Creationism cannot be true

reply to post by Krazysh0t

the only thing that says the bible is divine, is the bible

You mean Divine Origin.

Yet, it's NOT only the Bible that says "the bible is divine", but millions upon millions of people, including me.

As to Creation - yes, the Bible, explains it masterfully and accurately.

After all, it's of divine origin!

reply to post by Krazysh0t


I'm not taking a side on the creation vs evolution debate. While all branches of science interest me, I prefer the actual science. How things develop or change over time. The origin doesn't matter much, so much as the how it changes, and can that allow us to control the change.

So you're belief on the debate isn't what I'm commenting on. I'm commenting on the method of your argument. The foundations upon which you built your argument.

Krazysh0t

First we start out with proof. In the Social Sciences sources must be triangulated to help verify their veracity.

This is a tad funny. You're trying to engage others in a debate on hard science vs a religious belief. You than take your ammo from a soft science, because it's convenient. It's akin to trying to have a debate on the minutia of a particular mythology, only to use historical facts as your ammo. You're shifting the argument to suit your purposes. You've dismissed any counter points before they are even brought up because you claim they are irrelevant. It's just bad form.

Your five proofs are a bit weak. Not in that they aren't good points, but it's just lazy to appeal to authority instead of making your case. As for the points, they aren't as grand as you make them out to be.

Point 1 is bullocks, there are cells on the bottom of the ocean by thermal vents that aren't based on carbon chains, they are based on other elements. There are many extreme species (things that live in acid, or extremely dry areas) that are so alien, it's hard to track their origins. While it's true the overwhelming majority of species on the planet share DNA it's hardly universal.

Point 4 isn't true either. While it's an interesting novelty of the history of biology, it's not true. Ernst Haeckel's had an interesting theory, and it does help some understand the basics of development, but it's not correct. Those "gill slits" in the embryo are the precursor cells to our ear bones. The tail is fatty tissue that will later envelope the spinal column and protect it. The whole "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is of better use in linguistics and social anthropology, not biology as a whole. He was even accused of fraudulently drawing the embryo pictures to match his preconceived notions.

If point 4 were true we would also resemble many more things during development, such as a jelly fish, or the precursor that we have in common, but we don't. Point 4 would be better argued by saying we are either sphincters, or mouths. When the zygote begins to form it transitions from a sphere to a tube. It does this by forming a pinch indentation that grows into a tube. From here there are two types protosome, and a deuterstome, the former being creatures that the first indentation becomes the mouth, the latter being creatures that the first indentation becomes the anus. We are in the latter category. Star fish are in the deuterstome category, we don't look like starfish during development though. So yes, embryos look similar because we start out as a tube. This is due to a common ancestor, but ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny. We do not undergo all of our stages of evolution in utero. That would be a waste of energy, and time. Nature is about economizing energy not wasting it. Common ancestor, yes, tracing evolution through embryonic development, no.

Krazysh0t
Now to verify this account, scientists would need to decide on which is true,

Really!? Scientists don't decide what is true. They gather evidence, form hypothesis and test them. They present their findings, they don't decide what is or isn't true though. They test what they can, with the methods at their disposal. For you to even say something like it shows you don't have a grasp on the scientific method.

Your other points are based on on the bible itself, and seem fine. I'm not really here to tear your theory apart, just pointing out it was poorly argued, and seems to exist just to stir the pot.

You can believe whatever you want, but it seems like you just want to stir up trouble. Try the live and let live way of life. Let creationists believe what they want and you believe what you want.

If you're going to debate the issue, don't stack the deck with poor points, and references to goal posts from social science that automatically dismiss any counter argument someone might have.

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

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

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

why do yiu think creation has to happen via deity?

dont u think we will produce life eventually?

does adaptation happen? absolutly.

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

is a scientific religion.

Gaining the ability to manipulate molecules in nature that lead to what we would classify as a new life form has no bearing on whether life forms evolve or not.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


You said:

But proof isn't the only problem with this account. There is the story itself that is flawed. In the first chapter of Genesis, God makes all of life on the planet then creates man and woman. In the second chapter, God creates man first, then the animals, then woman.

Is this based on your own study and understanding or based on what others had said?

I mean, really, have you studied the Bible that well to be able to CONCLUSIVELY say the above?

If not, then how did you know that "the story itself that is flawed"?

edmc^2
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

the only thing that says the bible is divine, is the bible

You mean Divine Origin.

