Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

**** you.

All you have to do is identify an organism whose traits are suited to surviving in the environment it lives in, and then put that organism in an environment that the organisms traits are NOT suited to survive in.

If the organism survives anyway, then "fitness" is falsified.

Can you grasp that, Skippy?

No.

I'm done chasing down your retarded questions. If you had the decency of intellectual integrity to answer just one of mine, I would treat you differently. But I have answered all of your dumbass "stumpers" and what do I get in return when I ask you a question?

NOTHING. No quote, no link, no ******* answer.

So loki where are all the supposed transitional species that were better adapted to pass on their traits from one species to a destinctly new organism ? Why do we have the beginning species and none of of the transitional species that passed on their better adapted traits ?

Demonstrated for you dozens of times already.

Maybe that is what you believe in your mind but that is not the case through evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

C'mon Loki!! Noah "might have" built an ark [we see many modern day men building ships] and he "could have" taken two of every animal in with him [we see lots of animals rounded up by men for modern day zoo's] and a flood that covered the whole earth "might have" happened [we've seen some pretty big modern day floods with the tsunami's and all]. Sheesh, that sounds just like one of them there just so Darwin stories you are always spoutin' off about. Guess I've outlaid irrefutable scientific evidence of Noah and the Ark using some good old Darwinian magic. Yep, it's a fact alright.

In fact, by some mistake on Noah's part, the giraffe's cages had no food. They had to try and get food from the Hippo's pen above. Only the giraffe's with the long necks survived the boat ride. The short necked giraffes on the Ark died of starvation.

Either we believe the scriptures or we do not.

Either you accept biblical absurdities or you pretend they don't exist to preserve blind, unquestioning allegiance to an ancient book of tales and fables.

The biggest absurdity is non life developed life

Fables,that is the proper term for evolution not creation and design.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes, you're right, because it is special pleading. Why don't you believe in the Koran, or the Bhagavad-Gita? Simply because you were born, geographically where the bible is taught. There is no more evidence to assume the bible is correct over the Koran. They are supernatural claims that can not be backed up. What's worse, is that if this god does exist, why on earth would he be rely on ancient peoples to pass this on in the way that it happened? If this god is omnipotent, and wanted to communicate his message to his beings, he could have chosen a less controversial way to do so. There are too many glaring questions such as these if I were to accept the bible, and so I remain unconvinced about the truth of the bible whatsoever. I think it is an interesting document, but I don't see how anybody could actually think it was inspired by an all-knowing, ever-present, loving deity. It would seem the opposite, made by a god who doesn't care enough to use better mediums to transmit his message. There is plenty of room for doubt in assessing the bible, and the excuse of faith is not a justification for believing, and it is not virtuous to have faith. It is gullibility, in my opinion.


As for why I am here, this is a creationist DEBATE thread made by someone who questioned creationism.

I do believe in both the Quran and the Bhagavad-Gita. I choose to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

But since you're so convinced that God doesn't exist, why do you spend so much effort trying to persuade us that we are wrong?

If we are wrong then let us be wrong. How does it hurt you?

It's not so simple to "leave you alone" because the actions of religious people affect others.
Plenty of people think Bibles and korrans and Mafioso Books of the Dead do relate an accurate worldview, and that opinion crosses into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals’ freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.

Yet one cannot, according to you, apply the same strictures humans gain for knowledge against your holy book. Your particular interpretation, you argue, "gets a pass".

No, it doesn't. Your argument highlights the notion that "I've heard some who say that you have some sort of body in the afterlife" is not a firm requirement of all knowledge-based issues of human endeavor. Just because Christians claim the bible has a reputation of "holiness" doesn't qualify it as having some sort of special dispensation. It boils down to facts: Either these things happened, or they didn't. Either the message is a true one, or it's a false one.

Logic allows us to read and understand the contextual message of Bibles at the very start. Without logic and reason, you wouldn't understand the thing at all. I see no reason then, halfway through, to jettison the same rules of logic and reason as magically inapplicable, simply because the book has some sort of special reputation as being "holy".

Read it like fiction. Because that is what it is. How do we know this? Because from the outset, it tells a tale that is demonstrably false, as false as the Origin fables of Valhalla, or the sky lodge of the Iroquois. We never have any debates over the whole "It's turtles all the way down" creation myths, do we?It's always the “holy text” of the week mythology we wrestle over.

Which is completely without merit.

If i'm not mistaken there is more people that believe in a creator then naruralism. If you go back in time there were far more believers then non believers so who is having an effect on who ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I do believe in both the Quran and the Bhagavad-Gita. I choose to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

But since you're so convinced that God doesn't exist, why do you spend so much effort trying to persuade us that we are wrong?

If we are wrong then let us be wrong. How does it hurt you?

It's not so simple to "leave you alone" because the actions of religious people affect others.
Plenty of people think Bibles and korrans and Mafioso Books of the Dead do relate an accurate worldview, and that opinion crosses into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals’ freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.

Yet one cannot, according to you, apply the same strictures humans gain for knowledge against your holy book. Your particular interpretation, you argue, "gets a pass".

