Creationism cannot be true

Krazysh0t
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?

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

Books contain stories. The Bible is a book of stories. With any book or ANY information for that matter one interprets it to the best of his knowledge. Correct? Everything is open to interpretation.

The way I have interpreted the Words within the book is simple, from my own point of view and how I view the world and God. Once I freed my mind from others pov and interpretation I realized my view of the book being contradictory and filled with so many errors was in fact my error in the way I was allowing another's interpretation to be my view. For this very reason I understood what it meant to seek and find.

For some, going to church and not questioning works for their spirit. For my spirit I need answers and the only way I have found answers is by questioning. When I seek, I find.

I would like to ask, how many times have you read the Bible? It takes many times of reading a book for me to truly comprehend the overall meaning. Thus, with the Bible the overall meaning I get out of it may not be what you get out of it and for very good reason. We are all on a path of discovery. Mine is not yours to discover and vice versa. Make sense?

I am a lover of science as well as a lover of spiritual essence. I see all equally important and reflecting the same thing.

The Bible speaks loudly to me what science has confirmed. I don't know how.. or why.. but I would say it's the path I've chosen.

Im not a christian... I am a seeker who wishes to not label myself to a certain belief system. I believe in a creator that creates and I believe in evolution. They are both evident in my view.

reply to post by Another_Nut


your " logic " is utterly flawed , for the simple reason :

evolution posits a naturalistic origin of life

the argument of " infinite regression " is ONLY valid IF you are claiming a designer / creator is mandatory

any creation / design from a creator coming from naturalistic origins is no different than a watch

nice try - but sadly wrong

Krazysh0t
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.

This may be a good jumping on point for you , Krazysh0t. Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?

reply to post by NihilistSanta


Ok, maybe that was the wrong word there. I guess the word I should have used was trustability or something like that.

If you can answer this question, you will be much closer to whatever it is you are looking for.

In purely "scientific" terms, what constitutes "consciousness" or "intelligence"? What constitutes a "personality" or "personage"? Where is it contained, what happens to it when the body dies? Does such a thing actually exist? What is "existence"?

Okay, chances are you will answer something like "consciousness is a series of chemical reactions which are organized and have the capability of storing and reading memory". Again, let's assume a strictly scientific approach to the topic.

IOW you may believe there is no such thing as a spirit outside of the human body.

What then is there to say that anything that exist in the universe does not also have "consciousness"? Simply on a different scale or time factor? The ocean? Trees? A galaxy? The universe? Is it purely based on your ability to perceive or communicate with it?

What if there are millions of people who claim to have communicated with this "personage"? Can you offer any explanation or dispute any of this using science?

reply to post by NihilistSanta


Thank you, I will look at that in a bit, it is open as a separate tab in my browser. I'm at work right now and its starting to pile up. I'll be back to the thread later today to continue addressing people.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


No problem and thanks for not dismissing it out right because it is a christian source. Let me know what you think after you have had a chance to review it. Granted its not meant to convert anyone but is a pretty fair look at the text from a scholarly perspective.

reply to post by 2XOHsurf


I would say that we need to try to devise a scientific procedure to study and analyze these occurrences and possibilities. I actually don't believe one way or the other about a soul. I feel that science doesn't do enough to address claims such as ghosts, spirits, the soul, the afterlife, demons, etc. Some of those things are unstudyable with our current understanding of science, but scientists like to laugh that stuff off without even giving it its due. I try to reserve judgment on these things until we can actually study these things outside of some psuedo-scientists basement.

Krazysh0t
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.

Sorry, I had to laugh out loud. The original post ties this post to evolution versus creationism. You bring up Triangulation as a viable method for proving theories.

reply to post by NihilistSanta


I've read that link before and glad you brought it into this discussion. When woman was brought on the scene it made for another more definitive creation story because this is when I think ( in my own minds eye) the split of Adam/Atom set creation into absolute motion. It was a desire to create, first made in spirit.

Before we come to Earth in the womb we have a desire in spirit to do so. This is our free will set into motion.

God shows us clearly that thoughts in spirit are indeed created in matter and for this reason we are told to have control of our thoughts.

MamaJ
reply to post by NihilistSanta

 

Before we come to Earth in the womb we have a desire in spirit to do so. This is our free will set into motion.

God shows us clearly that thoughts in spirit are indeed created in matter and for this reason we are told to have control of our thoughts.

I really like this! I am still trying to wrap my mind around it, but it is quite excellent!

reply to post by onthedownlow


Ha! Thanks!