Yet, it's NOT only the Bible that says "the bible is divine", but millions upon millions of people, including me.

As to Creation - yes, the Bible, explains it masterfully and accurately.

After all, it's of divine origin!

Millions of people say it is divine because the bible tells them so. They wouldn't be saying so if it weren't for that. I already stated earlier in the thread that mass belief in a statement doesn't inherently make it true. So just because millions of people believe the bible is divine, it doesn't mean that it is. Again the ONLY evidence of the bible's divinity is within the bible. That is like defining a word by using the word in the definition. It doesn't work.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


True.. BUT....

Until you actually read the book for yourself ( front to back) you cannot honestly form an opinion. Simple as that.

reply to post by MamaJ


Not true, I was raised Catholic. I am familiar with the stories in the bible, how they go, what they say, and what they mean. I abandoned that religion due to all the controversy and greed. I however remained Christian Non-denominational for a while because I hadn't completely lost my faith. However as time went on, I started to read about the discrepancies and inconsistencies as well as discover more on my own. For instance, how can an infallible god show the human flaws of jealousy, anger, and rage? Two of those are supposed to be mortal sins. God though gets a free pass, though in my opinion an infallible god wouldn't give a rat's ass about if people acknowledged him or not and would be content knowing that they were just good people. Though that would destroy the ENTIRE concept of Christianity since why worship a god who doesn't care if you worship him or not and that you should just be a good person? He even comes out and tells humans that He is a jealous god. While He has dropped the whole anger thing with the sacrifice of Jesus, He remains a jealous god and still damns non-believers to hell. This is just one example of an inconsistency that led me to lose my faith. I fervently maintain that a god COULD exist, but the Christian one is not that one.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


For the record, I am not a Christian. I may have already told you that but just in case I want to state it again.

You may have been raised catholic and you may have heard the stories but have you actually read the book from front to back like any other book you are interested in? It makes a huge difference.

It occurred to me one day that the Old Testament is just that... a collective way of thinking that is old. This is why the New testament has been added. It was a new way of collectively thinking about God.

Through US, God has an experience! Thousands of years ago our collective thinking was different than it is today. MAN still feels as if God gets jealous and is mean and kills babies. The old way of thinking has to change and it is... gradually, IN TIME... in this realm... on Earth.

The Bible in my opinion begins with creation, then the stories of "sin" ( Adam- Jesus- Us), the coming of christ, then finally christ comes on the scene and shows man how to become better by changing his way of thinking and doing good deeds. The moral of the story in my view is man has trials and tribulations. He has fallen from a state of being and is working his way back up the pyramid to be at one again, or atonement.

Adam (the heel) through Christ (the crown) represents one loaf of bread. We are the pieces of bread in the middle. We are ALL living HIS-STORY but with different attributes, however the same. Have you EVER felt crucified for a belief only to rise again and conquer?

Because I believe people such as Job and Melchizedek is the same soul as Jesus I believe we all come here to overcome THE matter which is selfishness in the flesh.

reply to post by MamaJ


You should explore Buddhism, it sounds like it would be more to your tastes. The way I feel is that Buddhism is probably the closest religion to the true one we should worship. It doesn't get mad if you decide you aren't Buddhist, but will welcome you with open arms if you decide to convert. It doesn't require a centralized authority telling everyone how to go about practicing it. It preaches oneness and goodwill towards all. It incorporates reincarnation, which you have expressed a belief in with at the very least Jesus, and frankly reincarnation makes more sense then letting 75 odd years of existence determine where you will spend the rest of eternity after you die. It doesn't judge others based on how they act. Even the description of Nirvana makes more sense as the divine then the anthropomorphic god in the Christian religion.

Now I'm sure you can find examples of Buddhists doing these things. But the core tenants of Buddhism show this, and true Buddhists don't let materialism and Earthly ways get in the way. Therefore if I were to ever become religious again it would probably be Buddhist.

As far as the bible goes, I find it hard to read with all the inconsistencies and contradictions in it. It reads, to me, like a poorly put together story with many plotholes. I've read many parts of it, though I will admit I haven't read it cover to cover. At this point, my eyes usually just glaze over whenever I start reading scripture.