No, it doesn't. Your argument highlights the notion that "I've heard some who say that you have some sort of body in the afterlife" is not a firm requirement of all knowledge-based issues of human endeavor. Just because Christians claim the bible has a reputation of "holiness" doesn't qualify it as having some sort of special dispensation. It boils down to facts: Either these things happened, or they didn't. Either the message is a true one, or it's a false one.

Logic allows us to read and understand the contextual message of Bibles at the very start. Without logic and reason, you wouldn't understand the thing at all. I see no reason then, halfway through, to jettison the same rules of logic and reason as magically inapplicable, simply because the book has some sort of special reputation as being "holy".

Read it like fiction. Because that is what it is. How do we know this? Because from the outset, it tells a tale that is demonstrably false, as false as the Origin fables of Valhalla, or the sky lodge of the Iroquois. We never have any debates over the whole "It's turtles all the way down" creation myths, do we?It's always the “holy text” of the week mythology we wrestle over.

Which is completely without merit.

I concur with Hollie. Lonestar, you ask me to "leave you alone," yet in no way, do you leave me alone. Christians have been trying to inch their way into the political establishment since this country started, and in doing so, attempt to affect my life. It is again, asking for special treatment of me to not bother you, when your beliefs are responsible for attempts at undermining the constitution, and my rights.

Wrong,our culture has changed due to people with vivid imaginations trying to say everything is the result of natural processes but have zero evidence supporting their view and you call out Christians for having faith in an unseen force.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What would it take for you to believe?

Do you need a miracle? Do you need to see God with your own eyes?

As a Christian I believe the only way to The Father is through the Son. So both Chistianity and Islam cannot be true. IMO

It would take a miracle for me to believe, because at this point, I think the christian god is a logical impossibility, by its very own definition. It is claimed to be a perfect being, yet needs a relationship with us. That is a contradiction. A perfect being wouldn't need anything, and wouldn't be jealous. These are all very human attributes, and so, imperfect. I am therefore absolutely certain that the christian god does not exist. However, I can not be certain that some kind of deity does exist somewhere within, or even outside the universe, such as a deist god. There is so much about the christian god that seems so highly implausible to me at this point. To be honest, I want to believe because I struggle with mental health quite a bit and it causes me a lot of suffering, and an all loving god is a really nice thought, but that doesn't mean it exists. I refuse to let my emotional needs create something to alleviate personal suffering. In other words, I am not going to believe something because it feels good. I want it to be true. I care more about truth, than about what feels good to my limited mind.

So if one is perect he doesn't need relationships? Explain that.

Why wouldn't God share some of the same attributes as his creations?

In order to be a Christian it requires faith.

The difference is Christians admit their faith the secularists cannot or will not admit to the faith required to believe some of the theories they hold onto. The question is why do they call out others that have faith in their beliefs.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It would take a miracle for me to believe, because at this point, I think the christian god is a logical impossibility, by its very own definition. It is claimed to be a perfect being, yet needs a relationship with us. That is a contradiction. A perfect being wouldn't need anything, and wouldn't be jealous. These are all very human attributes, and so, imperfect. I am therefore absolutely certain that the christian god does not exist. However, I can not be certain that some kind of deity does exist somewhere within, or even outside the universe, such as a deist god. There is so much about the christian god that seems so highly implausible to me at this point. To be honest, I want to believe because I struggle with mental health quite a bit and it causes me a lot of suffering, and an all loving god is a really nice thought, but that doesn't mean it exists. I refuse to let my emotional needs create something to alleviate personal suffering. In other words, I am not going to believe something because it feels good. I want it to be true. I care more about truth, than about what feels good to my limited mind.

So if one is perect he doesn't need relationships? Explain that.

Why wouldn't God share some of the same attributes as his creations?

In order to be a Christian it requires faith.

What is faith but a lack of evidence? It's an excuse people give when they don't have proper evidence, reason, or logic. They simply want to believe. That is not a pathway to truth, but one to self-deception.

Yes, if one is perfect, how can it need anything. It is perfect. It contains no deficiencies. No needs to make it whole, because it is perfect in and itself, without need for anything exterior to it. Explain to me how a perfect being can need anything and still be a perfect being.

This isn't the only logical contradiction with god. How can he be so stupid as to leave his message with people 2,000 years ago, and being omniscient, would know ahead of time, that the bible would be mistranslated, copied, and used to incite war, genocide, and massive evils. If he really cared, he would have made it crystal clear what the message was, and we would all know. Further, how can a god condemn those he created to eternal torment? That contradicts a god who is omnibenevolent and omnipotent. He could have gotten rid of the devil and hell if he simply wanted to, but doesn't. Therefore, he is not all powerful and all-good, and does not exist, by his own definition. Christianity gives you the cure to an illness it creates. It tells you that you are sinful, and then gives you the antidote. It's a mindfuck. A trap. It is manipulative, and the god of the bible is an war-mongerer, who uses a loophole in the new testament to fix mistakes he made in the past, again, another contradiction for a perfect being. He should have gotten it right the first time. He didn't need to send his son to forgive us our sins. He can forgive us if he wants to, and knowing everything about us, believing in his son is only a technicality, and shouldn't be the difference between eternal torment and not bliss. That's completely lopsided justice. Simply believing in god does not make anyone a good person. It makes them simply gullible.