My 16 old son asked me a creation question the other day and when I got finished recounting what I think happened he said, "WHOA! I've just been mind _ _ _ _ ed by my mom". I laughed so hard I cried!!

Making sense of creation seems simple to me. Science, Mathematics, Philosophy, Mythologies, and the Bible are great compilations that compliment one another. It's all connected from my pov.

When I read the Bible it seems to take on different meanings. There is a literal, a figurative, a metaphorical and so on. There are so many ways to interpret because there are so many different ways of understanding. We all do not understand the same way.

For a person that doesn't believe they have a spirit and a soul it will be hard for them to understand the full meaning of which I understand from the Bible. If the person doesn't understand the science behind creation they are lacking what I see. It doesn't mean I am right and they are wrong however it simply means there are many ways to relating with the mind of God. Does the person believe in reincarnation of the soul? If not they will not understand how I find the many souls of Jesus (job, joseph, melchizedek) and understand his story of how he became Christ at the end and how we are ALL evolving the same to eventually become the best we can be... christ-consciousness, so to speak.

NihilistSanta
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

No problem and thanks for not dismissing it out right because it is a christian source. Let me know what you think after you have had a chance to review it. Granted its not meant to convert anyone but is a pretty fair look at the text from a scholarly perspective.

Ok, I'm back for right now. I read through your link. It was definitely educational if only for the fact that it offered an alternate point of view towards the contradictions. The biggest problem I have with the analysis is this blurb:

This type of procedure was not unknown in the literary methodology of antiquity. Gleason Archer observed that the “technique of recapitulation was widely practiced in ancient Semitic literature. The author would first introduce his account with a short statement summarizing the whole transaction, and then he would follow it up with a more detailed and circumstantial account when dealing with matters of special importance” (1964, p. 118). These respective sections have a different literary motif. Genesis 1 is chronological, revealing the sequential events of the creation week, whereas Genesis 2 is topical, with special concern for man and his environment. [This procedure is not unknown elsewhere in biblical literature. Matthew’s account of the ministry of Christ is more topical, while Mark’s record is more chronological.]

I understand what they are getting at, but it just doesn't make sense to introduce a topic, give the chronological order in which it appears, then when speaking about it topically, you change the order of occurrence. It seems that this would confuse anyone who was reading the story. Then the article goes on to say this:

It is wise to remember that the Word of God was not written for the benefit of “scholars,” but for the common person. The Scriptures assume that the average person is able to understand the message and to know that the source is divine.

This suggests to me that the bible isn't meant for intelligent people, but rather for people who accept things blindly and not question the status quo. I mean again, the only thing that says the bible is divine, is the bible. What if you start off by questioning the divinity of the bible?

reply to post by onthedownlow


No, my OP may have made a few off hand remarks about evolution, but it certainly wasn't comparing the two. To start with evolution isn't an explanation for where the universe came from or even how life started on this planet, science has other models to explain these two things. I only brought up evolution in the OP to show that if Creationists are able to pick apart the scientific theory, I should be able to pick apart their theory and show the flaws in it. There are PLENTY of evolution threads on ATS, if you want the answers to those questions, they have ALL been answered in every single one of them. This thread is about Biblical Creationism.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


The Bible is God's instructions for His creation (Elohim) through physical mankind. It is only concerned with God's interaction with mankind, and His plan and purpose for their creation.

There is no need for God to have gone into detail regarding the original creation, Genesis 1 is all that is needed in this age, His word is His to give in his perfect timing, despite demands from modern scientists claiming that His Word is lacking.

The truth of Creation is recorded in scripture:

In Genesis 1:1 God records He created the heavens and the Earth. This is the original creation of both the spirit realm and afterwards the physical realm billions of years ago (think Big Bang). Much occurred after that moment, billions of years passed in the physical realm before Genesis 1:3 begins; but many of those events are not recorded in scripture because they do not involve mankind (purpose of the Bible).

