for potential error.

For example, if they're trying to date a lava dyke and the age appears older in the radiometric dating than they thought it should be, than the scientist may suggest that some of the chemicals have been disturbed.

I don't like the implication here. Such can be the case, but in science, there is no priori conclusion to be defended the way there is in creationism. We can be surprised and are often forced to change our minds about particular details. However, everything we've ever seen from any source anywhere in every relevant field all supports the "evolutionary time-line" unanemously and exclusively without exception. That's just what you would expect of something that happens to be true.

The most reliable dating method remains eye witness.

Generally, eyewitnesses tend to be the least reliable source of evidence of any kind.

We know that certain rocks formed at some volcanoes on a certain date because someone witnessed the eruption, thus we know how old they are. We know how old the Earth is because God has supplied us with an accurate account in the Bible.

No ma'am, not even close. There is no part of the Bible which can be verified accurate at all. It is evidently only folklore adapted from the elder polytheism of the Mesopotamian pantheons.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Double-posted

 

[Schroeder]

No ma'am, not even close. There is no part of the Bible which can be verified accurate at all. It is evidently only folklore adapted from the elder polytheism of the Mesopotamian pantheons.

this means there is no actual history we can truelly say happened.YET we keep putting it all in our history books. i guess it is better to have some sort of an idea of what COULD have happened then to ignore it all together. just so happens you all have been trying to dismantel the scripture for a long time and have not managed to do it yet. the new testement is the most accurate account of past history there is. there is more info and evidence for it then most if not all of the history around it. I think you believe if there is no theology or religious ideas mentioned then it is a good account. to say what you said shows a great amount of biased opinion.

 

[Aron-Ra]

this means there is no actual history we can truelly say happened.YET we keep putting it all in our history books. i guess it is better to have some sort of an idea of what COULD have happened then to ignore it all together. just so happens you all have been trying to dismantel the scripture for a long time and have not managed to do it yet. the new testement is the most accurate account of past history there is. there is more info and evidence for it then most if not all of the history around it. I think you believe if there is no theology or religious ideas mentioned then it is a good account. to say what you said shows a great amount of biased opinion.

No sir. I remain objective. But after studying in-depth before and after my college class taught by a Ph.D Bible scholar, I am only repeating what all the experts are saying: There is little support for any of the gospels at all, especially since they conflict with each other. There is less support for most of the Bible than for most elements of what we consider history, and none of it is remotely reliable. I've never tried to "dismantle" scripture, but I have examined it critically and found that several scholars of scripture had already noted too many flaws and failures in it to possibly consider it literal history.

 

[Chalnoth]

Cosmic Microwave Background readings are the same throughout the universe, implying that light has had time to travel from one end of the universe to the other.

Actually, this is true: the standard big bang theory does not explain how the universe could be homogeneous and isotropic. This was one of the motivations for cosmic inflation, back when it was proposed in 1980. Now that we have confirmed the existence of cosmic inflation from the WMAP satellite, we have a very good explanation as to why the universe is homogeneous and isotropic: the accelerated expansion of the early universe allowed all of the universe that we see today to equilibriate. Before inflation ended, the universe had become completely smooth, aside from some miniscule quantum fluctuations, fluctuations which grew under the influence of gravity to all of the structure we see today.

As of yet, creationists hypothesize, too. Cosmetology is very complex. God is all powerful and is not limited to doing things that we can understand. However, we can take evidences we can more clearly see and understand to know that the Bible is true.

It's cosmology, not cosmetology. I am not studying to become a hair dresser
Anyway, it is rather disingenuous to say that the evidence supports the Bible if you don't even know the evidence. I am a graduate student studying cosmology right now, and I have seen nothing that supports the Bible in the least.

At the British Museum of History I saw two tablets from Babylon that spoke of a global flood. They both had these elements that were similar to the Bible: someone was warned in advance and escaped the flood with family and the animals, the entire earth was flooded because a god was upset with his creation, the survivor and his family sacrifice to the god once the flood receded.

