Creationism cannot be true

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Well done. I think you understood my post very well. (Thumbs up emoticon here)

reply to post by Klassified

Dear Klassified,

Thank you very much indeed. It looks like I can just sit back and watch the show. Nothing there that I can disagree with. May I emphasize one point you've already made?

Nobody's going to prove, scientifically, that God does or doesn't exist. There is some evidence, interpretations of that evidence, and logical arguments propounded. Everybody picks which option is more persuasive to them based on reason, revelation, or both.

One of the (several) reasons I have trouble accepting the "scientific" package of "The Universe came from the Big Bang, the suns and planets formed by chance, life formed by chance, and people arose by chance and by what happened to survive," are the gaping holes in it.

People seem to think that attributing everything to God is crazy, but attributing everything to "chance" is scientific and praiseworthy.

So far, the best efforts I've seen from the scientific crowd are two-fold. One, "You can't prove God exists," and two, "If we think really hard and our theories (which we can't test) turn out to be right, we'll have found a possible way in which life may have been formed." (They've pretty much had no luck on agreeing on a theory to explain how the Universe was created.)

On one side, then, you've got umpty thousands of scientists, micro-electrical tiny thing viewers, super way far out looking telescopes, and really, really smart computers, coming up with "Well, we'll get back to you."

On the other side you've got people, a Book, and eyewitnesses to Him who explained how things happened. An idea that has grown and spread, accepted around the world.

Like you said, it's what you find persuasive.

With respect,
Charles

reply to post by Krazysh0t


I see the creation story and evolution as both accurate and saying the same thing. It's the way one goes about interpreting both that gets the story all twisted up.

Indeed Scientists are now saying that there were more than a few species of man that coexisted and comingled... just saw Michio live recounting the old evolutuion theory to the new.

Even he says, 'God could be a mathematician: "The mind of God we believe is cosmic music, the music of strings resonating through 11 dimensional hyperspace. That is the mind of God." Sounds like string theory to me.

The creation story via the Bible can be summed up as an atom splitting to become sexual. There is the fall of man. We became literally screwed.

reply to post by MamaJ


So you look at the Creation account figuratively then? So how do you account for the contradictions that I outlined in the OP? Just curious how that could make sense.

Krazysh0t

Another_Nut

Krazysh0t
Sigh... I'll refute your points. But please stop talking about Evolution. Also your whole argument is 8 lines long. Post something of substance next time.

Another_Nut
once we create a life form evolution will be proven false.

How so? Evolution doesn't explain how life began. If we create life, it can still be subjected to the laws of Evolution.

infinite regression (creator of the creator) falls apart if we create life.

No it doesn't. If you believe that it would, you are going to have to expand on that idea. A simple sentence saying it is so won't cut it.

if our creation has a creator then its creator must have a creator.

why do yiu think creation has to happen via deity?

I don't... I'm challenging people who DO think it has to happen via deity.

dont u think we will produce life eventually?

Sure, I guess so, and that would go a long way to helping describe how life arose on this planet I'm sure. We cannot POOF life into creation like apparently God can so if we can produce it, it would show a more logical way that life came about.

does adaptation happen? absolutly.

does changing skincoloer or hair lead to a new species? nope

is a scientific religion.

Evolution arguments (and poor ones at that) that I'm not going to waste time responding to.

edit on 5-12-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

yiu dont even know what u are arguinh

is this no creation period?

is thisevolution vs creation

creation vs creation?

biblical creation vs evolution?

because yiu op just says creation.

No you don't know what I'm arguing about. I'm perfectly aware of what I'm postulating. I edited the OP with a paragraph at the beginning to explain my position more throughly.

lol

ok...

but you had to edit your op.

the problem is yiu just want to fight with religion

your op says creationism.

but u really mean biblical creationism.

u shiuld edit your op to reflect that

reply to post by Krazysh0t


I look at the entire Bible as if it is in layers. Meaning there are layers of meaning within the entire Book.

There is an "old" and a "new" creation story as well as testaments. An old way of thinking ( Adam/Atom) and a new way of thinking ( Christ-consciousness). A first Adam ( soul of Jesus) and the last Adam ( Christ)... but keep in mind.. the same soul.