Also, justice and mercy are contradictory, because mercy is a suspension of justice. So, you can not define god as being perfectly just and all-merciful. These two attributes can not logically co-exist.

A much more likely explanation for the existence of the concept of god in many people, is that he is made up in order to console our existential qualms with reality, because we are animals that aware of the future, our own mortality, and acutely aware of our own suffering.

So what is your evidence for life coming from non-life ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

YWC, I've watched the video and listened to some of his assertions and I just don't agree with them. He is basing his points of HIS interpretation of the Creation story outlined in Genesis. He says that the you can't refute the fact that Genesis refers to 7 solar days, but for the first three "days" of Creation, we don't even have the sun yet. Also, he claims the author is repeating himself when talking about man twice. I get the whole argument about the dating methods and their inaccuracy. Even Loki would admit they are scientifically proven for the short timeframe we can measure and account for. However, I've been to the Grand Canyon. I've seen an overwhelming amount of evidence that points to a much older earth. But back to the story: If I want to take the Creation story literally and chronologically, I have to consider the fact the story about Adam comes later after Creation and after spirit-less hominids, male and female, roamed the earth, and multiplied. There are two stories, one in which male and female are created in a day, and another in which Adam was created, hung out with the animals in the garden for a while and then got lonely. Does it only take Adam 24 hours to name the animals and realize he needs a woman? The speaker has not considered this. He tells me to take the Bible exactly as it is written, but then he does not do so himself. If male and female were created in a solar day, then this does not reconcile with the Adam and Eve story. I believe God did place his new Creation, Homo Sapien, in the garden. Again, let's take the Bible exactly as it is written. We are told Adam and Eve have two sons. We are not told of any other children prior to this. Yet Cain goes to another land and takes a wife. The guy in your video wants to make up the fact that Adam and Eve had other children, but how can this additive story reconcile with the Bible? It can't. Again, your speaker is not taking the Bible for what it exactly says, but is filling in the blanks to make HIS version of the story fit his interpretation. Cain took a Neanderthal wife and there is dna evidence to back this up. Also, this interpretation of the story can be reconciled with fossil evidence, and it doesn't cram all of Creation into 6,000 years. Creationists are locked into as 6,000 year old earth, because they cling to the notion everything was made in six earthly days, including Adam, and then they lock themselves into the calculations of times for the genealogy of Christ. However, if they actually read Genesis for the information it conveyed to the Jews at the time it was written, they would realize that the earth could have existed for billions of years, and the garden of Eden only in the last six to ten thousand years. They also miss the Jewish tradition of leaving un-noteworthy individuals out of the family tree, so the genealogy fails to account for missing generations. I put the garden at 10,000 years ago and believe God visited the earth to create them both with a new dna structure. Adam would be different than all the hominids before. They would be given the choice. He would no longer act on instinct, but would choose to have God's knowledge of good and evil. An animal does not care that it is naked. An animal has no remorse over killing its food. Adam and Eve would be different. They would see things through God's eyes. Once they ate of the tree, they immediately realized they were naked.

Some of the points I've made can be crammed fit into the Creation story. Yet, I don't really even feel the need to do that to a point. Jesus was fond of telling parables that conveyed a deeper meaning. How do we, as modern day Christians, know that Moses was writing down a literal story. Maybe it was a parable told to generations of Jews to convey the deeper principles of the fall. The Jews at the time could have no the story was a metaphor, but over the course of thousands of years, someone along the way decided it was literal. Who was that? And again, my question for you, who decided Christ command to gouge out your eye was not literal? There are alot of Christians that just want a little neat black and white story that doesn't beg any questions. They need to fit Christianity into a little box because they don't want to think about the bigger questions. I do want to think about the bigger questions. While I believe the Bible is true, God is not the Bible. And God cannot be contained in the Bible. The Bible says God spat stars out of his "mouth" [I don't believe God has a mouth. The Bible also says God is spirit. Obviously, I believe Jesus had a mouth while he was on earth ]. Do you have any idea how big Star R136a1 is? I don't need to make my massive God fit in 66 tiny little books. I believe the Bible is inspired scripture, but it isn't God. It was written by man, and it can't contain God, or even begin to describe how awesome and how massive our Creator is. If most Christians really had a feel for the reality of that, they would be alot more humble, myself included.

I can't say what the light was before the sun and moon was created but clearly he described a day as we see it. If you do not trust the bible what are your beliefs in God based on ? Why are elements still found in rocks that should have been gone in an old world view ? That is supposedly what the age of the earth is based on correct ? At the rate the moon and earth are receding that to is a problem for old earth views. If the bible was inspired by God that is the only book that provides an eyewitness to creation and the beginning. If would put text books ahead of what the bible say's in a sense what is being done ?