Yes, the story of Gilgamesh. Ancient myths were copied again and again across the cultures. Many of the events in the story of Jesus' life was copied from the myths of Osiris, Dionysus, Mithra/Mithras, and Hercules. Things like the virgin birth, birth under humble circumstances (cave, lain in a manger), the feeding of a multitude, his death and resurrection all happened to these gods before Jesus was supposed to have walked the Earth. Jesus' story was not new or unique. Pretty much the only difference was that Jesus' story drew upon Hebrew mythology and did not acknowledge the existence of any other gods.

Other tablets/accounts like these exist that have similarities to the Biblical account(Sumerian myth of Ziusudra, Australian Aborigines' (three legends), Native American (nearly every tribe has a flood legend similar to the Biblical account), Aztec Codex Chimalpopoca, Incas, etc.)

Aside from being copied, many early human cultures lived in flood plains, for the reason that flood plains are very fertile and easy to cultivate. Therefore flooding would have been a common experience for all early human cultures. It should be no surprise that myths about a great flood would have arisen out of many of them.

Radiometric dating is typically performed after conclusions have already been drawn about an object's age. If the radiometric dating does not fit into the age that has already been concluded, than scientists try to find a reason why the radiometric dating was not in agreement to what they thought. For example, if they're trying to date a lava dyke and the age appears older in the radiometric dating than they thought it should be, than the scientist may suggest that some of the chemicals have been disturbed.

All dating techniques that are used to date something must agree (obviously). So scientists use multiple techniques to date objects. This doesn't mean that they have made any a priori decision as to what the age of something is. Scientists have been surprised a number of times as to the age of things.

But most importantly for the reasons of discussion are the dating methods related to the age of the Earth. The oldest rocks on the surface of the Earth are 3.8 billion years old, since the Earth's crust is recycled. The oldest objects on Earth that have been dated are zircon crystals, which have survived a bit longer by being blown around the surface. Some of these have been dated to around 4.3-4.4 billion years. But the most reliable dating method comes not form dating the Earth directly, but from dating the solar system, specifically asteroids. Using the extremelly reliable isochron dating technique, it has been shown that all of the asteroids formed at pretty much the same time, about 4.6 billion years ago.

The most reliable dating method remains eye witness. We know that certain rocks formed at some volcanoes on a certain date because someone witnessed the eruption, thus we know how old they are. We know how old the Earth is because God has supplied us with an accurate account in the Bible.

By that logic, ring wraiths must exist because they are written down in the Lord of the Rings. Just because it's written down in a book doesn't make it true: it also needs to be consistent with the physical evidence. The Biblical creation event is not consistent with the physical evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, the story of Gilgamesh. Ancient myths were copied again and again across the cultures. Many of the events in the story of Jesus' life was copied from the myths of Osiris, Dionysus, Mithra/Mithras, and Hercules. Things like the virgin birth, birth under humble circumstances (cave, lain in a manger), the feeding of a multitude, his death and resurrection all happened to these gods before Jesus was supposed to have walked the Earth. Jesus' story was not new or unique. Pretty much the only difference was that Jesus' story drew upon Hebrew mythology and did not acknowledge the existence of any other gods.

Jesus' virgin birth was predicted LONG before an Egyptian or Babylonian ever walked the earth --- not to mention a Hebrew.

[bible]Genesis 3:15[/bible]

 

[Aron-Ra]

Jesus' virgin birth was predicted LONG before an Egyptian or Babylonian ever walked the earth --- not to mention a Hebrew.

[bible]Genesis 3:15[/bible]

This is in no way that, (or any other) prophesy.

 

[Chalnoth]

Jesus' virgin birth was predicted LONG before an Egyptian or Babylonian ever walked the earth --- not to mention a Hebrew.