This is what the Bible indicates occurred prior to Genesis 1:3 (when God began to RE-CREATE the Earth's surface in 6 days; roughly 6000 years ago):

Genesis 1:1 (Original Creation story)

"In the Beginning God Created the Heavens..."
- God Created the spirit realm first (the physical realm would be built on top of the spiritual realm in time; think anti-matter/dark matter).
- Then God created the angels (free moral agents, composed of spirit essence, and exist in the spirit realm).
- 3 archangels were part of this angelic creation, prior to the original physical realm (Michael, Gabriel and Lucifer)

"...and the Earth."
- God created the physical realm billions of years ago.
- God placed the archangel Lucifer on the Earth to administer God's Holy government (law) over the physical creation.
- At some point in time God revealed His plan for the creation of Elohim (God's family) through physical beings (mankind).
- Lucifer did not agree with this plan, as a free moral agent he is free to choose for himself what to obey. He lead 1/3rd of all angelic beings to rebel against their creator God as a result.

Genesis 1:2 (Physical results of an angelic rebellion)

"And after time the Earth was rendered lifeless and full of chaos, and darkness covered the waters"
- A war broke out in Heaven (spirit realm) the aftermath of which effected the physical Earth (as above so below) and the solar system as a whole (ELE on Earth, creation of the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter).
- Waters still covered the already created Earth in Genesis 1:2, but no light from the sun could reach the surface (atmosphere destroyed, dust and debris chocking the Earth).

Genesis 1:3 (the beginning of the RE-CREATION of the Earth so it would be suitable for mankind to live upon it)

"After this, God said "let there be light" and there was light."
- God began to re-create/re-fashion the Earth in preparation for mankind to be placed upon it. The first day God placed the Earth in it's current location and rotation, which began to re-create the atmosphere (EMF), after the first rotation (24 hours) God had divided the day and night on Earth.

There is no need to continue explaining each days creation, as it would begin to derail this thread.

God intentionally left out the details He could have provided to Moses when recording Genesis regarding creation. God did this because in this age (6000 year age of mankind's self rule) it was God's predetermined plan to allow mankind this time to choose for themselves what is right and what is wrong (creation vs evolution), using human reasoning and physical observation. This is not the age for the salvation of mankind, this is the age of man. An age designed for man to live and to die according to our own will (what we think is best); so God left out these details until much closer to the end of this age (soon to take place) before revealing this limited understanding to His Church.

There is a time when all of this will be revealed in perfection to all mankind that has ever lived and died under the sun, after the Great Resurrection to physical life a second time in an age known in scripture as the Great White Thrown judgment age. This period occurs after the 1000 year reign of the Kingdom of God on Earth following the end of this age soon to transpire.

Heb 9:27
"For it determined for man to die once, but after this the age of judgment (Great White Thrown)."

The good news is OP, according to God's Word mankind is not meant to believe the Bible regarding creation in this present age, since mankind has not yet entered into Judgment (except those in the Church of God) all things in God's timing. In the end all will eventually believe, because it is God's plan to prove it to each human being who ever lived in time; NOW is not that time.

God Bless,

reply to post by charles1952

Hi Charles, my first post was a bit tongue in cheek to make a point. And kudos to Krazyshot for catching it. Nevertheless, it was also a serious take on an old issue. This debate is unwinnable for both sides, and always ends up in the court of public opinion, anyway. Whatever science presents as probability does not, and cannot, negate the possibility of divine involvement. Ever. That's just the way it is, and both sides of this issue must admit an amount of faith, in order to maintain their stance.

Christians have no problem with admitting faith, but most others do.

Another_Nut

why do u insist on using the bible as a case for creation?

i will argure creation.

i wont argue bbiblical anything

Sometimes I wish I could have a spiritual man from that time give me the exact words and meaning so that I could really see if I agree with their idea or not. For me the fall of man in genesis is the fall into duality (becoming trapped in thinking you know right from wrong without all the information and thinking very deeply).

What about the Annunaki/Elohim in Sumerian and the old testaments. Where humanity genetically created and evolved as a slave race to mine gold in South Africa?

Op to make it clear I do believe in Creation but that does not mean it cannot be thru Big Bang (or a 11 dimensional equivalent of the Big Bang theory). Maybe it even sounded as AUM on a level that has never been heard after that since there have not been a new big bang since.

John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

This suggests to me that the bible isn't meant for intelligent people, but rather for people who accept things blindly and not question the status quo. I mean again, the only thing that says the bible is divine, is the bible. What if you start off by questioning the divinity of the bible?

I think it's great that you are asking questions and open to the answers you may or may not receive. Having an open heart and mind goes a long way to discovering that which was hidden.

The Bible is meant for the seeker to unravel the mysteries that lie within it. Each time I read it I see something new that I didn't see before. Like, God is showing me because I sincerely want to know.