Krazysh0t
He even comes out and tells humans that He is a jealous god. While He has dropped the whole anger thing with the sacrifice of Jesus, He remains a jealous god and still damns non-believers to hell. This is just one example of an inconsistency that led me to lose my faith. I fervently maintain that a god COULD exist, but the Christian one is not that one.

edit on 6-12-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

God is not a person or thing. God is presence - when one realizes that there is only presence then one will be happy. When one feels as if one is moving in time and has bought into the 'time concept' then one will suffer.
If presence is denied (God is ignored) it will appear that God is jealous - if one believes and worships 'other' than what is, one will suffer.

Do you see that there is nothing but the present happening?

This video should be watched with caution - it may blow your mind.

reply to post by Another_Nut


I disagree. I would postulate that i humans create life from scratch(non living materials) then it would show that deity is not needed and that life can form through seemingly random natural circumstances.

If you are saying that a god/deity is needed, then we would be considered gods, which obviously is not the case. Look up dr. Craig ventner. He leads the teams who are creating life dorms in labs around the world.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Sorry I'm at work, cannot watch videos. What's it about? By the way this is the passage from Exodus that I'm speaking about.

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. (Exodus 20:5, 6)

Christian doctrine to this day says that you go to hell for not acknowledging or worshiping God, therefore the logical conclusion is that He is still a jealous god.

Krazysh0t
Christian doctrine to this day says that you go to hell for not acknowledging or worshiping God, therefore the logical conclusion is that He is still a jealous god.

If you do not realize presence and are lost in thought and time you will suffer.

God is presence but is denied.

If you worship 'other' times/places/things then God is jealous but he is not a person - God (presence) is love but if you think you are person living in time you will be fearful.
Only when you realize that there is only presence will the suffering of separation vanish.
God is here and now - ever present and if you care to notice so are you and everything - it is all here - nothing and everything.
There is no other.

Krazysh0t

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.

Oh contrare
Christians dont all agree on the complexities of creation, they criticise it.
hence the theological argument

Nothing new in your argument, been done to death

Christians dont agree with each other on creation, though they agree on Christ's sacrifice.

Clearly you dont understand

reply to post by Krazysh0t


I have explored all religions and have found a little bit of all to fit within the core of my soul however after many years of seeking I am back to the Bible/Jesus whereas it makes complete sense now that I am older and have a more open mind and heart to see that the Bible indeed is divine and makes other books wilt away to the ether. lol

I once felt like you ... so I understand where you're at.

Jesus didn't preach a religion. He taught love and forgiveness. In my opinion he teaches reincarnation several times in the Bible. If you have never read about Melchizedek, you can do so below. You can find him in other texts such as the Book of Enoch. en.wikipedia.org...

Again, the Bible is filled with a lot of crap if you go on what you have been told. It's divine in nature when you seek your own answers from within the book.

Another good read is Edgar Cayces story of the Bible. The man read the book 65 times. For every year he turned, he read the book ( front to back). He was a devout Baptist and yet he too believed in reincarnation.

Jesus in my opinion died for our sins but not the way you are told in church. He died because he was destined from the beginning as his soul is indeed Adam (atom- human life) The very first "sin" of HIS-STORY/Experience (sin= to miss the mark/goal) was made by him and the burden was his to carry.

It was a way of symbolizing the end of a long lived suffering and burden the soul of Jesus carried for us all. In the end Jesus say's "It's finished". Thy will was already done in spirit though...before man was created. We created him.

The plan by all of us was fulfilled with the Crucifixion. Jesus story is OUR his-story. The story ends with him being raised.. and again.. this is our story as well. We will all be raised from our burdens and suffering. With each choice we make, with what we believe, mind over matter, we will all be raised from this wilderness and in time will find the wisdom from the knowledge we've gained.

ETA: It seems to me that you have a problem with the doctrine of Christianity. I do too! For this reason I choose to not label myself as a Christian. God knows our heart.

The Gnostic Christians are more authentic in my opinion than another other cult.

Christianity will not sustain. His-story proves belief systems transform to the modern day and so it's my belief Christianity will be replaced with a more truthful understanding of God. Why did they take Origen's belief in reincarnation out of the original doctrine? Control over the masses is why.

reply to post by borntowatch


No you think I don't understand because I didn't come to the same conclusion that you did. I understand very well how religion, especially the Christian one works and how Christians think. I was one after all.

Forgive me ... I will not be an active participant in your thread. I'm going to lurk though. This is fascinating!!

Krazysh0t
You should explore Buddhism, it sounds like it would be more to your tastes. The way I feel is that Buddhism is probably the closest religion to the true one we should worship.