I disagree. This errors on that fundamentalist belief of "I'm right/You're wrong" or "I'm the only one that has the truth and you don't." I believe the Bible is ABSOLUTELY true. I am just not good with some fundamentalist interpretations of it, 6,000 year old earth being one of them. Most people can't read Genesis without preconceived notions from their parents or pastor or the current religious party line. I take the Bible at exactly what is says. Light and Dark existed because God created photons. The Bible CLEARLY states the Sun and Moon came along after several days of Creation. So how can your guy say there is no doubt these were 7 literal solar days?? Here is a guide on interpretation that might clear some things up. There are a great many denominations that don't have this grasp on interpreting the Bible. It is called Hermenutics:

How to Enjoy Bible Study - Grace to You with John MacArthur

I said it before. When you pretend Genesis was written for us in the 21st Century, you rob it of its originally meaning and power.

"You might have watched, along with some of us, in horror sometime back if you happened to be watching the Trinity Broadcasting Network, they were interviewing a guest on one of their "Talk Shows," and he was explaining the Biblical basis of his ministry of "Possibility Thinking." This is a quote, "My ministry is based entirely on my life verse, Matthew 19:26, 'With God all things are possible.' God gave me that verse (Matthew 19:26) because I was born in 1926." Obviously, intrigued by that method of obtaining a life verse, the host grabbed a Bible and began thumbing through it excitedly. "I was born in 1934," he said. "My life verse must be Matthew 19:34! What does it say?" Then he discovered that Matthew 19 has only 30 verses! Undeterred, he flipped to Luke, and read Luke 19:34, and they said, "The Lord hath need of Him." Thrilled, he exclaimed, "The Lord has need of me, the Lord has need of me!" What a wonderful life verse. I never had a life verse before, but now the Lord has given me one. Thank You, 0h Jesus, Hallelujah. And the studio audience began to applaud.

At that moment, however, the "Talk Show" host's wife who had also turned to Luke 19, said, "Wait a minute, you can't use this. This verse is talking about a donkey!" That incident, while being absolutely ludicrous and bizarre, gives you some idea of the "willy-nilly way" that some Charismatics approach Scripture. Some of them, looking for a word from the Lord, play a sort of Bible roulette. They spin the Bible at random, looking for something that might seem applicable to whatever trial or need they are facing and they find a verse and say, "Well, the Lord gave me that verse." And then the Lord supposedly gave them the interpretation of it. These are silly and foolish ways to approach the study of the Bible."

Charismatic Chaos - By John MacArthur

Why are we to believe a day that we witness today was longer back then ? I believe the light that existed when God created was himself. Why is he called the light of the world does that mean just because he is truth ?

So we should ignore the chronology of man that was given by the word of God. I will respectfully disagree with you. If God can say let there be light and there was light we can interpret that as it taking a long period of time for that light to appear.

But still you are basing your views off mans assumptions the same men who say we are products of natural processes and we are all products of evolution. I still think you should watch that video I posted and go through each scripture that is brought to our attention.

 

[Youwerecreated]

YWC, I've watched the video and listened to some of his assertions and I just don't agree with them. He is basing his points of HIS interpretation of the Creation story outlined in Genesis. He says that the you can't refute the fact that Genesis refers to 7 solar days, but for the first three "days" of Creation, we don't even have the sun yet. Also, he claims the author is repeating himself when talking about man twice. I get the whole argument about the dating methods and their inaccuracy. Even Loki would admit they are scientifically proven for the short timeframe we can measure and account for. However, I've been to the Grand Canyon. I've seen an overwhelming amount of evidence that points to a much older earth. But back to the story: If I want to take the Creation story literally and chronologically, I have to consider the fact the story about Adam comes later after Creation and after spirit-less hominids, male and female, roamed the earth, and multiplied. There are two stories, one in which male and female are created in a day, and another in which Adam was created, hung out with the animals in the garden for a while and then got lonely. Does it only take Adam 24 hours to name the animals and realize he needs a woman? The speaker has not considered this. He tells me to take the Bible exactly as it is written, but then he does not do so himself. If male and female were created in a solar day, then this does not reconcile with the Adam and Eve story. I believe God did place his new Creation, Homo Sapien, in the garden. Again, let's take the Bible exactly as it is written. We are told Adam and Eve have two sons. We are not told of any other children prior to this. Yet Cain goes to another land and takes a wife. The guy in your video wants to make up the fact that Adam and Eve had other children, but how can this additive story reconcile with the Bible? It can't. Again, your speaker is not taking the Bible for what it exactly says, but is filling in the blanks to make HIS version of the story fit his interpretation. Cain took a Neanderthal wife and there is dna evidence to back this up. Also, this interpretation of the story can be reconciled with fossil evidence, and it doesn't cram all of Creation into 6,000 years. Creationists are locked into as 6,000 year old earth, because they cling to the notion everything was made in six earthly days, including Adam, and then they lock themselves into the calculations of times for the genealogy of Christ. However, if they actually read Genesis for the information it conveyed to the Jews at the time it was written, they would realize that the earth could have existed for billions of years, and the garden of Eden only in the last six to ten thousand years. They also miss the Jewish tradition of leaving un-noteworthy individuals out of the family tree, so the genealogy fails to account for missing generations. I put the garden at 10,000 years ago and believe God visited the earth to create them both with a new dna structure. Adam would be different than all the hominids before. They would be given the choice. He would no longer act on instinct, but would choose to have God's knowledge of good and evil. An animal does not care that it is naked. An animal has no remorse over killing its food. Adam and Eve would be different. They would see things through God's eyes. Once they ate of the tree, they immediately realized they were naked.