You do not have to be intelligent, just openly seeking with a true heart. Your spiritual essence, the real you tries to convey that which is hidden from you when you read literature or when you listen to music, or when you meet someone new. The Bible is not the only book or "thing" that is divine. All of what you experience is.

The creation stories in the Bible are easily understood once you realize God does speak to all, so there indeed has to be layers of meaning within the creation story as well as other stories in the Bible.

Lucifer/Adam/First man/ First Sin/Jesus in my opinion may be the "born again" Christ-Jesus.

Whoa! I know... it's a rabbit hole but one worth exploring.

We start out as little children who don't know any better and then we grow up (many lives lived) to be wise in our latter years. We graduate from high school, go to college, then graduate to work in the said field. We are raised in the wilderness only to have one day (in time) opened our eyes to a better way of life.... wisdom from knowledge.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by 2XOHsurf

 

I would say that we need to try to devise a scientific procedure to study and analyze these occurrences and possibilities. I actually don't believe one way or the other about a soul. I feel that science doesn't do enough to address claims such as ghosts, spirits, the soul, the afterlife, demons, etc. Some of those things are unstudyable with our current understanding of science, but scientists like to laugh that stuff off without even giving it its due. I try to reserve judgment on these things until we can actually study these things outside of some psuedo-scientists basement.

But would you also say...

if it is possible for a 'consciousness' or 'personality' or 'intelligence' to exist in a cluster of cells made of star dust and gathered into a breathing, walking, self replicating and repairable, 'machine', then it is also possible for that condition to exist within a cluster of stars, or a cluster of clusters of cluster of stars.

If not, why not? Why would a true scientist not accept the potential for such a "condition"?

edit: I'm trying to understand why a person who rejects the notion of God yet bases their views on science would not be open to the possibility of advanced intelligence existing outside of humans. Not saying that person is you.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


This is my take on the creationism - evolutionary divide, or the "intelligent design" - mechanistic materialism divide.

Metaphysically, I believe there is a God; but, I am aware that this is mostly a subjective claim. I cannot make absolute claims when other minds for one reason or another do not "feel" the same way that I do. Thus, the truth, if God exists and this world is a symbolic representation of his nature, still does not encompass all self reflecting minds. Some minds honestly believe that we live in a literal vacuum of nothingness, floating aimlessly and randomly in a chaotic whirlpool of meaninglessness. Such people may also say "but that doesn't mean we can't create good". But they are not willing to make the ultimate judgement, that maybe, perhaps, the world is magical, and meaningful, by virtue of it's great mysteriousness.

That said, I see evolution as a basic fact. However, I make subtle distinctions. Micro-evolution is incontestable. It's been observed to occur in all living organisms; we can even force micromutations in plants and animals. Evolution at the macro level is whats hotly contested. The troubles are MANY, for example, how do mutations at the genetic and protein level interact with homeostatically balanced organizations in body plan?

In other words, animals are exquisitely fashioned. Just moving anything off center, off kilter, will have enormous consequences to the viability of the animals health.

This is a problem, but of course, you can handle it by positing simultaneous and organized changes at the genetic level which support an ideal body plan. But then you reach the real impasse: how does this happen? If Genes are just randomly "searching", how do they find the correct gene? We know from thousands of experiments that messing with an animals gene will cause ill-adapatic mutations; extra eyes, organs, bulbous heads etc. We never instigate mutations that prove beneficial to the animal. Scientists who try to clone animals go through hundreds of duds before they produce a viable offspring.
The Math makes random mutations that find the correct genetic sequences - in synchrony with other genetic changes in other areas - simply too implausible. Some intelligence must be organizing all this activity, willing it into existence. We don't know how this happens, but it must be there as an aid to guide genes in finding their correct location.

So, evolution is real; macroevolution is problematic, but still plausible. The fact that the human brain essentially contains evolutionary "grades" in it's layering indicates actual evolution. The lowest part, the brain stem, is nearly identical to the reptilian brains of snakes, lizards, etc. The brain that forms around this brainstem area, the subcortical areas like the amygdala, thalamus, hypothalamus, and interior brain areas, are called the "mammalian" brain. This is because this brain occurs in all mammals. But on top of this layer is a 3rd and final layer, called the neomammalian brain. This is a millimeter thick, 6 layered group of cells called the neo-cortex. This is where human thinking happens; we where make mental representations and maps of the outer world, other minds and our own minds.

So, this looks like the work of evolution. The deep question is, were the basic phyla created first, and species emerges from this? Or it gradualistic as neodarwinism argues?