The problem with the "christian" account of the Bibles meanings you hear in church is simply wrong. They leave out way too much and keeps the believer confused to a point of no return or blind faith with no clear direction.

Man was first thought of. A mere thought creates and sends it into motion/action. The thought is God and the Word is Christ (us). We are in motion having an experience.. and we ALL have a "his-story".

When the creation account speaks of water.. water means "spirit". "God hovers over the still spirits" .

"We created man in our own image". We meaning... our spirits. Like water we are reflected in matter here on Earth.

Look at the layers and really reflect on what you know in science as well because our creator is THE thought behind mathematics, which is ALL there is.

Ahhhm
This is a silly argument
Christianity is a faith. Science has to prove it wrong and justify the reality of evolution. So far science has failed.

F A I T H

You cant understand the complexities of creationism by arguing against it, you need to study it and then dissect it.

The saddest part of your assumption is that you think Christians dont question creation on a theological level constantly

Understand?

reply to post by Another_Nut


Um... You aren't making sense. At the beginning of the post you acknowledge that I edited my OP, then at the end you tell me that I need to edit my OP. Maybe you need to read what I type a little slower. You seem to be the only one who is failing to understand what I'm trying to get across here, and little fyi, it isn't that I'm trying to fight religion. I'm trying to test the veracity of the claims made by the Biblical Creation account. You know, the SAME thing that Creationists do with Evolution. I'm not sure how else I can explain that so you'd get it.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


It is not a contradiction just because you don't understand it. There are some creationist who believe in a gap theory that posits that there may have been 2 creation periods and the first one was scraped. There are some scholars and theologians who believe that the 2 accounts were written by different people based on stylistic variations. Then there are some that view it as one account being chronological and another topical.

Point being I don't think you have looked into this as earnestly as you claim and if you had then I think you missed a lot of information because you have not been shown how to study and interpret ancient text. This is like trying to understand physics with no mathematics background. Sure you will get some of it but not all.

borntowatch
Ahhhm
This is a silly argument
Christianity is a faith. Science has to prove it wrong and justify the reality of evolution. So far science has failed.

It's silly that you are claiming that science is fair game to be criticized, but biblical accounts cannot? That's absurd. If you can question the veracity of evolution, I should be able to question the veracity of the Bible story.

F A I T H

Yep, that's how you spell faith. Thanks for sharing that.

You cant understand the complexities of creationism by arguing against it, you need to study it and then dissect it.

Two chapters. Two. That is the entirety of the creation account that describes BILLIONS of years of the universe's development. That is like describing the entirety of the Roman Empire by saying, "Stuff happened." There aren't complexities there. Just a simple account of something.

The saddest part of your assumption is that you think Christians dont question creation on a theological level constantly

Understand?

No, I don't. You used some pretty poor reasoning to get your point across.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Dear krazysh0t,

I'm sorry to be breaking into your conversation with MamaJ, but I saw your question and have to respond with my own.

So you look at the Creation account figuratively then? So how do you account for the contradictions that I outlined in the OP? Just curious how that could make sense.

My question is "What contradictions?"

You gave creation theory (or the Biblical version of it) three strikes.

1.) "There's no proof for it." That's not a contradiction.

2.) "Taking the genesis story literally means there are contradictions." Maybe, but she specifically says she's not taking it literally, so there's no contradiction here either.

3.) "The Bible is unreliable." Even if that were true, it's simply saying what you said in 1.) (See above)

Under her approach, there are no contradictions.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by MamaJ


The problem I have with this account is that it is open for interpretation. You could interpret it differently than I would. I read it and see a contradiction. I don't see a mention of God creating the universe twice. That just appears to be reading more into it than what is there. I can see why people do that, the account is seriously lacking in detail. But what makes your interpretation more correct than the person next you who looks at the account literally?