Some of the points I've made can be crammed fit into the Creation story. Yet, I don't really even feel the need to do that to a point. Jesus was fond of telling parables that conveyed a deeper meaning. How do we, as modern day Christians, know that Moses was writing down a literal story. Maybe it was a parable told to generations of Jews to convey the deeper principles of the fall. The Jews at the time could have no the story was a metaphor, but over the course of thousands of years, someone along the way decided it was literal. Who was that? And again, my question for you, who decided Christ command to gouge out your eye was not literal? There are alot of Christians that just want a little neat black and white story that doesn't beg any questions. They need to fit Christianity into a little box because they don't want to think about the bigger questions. I do want to think about the bigger questions. While I believe the Bible is true, God is not the Bible. And God cannot be contained in the Bible. The Bible says God spat stars out of his "mouth" [I don't believe God has a mouth. The Bible also says God is spirit. Obviously, I believe Jesus had a mouth while he was on earth ]. Do you have any idea how big Star R136a1 is? I don't need to make my massive God fit in 66 tiny little books. I believe the Bible is inspired scripture, but it isn't God. It was written by man, and it can't contain God, or even begin to describe how awesome and how massive our Creator is. If most Christians really had a feel for the reality of that, they would be alot more humble, myself included.

Sorry UR i have to ask this,you get onto evolutionist using maybe's, might haves, and possible faulty assumptions for evolution but you don't have that same view on the same explanations for the age of the universe and earth, why ?

Like I said, I believe any decay based dating method can't be proven. However, I look at the preponderance of the evidence for an old earth and find it to be overwhelming. I am not saying you don't have valid points. I'm just saying the things young earth Creationist hone in on aren't the entire body of the evidence.

There are many evidences that contradict the conclusions of old earth believers.



The Age of the Earth: Evidence for a Young Earth, Young Earth Evidences.

 

[Youwerecreated]

C'mon Loki!! Noah "might have" built an ark [we see many modern day men building ships] and he "could have" taken two of every animal in with him [we see lots of animals rounded up by men for modern day zoo's] and a flood that covered the whole earth "might have" happened [we've seen some pretty big modern day floods with the tsunami's and all]. Sheesh, that sounds just like one of them there just so Darwin stories you are always spoutin' off about. Guess I've outlaid irrefutable scientific evidence of Noah and the Ark using some good old Darwinian magic. Yep, it's a fact alright.

In fact, by some mistake on Noah's part, the giraffe's cages had no food. They had to try and get food from the Hippo's pen above. Only the giraffe's with the long necks survived the boat ride. The short necked giraffes on the Ark died of starvation.

Either we believe the scriptures or we do not.

I think what you mean is either I believe YOUR INTERPRETATION of the sciptures or I don't. God inspired the book. He isn't the book.

Please provide scriptures that support your old earth beliefs. I will provide scriptures in this article that support my position.

Days or ages in Genesis 1

 

[Hollie]

Either we believe the scriptures or we do not.

Either you accept biblical absurdities or you pretend they don't exist to preserve blind, unquestioning allegiance to an ancient book of tales and fables.

The biggest absurdity is non life developed life

Fables,that is the proper term for evolution not creation and design.

Of course, a visit to any university library would prove you wrong. The problem that fundies cannot confront is that sciences of evolution and earth history (geology), are in direct conflict with a 6000 year old earth. The fundie has no choice but to launch into hysterical denials.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Under Christian thought, humans have free will, which made it possible for them to choose sin, not God. Under evolutionary philosophy, there is no free will for humans.

That doesn't make any sense. I'm guessing the logic is that if life evolves then it doesn't have free will? You lost me.

nothing UR says makes any sense ...he never lets that simple fact get in his way .....when answering UR and YWC'S POST remember they have zero evidence.

I have shown the absudity you believe and you have no rebuttal to it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

this coming from a spewer of the worst kind of nonsense!

Do you know how life began daws ?

no, and neither do you....

Thank you for finally admitting both our views are based on faith.

 

[Hollie]

Either we believe the scriptures or we do not.

I think what you mean is either I believe YOUR INTERPRETATION of the sciptures or I don't. God inspired the book. He isn't the book.

Please provide scriptures that support your old earth beliefs. I will provide scriptures in this article that support my position.

Days or ages in Genesis 1

Please provide a meaningful way to test the biblical tales for accuracy.

 

[ima]

Either we believe the scriptures or we do not.

I think what you mean is either I believe YOUR INTERPRETATION of the sciptures or I don't. God inspired the book. He isn't the book.

Please provide scriptures that support your old earth beliefs. I will provide scriptures in this article that support my position.

