Why creationism is a total farse

[Cephus]

Why do people act like being a Christian make you like the bionic man... faster, better than before! They, we are just people. So you are going to have disagreements within in the group. In fact I don't see any group out there that is lock step on anything, so why would Christians be doing this?

The problem is, you have lots of different Christian groups, 30,000+ of them in fact, all of whom think they have the one correct answer, even though none of them can demonstrate that their interpretation is any better than anyone else's.

For the inspired word of God, it's certainly not very clear, is it?

 

[Deuce]

Young Earth Creationism is certainly proven to be incorrect. The earth is ~4.7 billion years old, not 6000. If you believe it's 6000, you're scientifically proven to be wrong.

If a religious person is willing to accept that the earth is 4.7 billion years old, and that certain aspects of their holy book simply can't be taken literally, then their religion is not necessarily in conflict with reality. Science can't prove or disprove the existence of God, nor does it seek to. (God, by definition, is metaphysical/supernatural and therefore outside the realm of science) Science can, on the other hand, prove or disprove some of the actions a potential God may have taken in order to create the universe. God did not create the universe and the earth in six days, at least not in the way we measure time. God did not poof mankind into existence, mankind evolved over a very long period of time. The earth is not flat nor is it the center of the universe. Etc, etc.

Myself, I used to believe. We all did, when we were younger. As I grow older, I am more and more doubtful of the existence of God. I am absolutely certain that no divine entity wrote the old testament, new testament, qu'ran, or any other holy book I've read. Now I consider myself an agnostic continuing to slide towards atheism. Why? Ironically, it's the actions of the religious that make me disbelieve in the existence of God. That doesn't mean I hold someone's religious beliefs against them as a rule. As long as you don't attempt to thrust your beliefs onto me, or try to mix religious beliefs into a science classroom, or attempt to use your religious beliefs as justification for hatred/denial of rights/violence, I really don't care what you believe.

Farse does not mean what you think it means.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The bible says nothing about everything being created at the exact time. In fact, it is just the opposite. It sets an order in which all is created. Read Genesis 1.

Correct. It says that the "fishes of the sea" came first, then the "fowls of the air", then the "beasts of the field", and finally man. That's the same order that evolution has proven happened.

Could it be that Genesis was a summary of creation, told to people before the science of evolution was known, then recorded as they understood it? Wild speculation, of course, but far more plausible than the scenario in which everything just came about by magic.

 

[Jerry]

Correct. It says that the "fishes of the sea" came first, then the "fowls of the air", then the "beasts of the field", and finally man. That's the same order that evolution has proven happened.

Could it be that Genesis was a summary of creation, told to people before the science of evolution was known, then recorded as they understood it? Wild speculation, of course, but far more plausible than the scenario in which everything just came about by magic.

I would like to offer that Genesis may be one of many accounts of the beginning. There may very well be a more technical account of the beginning somewhere, as there were competing books for the slot in the bible Genesis won.

Also, just a general comment, I don't see how it's rational to dismiss religion per-se based on a single text of one faith.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I would like to offer that Genesis may be one of many accounts of the beginning. There may very well be a more technical account of the beginning somewhere, as there were competing books for the slot in the bible Genesis won.

Also, just a general comment, I don't see how it's rational to dismiss religion per-se based on a single text of one faith.

No, nor do we have to accept what is generally described as "creationism" in order to accept religion. We just have to accept the idea of a creator, who just might have used evolution as the tool of creation.

 

[Jerry]

No, nor do we have to accept what is generally described as "creationism" in order to accept religion. We just have to accept the idea of a creator, who just might have used evolution as the tool of creation.

My mother is a Young-Earth'er....thing is, creation isn't a big deal to her, it's just not very important. I share that sentiment. It's interesting to discuss, but ultimately is not a deal-breaker. It's day-to-day living which takes precedence.

It's fun to watch atheists walk into a thread like this and think they're going to fracture someone's faith, when in fact they aren't even attacking something of relative importance to the believer.

Just let them run themselves tired, I guess.

 

[sazerac]

No, nor do we have to accept what is generally described as "creationism" in order to accept religion. We just have to accept the idea of a creator, who just might have used evolution as the tool of creation.

Hey, How come I can only hit the like thingy once? I like like like like like like this post!

 

[scourge99]

Correct. It says that the "fishes of the sea" came first, then the "fowls of the air", then the "beasts of the field", and finally man. That's the same order that evolution has proven happened.

I think you need to read up on on how biologists believe evolution occurred. Birds were late arrivals, especially compared to land animals. Genesis is wrong, by tens of millions of years.

And even more wrong about whales.