I have considered the ideas of creation and evolution for a long time. As you say the bible is the only source of evidence for creation, however, evolution doesn't exactly prove anything either. Unless you were there we can't really have any proof. With that said, consider this: Time is relevant in the biblical theory. What if seven days to God were like seven centuries(or longer) to us? Wouldn't that bring the story of creation a lot closer to the theory of evolution? Are they one and the same?

reply to post by NihilistSanta


Interpretations are flawed. Anyone can have a unique interpretation of what they are reading, and all of them can be vastly different. Upon viewing interpretations, how do you know when to stop reading something figuratively and start reading it literally? I mean after the second chapter of Genesis, it goes on to talk about Adam and Even, then the story of Cain and Abel. Do we continue to look at those stories figuratively or literally? Who decides? How do we know what the correct interpretation is?

Speaking to your gap theory. I think that is flawed as well. There is no mention in the bible that God created the universe twice. Not to mention this goes against the idea that God is supposedly infallible. Wouldn't the need to create the universe twice imply that He failed the first time?

Triangulation only works if you have two known points.
We could use recorded history as this is mostly accurate, but as mentioned, man is fallible. Can we document any viable evidence of evolution in man (as mans record is the only one we have) of actual physical evolution? We can validate that there is cellular mutation, but we can't actually see a physical improvement because of these mutations. Darwin pointed to unnecessary organs in the human body, but we have learned that these organs do in fact have physical pertinence.

Is there documented evidence of sporadic evolution? I am not that vested in the evolution theory, so in lay terms, have we witnessed a creature evolve from one species into another? For the theory of evolution to work, it needs to prove that all life came from one genetic source, or that multiple genetic sources were introduced at different times throughout history. Have we witnessed the introduction of any new genetic material in the environment? I don't believe so.

Spontaneous Generation! An excellent scientific theory in which it was proved that living cells can spontaneously generate from dead cells. A piece of meat was placed in a jar, and in a few days time, fly larvae magically appeared. Proof positive of evolution at work! Or was it?

reply to post by Krazysh0t


I do not particularly believe in the gap theory myself but again you are arguing from a point of ignorance. You don't even know how that theory exist. It is based upon essentially a pause in the Hebrew text. This is why you have to understand more than just the plain text to get any true understanding. You have to understand ancient writing styles, you have to understand ancient customs and mindsets, symbols and many many other factors.

charles1952
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Dear krazysh0t,

I'm sorry to be breaking into your conversation with MamaJ, but I saw your question and have to respond with my own.

So you look at the Creation account figuratively then? So how do you account for the contradictions that I outlined in the OP? Just curious how that could make sense.

My question is "What contradictions?"

You gave creation theory (or the Biblical version of it) three strikes.

1.) "There's no proof for it." That's not a contradiction.

2.) "Taking the genesis story literally means there are contradictions." Maybe, but she specifically says she's not taking it literally, so there's no contradiction here either.

3.) "The Bible is unreliable." Even if that were true, it's simply saying what you said in 1.) (See above)

Under her approach, there are no contradictions.

With respect,
Charles1952

What I was trying to construe with my three strikes is:
1) Not that there isn't any proof, but that the proof for it is lacking in abundance. There is only one source.
2) You were correct here, I striked against it because of the contradictions. But I addressed this point to Mamaj already.
3) What I'm trying to show here is that when analyzing the proof that DOES exist, it is lacking in believability.

I know that 1 and 2 are similar, but there is a difference I'm trying to get across.

reply to post by NihilistSanta


Well educate me. Post some proof or links to show me the errors in my thought process. If you feel that my reasoning is flawed, then show me how. I am always open to learning new things. Though the contradictions are really only 1/3 of my reasoning on why the Biblical Creation account is flawed.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


You can not argue based on believability otherwise you have already lost. Believers outnumber non-believers.

reply to post by onthedownlow


There are answers to all of those questions, but maybe ask them in a thread about evolution. I'm really trying to steer clear of the evolution debate, because I know that if I give a little leeway towards it, opponents of my position will try to hijack my thread and turn it into a thread about evolution. I don't mind bringing it up to compare to a point you are making about Creationism, but I'm not trying to argue about whether or not evolution is true or not in this thread.