Days or ages in Genesis 1

Progressive creationism is for those who know the bible is wrong in its 6 days theory. But Moses did only have 40 days to come up with the pantload that he did, so I'll cut him some slack. He must of inhaled too much of the burning bush and been chillin' for most of the 40 days.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Either you accept biblical absurdities or you pretend they don't exist to preserve blind, unquestioning allegiance to an ancient book of tales and fables.

The biggest absurdity is non life developed life

Fables,that is the proper term for evolution not creation and design.

Of course, a visit to any university library would prove you wrong. The problem that fundies cannot confront is that sciences of evolution and earth history (geology), are in direct conflict with a 6000 year old earth. The fundie has no choice but to launch into hysterical denials.

Your problem is you think we (Christians) all believe in a 6,000 year old earth. I don't know how old the earth is, nor do you or anyone else for that matter.

 

[Hollie]

The biggest absurdity is non life developed life

Fables,that is the proper term for evolution not creation and design.

Of course, a visit to any university library would prove you wrong. The problem that fundies cannot confront is that sciences of evolution and earth history (geology), are in direct conflict with a 6000 year old earth. The fundie has no choice but to launch into hysterical denials.

Your problem is you think we (Christians) all believe in a 6,000 year old earth. I don't know how old the earth is, nor do you or anyone else for that matter.

A Radiometric Dating Resource List

Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology - SpringerLink

As of January, 1999, The oldest rocks found on earth are 4.031 ± 0.003 billion years old (meaning it has been that long since the molten rocks solidified and thus reset their internal clocks). This is reported in the paper Priscoan (4.00-4.03 Ga) orthogneisses from northwestern Canada by Samuel A. Bowring & Ian S. Williams; Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 134(1): 3-16, January 1999. The previous record was 3.96 billion years, set in 1989.

 

[UltimateReality]

It's so funny that, a good feeling doesn't mean that god actually exists, at all. It simply means the concept of god makes you feel good. That's all. You associate the reward of good feeling with veracity about the supernatural claims, but that is fallacious. You're increased good feeling can be explained naturally.

You know nothing of me. ^

How dare you. You know nothing about me, or why I feel and think the way I do. Mental illness is not the product of lack of faith. It is the product of, for me, of bad formative social experiences that produced trauma and have caused my model of human relationships to be out of whack. The "hole" I find is a result of me being a social animal, and unable to fulfill that need whatsoever. I can not receive love or affection anymore, and do not trust people. I have massive social anxiety. This can be explained naturally within the timeline of my life and there have been times in my life when this was not the case, and it had nothing to do with god, but with relationships being better that are important to me, and my perception about reality being more clear. It is actually contained in the description of borderline personality disorder, that one feels "empty." So, you're prepared to make a scientific claim that this feeling in those with this disorder is caused by a lack of Jesus in their life?! Wow. You're ridiculous man. You can't be that ******* arrogant to say something like you did based on so little information about me. You're an ass.

Actually, atheism has saved my life, in a sense. It caused me to look at my issues rationally, and I've made GIANT leaps since "recommitting to my atheism" in the last few months (shedding any lingering religious attachments or notions I've had). I have committed myself to logical, critical thinking, and evidence, and applying this to my maladaptive beliefs and thought patterns have more more progress than I ever did when I was attempting to find god. It was religion and superstitious thinking that kept me in my mental anguish for so long. So, go **** yourself...

I think I will leave that chore for my wife. If you are going to continue to engage in public forums, you will need to learn not take everything so personally. It sounds like some evil was done to you at some time in your life.

Actually, under the worldview you have chosen, evil doesn't exist. Neither does "good". It sounds like some human animals who couldn't help the programming in their flawed dna brains acted in some survival modes towards you in an attempt to prevent your from passing your dna on to the next generation and the really screwed up your normal adaptive response to stimuli. Under your worldview, who cares about you stupid problems? In less than 100 years you will be dead. In less than 200 years there won't even be a memory of you because everyone who knew you will be dead. It was all part of the cosmic joke. Under materialism your existence is meaningless so who gives a flying flip whether you live or die?

Ah, but under Theism, You have value!! You are one of God's children and he cares about you and he will remember you in life and death. And you will be see your loved ones again. This earth, with all its pain and suffering, is not the final chapter. Your life will have mattered because it matters to God. The Bible says even a sparrow can't fall to the ground without God caring so how much more does he care for us.

I really think you are just running from God. You've found that denying him makes it easier to rationalize your unwanted behaviors.

So here you have the one of the various dynamics that motivates religious beliefs. The deep seated fear of inadequacy; of the inability to function without the security blanket of daddy, (the "father in heaven") to watch over us. I can imagine in the brutal and vicious times of how life came and went a few thousand years ago, there was comfort in the promise of a better life in some alleged afterlife.

I can also imagine in those brutal, ancient times the deep seated desire that those who commit atrocities suffer greater than humans can manage. The lust for vengeance, and calling it justice. Well, it's not like that. Billions make no effort to examine their religious beliefs, they simply have them, make token nods to them, appeal to them in the hope of dying sooner, rather than later to gain spiritual and carnal rewards and cling to them when they die for comfort. Nothing difficult in that. Surprisingly, the gods are very adept at assisting people into the alleged afterlife. There is no more cruel or psychopathic mass murderer than the Christian gods. They have once wiped the planet of most of humanity simply because humanity was a disappointment. The next humanity wiping tirade will be via fire... because they are gods of love and compassion.