You're on a proper course. One day you will find yourself on a 'spiritual path' and perhaps someone will share something that will open you to the truth. I have a great deal of experience with Buddhism. If you get closer, you will find most Buddhists tolerate the labeling of Buddhism as a religion ... but do not consider it so ... 'worship' and 'respect' for what lies beyond the veil are not interchangeable terms. You may, or may not, find the spiritual path in Buddhism. I would suggest a close examination and esoteric understanding of Matthew 18:20, as you appear more familiar with the Bible.

Krazysh0t
As far as the bible goes, I find it hard to read with all the inconsistencies and contradictions in it. It reads, to me, like a poorly put together story with many plotholes. I've read many parts of it, though I will admit I haven't read it cover to cover. At this point, my eyes usually just glaze over whenever I start reading scripture.

Your quoted words do not condemn the inconsistencies and contradictions you believe you have found. The Bible was written by the hand of man and imperfection should be an expectation. It is the unfortunate who cannot accept this understanding with grace.

The Bible was not assembled in haste, nor was it meant to be understood in that manner. You have time. There is much to learn there. I do wish you well in your endeavors.

-Cheers

reply to post by MamaJ


Jesus was a great guy. I admit to that, but take a look at this:

Was Jesus a Buddhist?

Was Jesus a Buddhist? Certainly he was many things--Jew, prophet, healer, moralist, revolutionary, by his own admission the Messiah, and for most Christians the Son of God and redeemer of their sins. And there is convincing evidence that he was also a Buddhist. The evidence follows two independent lines--the first is historical, and the second is textual. Historical evidence indicates that Jesus was well acquainted with Buddhism. If Jesus did not go to India, then at least India went to Judea and Jesus. The real historical question is not if he studied Buddhism, but where and how much he studied Buddhism, especially during his so-called "lost years."

I do appreciate the words of Jesus, I think he had many good things to say. The Christian religion has bastardized much of what he said, and if the above is true has probably suppressed the information that he was a Buddhist (again Catholic corruption...). But that is what is great about Buddhism, it can transcend religious borders and influence the spiritual leaders of other faiths. To follow the words of Jesus, one is also following in the teaching of Buddhism.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Whether or not Jesus was a Buddhist, Pentecostal, Mayan, Tao, and so on, is not for me to discover. Do I believe his soul influenced other religions? Yes! Yes, I do. He has lived throughout all of time, as we have too.

Man himself over the years has distorted the Biblical meanings but that doesn't mean the Bible doesn't hold truth for you to discover with your own mind and heart. Seek what you want to know within it and you will discover a new meaning never been taught to you by man.

Allow God to teach you.

Your problem is the way it's taught. Before you dismiss it as a load of crap, read it more than once and then tell me what you think.

If you ever watch lectures, here is a good one regarding The Bible and Christianity. It's long but it has to be... there is a lot to cover. I like Manly and believe him to be a good teacher. A wise man, if you will. You don't have to listen to it, but I find his lectures to hold a lot of truth. He understands our history, this is certain.



ETA: AS far as the religion of Christianity goes have you ever wondered and understood WHY certain books were left out of the Bible? If you read these books, it makes the Bible understandable at lengths!

MamaJ

ETA: AS far as the religion of Christianity goes have you ever wondered and understood WHY certain books were left out of the Bible? If you read these books, it makes the Bible understandable at lengths!

edit on 6-12-2013 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)

As I told a previous poster, I'm at work and unable to watch videos. I did want to address this eta you posted though.

Yes, I have wondered about that very thing. I don't think I truly understand why they were left out though and seeing as how there are countless numbers of conspiracy theories postulating along those premises, I don't think anyone but the people who attended the Council of Nicea know why they were left out.

As far as reading the bible goes, I really don't think that is necessary. I won't get the same satisfaction you do out of it. I've always been one of those guys who reads things literally (made English class pretty frustrating for me while growing up). So when I read it, the inconsistencies pop out and make it just a mediocre story to me where half of it attributes natural disasters to God's work and the second half talks about a famous Buddhist (btw with your theory about reincarnation, have you ever entertained the idea that Buddha is also a reincarnated version of Jesus? I know I've seen it theorized on this website before). I just like following the Golden Rule as much as possible. I don't need a long dead spiritual person telling me how to live my life. I can be good and wholesome without it.