Could it be that Genesis was a summary of creation, told to people before the science of evolution was known, then recorded as they understood it? Wild speculation, of course, but far more plausible than the scenario in which everything just came about by magic.

SO we have land animals, sea animals and air animals and they got 2 of the 3 out of order. I don't think that is a good indication that born age people somehow figured out evolution and were mysteriously quiet about it until Darwin spilled the beans.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I think you need to read up on on how biologists believe evolution occurred. Birds were late arrivals, especially compared to land animals. Genesis is wrong, by tens of millions of years.

And even more wrong about whales.



SO we have land animals, sea animals and air animals and they got 2 of the 3 out of order. I don't think that is a good indication that born age people somehow figured out evolution and were mysteriously quiet about it until Darwin spilled the beans.

Whales are not fish.

Now that we know that the birds are evolved dinosaurs, we also know that birds came before mammals.

 

[Cephus]

Correct. It says that the "fishes of the sea" came first, then the "fowls of the air", then the "beasts of the field", and finally man. That's the same order that evolution has proven happened.

Could it be that Genesis was a summary of creation, told to people before the science of evolution was known, then recorded as they understood it? Wild speculation, of course, but far more plausible than the scenario in which everything just came about by magic.

Except that it's not, birds evolved after land animals. The Bible has it wrong.

 

[scourge99]

Whales are not fish.

Yet according to the bible whales came at the same time as fish and birds and before land animals. Whales are in fact late arrivals as they evolved from land animals.

Now that we know that the birds are evolved dinosaurs, we also know that birds came before mammals.

So now you are redefining "land animals" to only mean mammals? How convenient. When the Bible doesn't match what the evidence presents you just arbirtarily cut things out or redefine them until it does match up.

 

[Black Dog]

Yet according to the bible whales came at the same time as fish and birds and before land animals. Whales are in fact late arrivals as they evolved from land animals.





So now you are redefining "land animals" to only mean mammals? How convenient. When the Bible doesn't match what the evidence presents you just arbirtarily cut things out or redefine them until it does match up.

So now you want to inturpret it literally?

The order is correct on a basic level of understanding. Of which the ancient writers barely grasped or so logic would say.

I also don't believe birds came from dinosaurs. The evidence pointing to it is there much like ape to man, but it is still not a fact, but this has nothing to do with your statement.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Correct. It says that the "fishes of the sea" came first, then the "fowls of the air", then the "beasts of the field", and finally man. That's the same order that evolution has proven happened.

Could it be that Genesis was a summary of creation, told to people before the science of evolution was known, then recorded as they understood it? Wild speculation, of course, but far more plausible than the scenario in which everything just came about by magic.

I think so. Which begs the question; "If evolution is described in the Bible, how did the 'author' know thousands of years before scientist?"

 

[Cephus]

So now you want to inturpret it literally?

The order is correct on a basic level of understanding. Of which the ancient writers barely grasped or so logic would say.

I also don't believe birds came from dinosaurs. The evidence pointing to it is there much like ape to man, but it is still not a fact, but this has nothing to do with your statement.

The problem is, you want to insist that the story in the Bible is true, but the only way you can give it any validity is to pick and choose which parts you want to be literal and which parts you want to be figurative. If the Genesis story is to be considered an actual account of creation, then you have to read it as such. Otherwise, all you have is a bunch of picked over mythology, from which you've extracted things you can twist into an approximation of what science has discovered.

And whether you believe it or not, that's what the evidence shows. Your belief is irrelevant.

 

[Ikari]

And whether you believe it or not, that's what the evidence shows. Your belief is irrelevant.

Some people don't like measurements. It's how some can still claim the earth is 6,000 years old. Well their loss, I just don't want their wackiness in the science class room.

 

[scourge99]

So now you want to inturpret it literally?

No. I am following the path set by DittoHead. He believes Genesis follows a chronological order of evolution: fish ->birds-> land animals. When that is shown incorrect by the evidence he arbitrarily changes things to fit his preferred conclusion: fish->birds->mammals

The order is correct on a basic level of understanding.

No its not. Even on a basic level. Birds were late arrivals just like whales.

And let's not even go into how genesis has plants wrong on an even worse level.

This all goes to demonstrate that Genesis does not give an even close chronological ordering of evolution.

I also don't believe birds came from dinosaurs.

About how much time have you spent studying the reason and evidence from biologists about the evolution of birds?

The statement: "birds came from dinosaurs" is about as accurate as the statement "humans came from monkeys".

And even if birds magically poofed into existence via a god, they still poofed into existence long after land animals.

 

[Black Dog]

The problem is, you want to insist that the story in the Bible is true, but the only way you can give it any validity is to pick and choose which parts you want to be literal and which parts you want to be figurative. If the Genesis story is to be considered an actual account of creation, then you have to read it as such. Otherwise, all you have is a bunch of picked over mythology, from which you've extracted things you can twist into an approximation of what science has discovered.