No, it's much harder to face truth coldly. It's far easier to believe in a loving father figure who will reward us (or p u n i s h us) based upon our understanding of a bunch of ancient rules written in the desert somewhere. It's a simple Santa Clause (purposeful mispelling) model that most people can embrace without having to take the time or expend the effort to examine critically.

It's not pleasant to think there's no "ultimate justice" out there. It sucks to realize that a dead Hitler or Mao or Stalin, etc., are beyond suffering for their cruelties. But it's the truth. And we need the truth to function properly, to explore, and learn. Our time is short, and we are beings that want to know what our universe is like, what it is, how it works.

So what if a dead Hitler is roasting over a spit in a hell somewhere. How much roasting is required to bring justice for the millions upon millions of people who died as the result of his ideology? Justice would have been for the gods to roll a tank over Hitler back in 1939.

But the gods didn't do that. I guess all those millions of people who died during the ensuing war years failed the "test". Or maybe the gods were just too busy with their administrative duties to give a hoot. What the hey - as far as the gods are concerned, humans are a dime a dozen.

This notion of eternal rewards or eternal punishment for arbitrarily defined offenses to god(s) have all the earmarks of an elite ruling class preying upon the fears and superstitions of others.

You and Loki live in the dream world of being on disability and never leaving the house. Do you believe brutality doesn't exist today? Loki says Christianity is escapism, like he has a choice when he escapes this world. Bad crap still happens daily. Young children get killed. Whole populations are wiped out by genocide. Cartel members behead their competition. This all makes perfect sense under the law of the jungle-survival of the fittest!!!

By the way, where did you go to college?

 

[UltimateReality]

I can't say what the light was before the sun and moon was created but clearly he described a day as we see it. If you do not trust the bible what are your beliefs in God based on ? Why are elements still found in rocks that should have been gone in an old world view ? That is supposedly what the age of the earth is based on correct ? At the rate the moon and earth are receding that to is a problem for old earth views. If the bible was inspired by God that is the only book that provides an eyewitness to creation and the beginning. If would put text books ahead of what the bible say's in a sense what is being done ?

I disagree. This errors on that fundamentalist belief of "I'm right/You're wrong" or "I'm the only one that has the truth and you don't." I believe the Bible is ABSOLUTELY true. I am just not good with some fundamentalist interpretations of it, 6,000 year old earth being one of them. Most people can't read Genesis without preconceived notions from their parents or pastor or the current religious party line. I take the Bible at exactly what is says. Light and Dark existed because God created photons. The Bible CLEARLY states the Sun and Moon came along after several days of Creation. So how can your guy say there is no doubt these were 7 literal solar days?? Here is a guide on interpretation that might clear some things up. There are a great many denominations that don't have this grasp on interpreting the Bible. It is called Hermenutics:

How to Enjoy Bible Study - Grace to You with John MacArthur

I said it before. When you pretend Genesis was written for us in the 21st Century, you rob it of its originally meaning and power.

"You might have watched, along with some of us, in horror sometime back if you happened to be watching the Trinity Broadcasting Network, they were interviewing a guest on one of their "Talk Shows," and he was explaining the Biblical basis of his ministry of "Possibility Thinking." This is a quote, "My ministry is based entirely on my life verse, Matthew 19:26, 'With God all things are possible.' God gave me that verse (Matthew 19:26) because I was born in 1926." Obviously, intrigued by that method of obtaining a life verse, the host grabbed a Bible and began thumbing through it excitedly. "I was born in 1934," he said. "My life verse must be Matthew 19:34! What does it say?" Then he discovered that Matthew 19 has only 30 verses! Undeterred, he flipped to Luke, and read Luke 19:34, and they said, "The Lord hath need of Him." Thrilled, he exclaimed, "The Lord has need of me, the Lord has need of me!" What a wonderful life verse. I never had a life verse before, but now the Lord has given me one. Thank You, 0h Jesus, Hallelujah. And the studio audience began to applaud.

At that moment, however, the "Talk Show" host's wife who had also turned to Luke 19, said, "Wait a minute, you can't use this. This verse is talking about a donkey!" That incident, while being absolutely ludicrous and bizarre, gives you some idea of the "willy-nilly way" that some Charismatics approach Scripture. Some of them, looking for a word from the Lord, play a sort of Bible roulette. They spin the Bible at random, looking for something that might seem applicable to whatever trial or need they are facing and they find a verse and say, "Well, the Lord gave me that verse." And then the Lord supposedly gave them the interpretation of it. These are silly and foolish ways to approach the study of the Bible."

Charismatic Chaos - By John MacArthur

Why are we to believe a day that we witness today was longer back then ? I believe the light that existed when God created was himself. Why is he called the light of the world does that mean just because he is truth ?