[bible]Genesis 3:15[/bible]

Really? So the Bible was written before any Hebrews existed?

 

[AV1611VET]

This is in no way that, (or any other) prophesy.

Oh, really?

• And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
  
  He chiefly means Satan, by whose action and deceit the serpent deceived the woman. That is, the power of sin and death. Satan shall sting Christ and his members, but not overcome them.

• Therefore the address is not to Adam and Eve, but to Eve alone; and it was in consequence of this purpose of God that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin; this, and this alone, is what is implied in the promise of the seed of the woman bruising the head of the serpent.

• It = the seed of the woman, or, as it might be rendered, He, referring especially to Christ, who in due time would come to destroy the works of the devil.
  
  Bruise thy head = overcome him and destroy his power. Bruise his heel; inflict upon him temporary evil.

• I will put enmity between thee and the woman--God can only be said to do so by leaving "the serpent and his seed to the influence of their own corruption; and by those measures which, pursued for the salvation of men, fill Satan and his angels with envy and rage."
  
  thou shalt bruise his heel--The serpent wounds the heel that crushes him; and so Satan would be permitted to afflict the humanity of Christ and bring suffering and persecution on His people.
  
  it shall bruise thy head--The serpent's poison is lodged in its head; and a bruise on that part is fatal. Thus, fatal shall be the stroke which Satan shall receive from Christ, though it is probable he did not at first understand the nature and extent of his doom.

I could go on and on, but I'll stop here --- Google "protevangelum" for more.

 

[AV1611VET]

Really? So the Bible was written before any Hebrews existed?

Genesis 1 - 11 was --- yes.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Genesis 1 - 11 was --- yes.

No Hebrews existed before 1500 BC?

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Genesis 1 - 11 was --- yes.

Then who wrote it, and how do you know?

 

[AV1611VET]

No Hebrews existed before 1500 BC?

Is this line of question going somewhere, Nathan, or can we get off this verbal merry-go-round?

Genesis 3:15 --- written by Adam --- who was not --- repeat Not --- repeat NOT --- a Hebrew --- who didn't even know what a Hebrew was --- who didn't know Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or Moses --- who lived thousands --- repeat THOUSANDS of years before any Hebrew even breathed --- says this:

[bible]Genesis 3:15[/bible]

What --- on Earth --- does this have to do with Hebrews --- who came THOUSANDS (did I mention THOUSANDS?) of years later?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then who wrote it, and how do you know?

Oh, I read it in a Book somewhere.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Is this line of question going somewhere, Nathan, or can we get off this verbal merry-go-round?

Genesis 3:15 --- written by Adam --- who was not --- repeat Not --- repeat NOT --- a Hebrew --- who didn't even know what a Hebrew was --- who didn't know Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or Moses --- who lived thousands --- repeat THOUSANDS of years before any Hebrew even breathed --- says this:

[bible]Genesis 3:15[/bible]

What --- on Earth --- does this have to do with Hebrews --- who came THOUSANDS (did I mention THOUSANDS?) of years later?

Well, don't you only have 6,000 years to work with? I mean you have to fit in creation and the flood and all that. Now you're saying Adam was THOUSANDS of years before anyone else significant in the Bible? What about Moses? Did he or didn't he write the pentateuch (including the bits after he died)?

 

[Dragar]

Oh, really?

Really. Prophecies so vague can be fulfilled by any number of criteria, and it's not exactly uncontested there was a virgin birth.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, don't you only have 6,000 years to work with?

Yes.

I mean you have to fit in creation and the flood and all that.

Which fits in easily.

Now you're saying Adam was THOUSANDS of years before anyone else significant in the Bible?

He was 2500 years before Moses.

What about Moses? Did he or didn't he write the pentateuch (including the bits after he died)?

Yes --- here's how it goes:

• Moses edited Genesis.
• And authored Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
• Joshua wrote his epitaph.

Study what colophons are --- they'll help you understand.