So we should ignore the chronology of man that was given by the word of God. I will respectfully disagree with you. If God can say let there be light and there was light we can interpret that as it taking a long period of time for that light to appear.

But still you are basing your views off mans assumptions the same men who say we are products of natural processes and we are all products of evolution. I still think you should watch that video I posted and go through each scripture that is brought to our attention.

How do you reconcile the two creation stories about man? How do reconcile that the Bible speaks of not other offspring of Adam and Eve and yet Cain went to another land and found a wife?

 

[Hollie]

You know nothing of me. ^



I think I will leave that chore for my wife. If you are going to continue to engage in public forums, you will need to learn not take everything so personally. It sounds like some evil was done to you at some time in your life.

Actually, under the worldview you have chosen, evil doesn't exist. Neither does "good". It sounds like some human animals who couldn't help the programming in their flawed dna brains acted in some survival modes towards you in an attempt to prevent your from passing your dna on to the next generation and the really screwed up your normal adaptive response to stimuli. Under your worldview, who cares about you stupid problems? In less than 100 years you will be dead. In less than 200 years there won't even be a memory of you because everyone who knew you will be dead. It was all part of the cosmic joke. Under materialism your existence is meaningless so who gives a flying flip whether you live or die?

Ah, but under Theism, You have value!! You are one of God's children and he cares about you and he will remember you in life and death. And you will be see your loved ones again. This earth, with all its pain and suffering, is not the final chapter. Your life will have mattered because it matters to God. The Bible says even a sparrow can't fall to the ground without God caring so how much more does he care for us.

I really think you are just running from God. You've found that denying him makes it easier to rationalize your unwanted behaviors.

So here you have the one of the various dynamics that motivates religious beliefs. The deep seated fear of inadequacy; of the inability to function without the security blanket of daddy, (the "father in heaven") to watch over us. I can imagine in the brutal and vicious times of how life came and went a few thousand years ago, there was comfort in the promise of a better life in some alleged afterlife.

I can also imagine in those brutal, ancient times the deep seated desire that those who commit atrocities suffer greater than humans can manage. The lust for vengeance, and calling it justice. Well, it's not like that. Billions make no effort to examine their religious beliefs, they simply have them, make token nods to them, appeal to them in the hope of dying sooner, rather than later to gain spiritual and carnal rewards and cling to them when they die for comfort. Nothing difficult in that. Surprisingly, the gods are very adept at assisting people into the alleged afterlife. There is no more cruel or psychopathic mass murderer than the Christian gods. They have once wiped the planet of most of humanity simply because humanity was a disappointment. The next humanity wiping tirade will be via fire... because they are gods of love and compassion.

No, it's much harder to face truth coldly. It's far easier to believe in a loving father figure who will reward us (or p u n i s h us) based upon our understanding of a bunch of ancient rules written in the desert somewhere. It's a simple Santa Clause (purposeful mispelling) model that most people can embrace without having to take the time or expend the effort to examine critically.

It's not pleasant to think there's no "ultimate justice" out there. It sucks to realize that a dead Hitler or Mao or Stalin, etc., are beyond suffering for their cruelties. But it's the truth. And we need the truth to function properly, to explore, and learn. Our time is short, and we are beings that want to know what our universe is like, what it is, how it works.

So what if a dead Hitler is roasting over a spit in a hell somewhere. How much roasting is required to bring justice for the millions upon millions of people who died as the result of his ideology? Justice would have been for the gods to roll a tank over Hitler back in 1939.

But the gods didn't do that. I guess all those millions of people who died during the ensuing war years failed the "test". Or maybe the gods were just too busy with their administrative duties to give a hoot. What the hey - as far as the gods are concerned, humans are a dime a dozen.

This notion of eternal rewards or eternal punishment for arbitrarily defined offenses to god(s) have all the earmarks of an elite ruling class preying upon the fears and superstitions of others.

You and Loki live in the dream world of being on disability and never leaving the house. Do you believe brutality doesn't exist today? Loki says Christianity is escapism, like he has a choice when he escapes this world. Bad crap still happens daily. Young children get killed. Whole populations are wiped out by genocide. Cartel members behead their competition. This all makes perfect sense under the law of the jungle-survival of the fittest!!!

As usual, you're not making sense. Why should I care about those losers who die. That's part of the gods plan.

Nothing happens 'cept for the will of the gods.

Who are you to question the gods will?

It's a mystery.

We'll never know

They're in a better place

Screw those losers. The gods have a purpose for me.

I'm special

They're dead because it's the plan of loving and beneficent gods

The omni-everything gods have planned that people will die in horrible ways......

Nothing happens 'cept for the will of the gods.....

 

[UltimateReality]

I think what you mean is either I believe YOUR INTERPRETATION of the sciptures or I don't. God inspired the book. He isn't the book.

Please provide scriptures that support your old earth beliefs. I will provide scriptures in this article that support my position.

Days or ages in Genesis 1

Please provide a meaningful way to test the biblical tales for accuracy.

Please provide a way to test the "just so" stories of evolution for accuracy. You can start by providing a scientifically testable definition for fitness. I guess I wouldn't expect you to understand these things with just a high school education.

Where did you go to College?