And whether you believe it or not, that's what the evidence shows. Your belief is irrelevant.

No the problem is people like you who can't tell the difference between figurative and literal. You twist it just enough or then use it literally. In the original lang you can see this as well as MOST of the new translations.

It is actually your belief that is irrelevant to what Christians believe. I guess you have not noticed that yet?

 

[Black Dog]

No. I am following the path set by DittoHead. He believes Genesis follows a chronological order of evolution: fish ->birds-> land animals. When that is shown incorrect by the evidence he arbitrarily changes things to fit his preferred conclusion: fish->birds->mammals

The Bible does not follow the chronological order of evolution. I don't think I came from a fish or ape, maybe you did? Hehehehe, j/k. It is the order of abiogenesis and the creation of life and it is very similar to the scientific order.

No its not. Even on a basic level. Birds were late arrivals just like whales.

Yes it is. You are trying to nit pick something they did not comprehend in that time.

And let's not even go into how genesis has plants wrong on an even worse level.

How did it get plant's wrong? Again you are trying to apply things to ancient man they did not understand and had no language for. Are you even attempting to be logical?

This all goes to demonstrate that Genesis does not give an even close chronological ordering of evolution.

Yes it is in a basic order according to their understanding, but wait you don't want to see that.

About how much time have you spent studying the reason and evidence from biologists about the evolution of birds?

The statement: "birds came from dinosaurs" is about as accurate as the statement "humans came from monkeys".

You are correct, my bad. I should have said an unknown and guessed at common ancestor.

And even if birds magically poofed into existence via a god, they still poofed into existence long after land animals.

Yes, this does not make the epic again wrong. It was not written directly by God. Dream interpretation's (that's what allot of it was according to the Bible) is not exactly perfect when relaying pictures and sounds you have no language for.

 

[scourge99]

The Bible does not follow the chronological order of evolution. I don't think I came from a fish or ape, maybe you did? Hehehehe, j/k. It is the order of abiogenesis and the creation of life and it is very similar to the scientific order.

please read this carefully. I AM NOT THE ONE WHO CLAIMS THE BIBLE GIVES A CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF EVOLUTION. Dittohead is the one. I am responding to his statements.

If you don't think the Bible gives a chronological order of evolution then we are in agreement. Take your disagreement up with dittohead, not me. Is that clear yet?

Yes it is. You are trying to nit pick something they did not comprehend in that time.

take this up with dittohead, not me.

Yes it is in a basic order according to their understanding

I agree. It is a basic ordering by the Genesis writer according to their understanding WHICH IS ALSO DEAD-WRONG.

Yes, this does not make the epic again wrong. It was not written directly by God. Dream interpretation's (that's what allot of it was according to the Bible) is not exactly perfect when relaying pictures and sounds you have no language for.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Cephus]

Some people don't like measurements. It's how some can still claim the earth is 6,000 years old. Well their loss, I just don't want their wackiness in the science class room.

I don't think it's necessarily the numbers that they don't get, but the fact that they're more concerned about their own emotional comfort than they are about objective reality. When something gets in the way of their emotional wellbeing, they pretend it doesn't exist. They'd rather feel good, even if they're entirely wrong.

I find that kind of thinking pathetic.

 

[Cephus]

No the problem is people like you who can't tell the difference between figurative and literal. You twist it just enough or then use it literally. In the original lang you can see this as well as MOST of the new translations.

If you want to go back and discuss the original languages, or the earliest translations we have of the originals, we can, I'm versed in it. Of course, you can never go back to the "originals" because none of them exist. However, I find it amazing how many Christians, not you per se, but many I've debated, seem to think they know exactly what the "originals" contained and how, even though it doesn't appear in any version in existence, they're absolutely right.

Delusion runs deep in religion.

It is actually your belief that is irrelevant to what Christians believe. I guess you have not noticed that yet?

No, reality is irrelevant to what Christians believe, we've already established that. When reality says one thing and the Bible says another, Christians throw reality out in favor of their heartfelt beliefs.

That's absurd.

 

[Black Dog]

If you want to go back and discuss the original languages, or the earliest translations we have of the originals, we can, I'm versed in it. Of course, you can never go back to the "originals" because none of them exist. However, I find it amazing how many Christians, not you per se, but many I've debated, seem to think they know exactly what the "originals" contained and how, even though it doesn't appear in any version in existence, they're absolutely right.

Delusion runs deep in religion.

Yes I agree up until the "delusional" useless jab.

No, reality is irrelevant to what Christians believe, we've already established that.

No we have not. A lack of evidence is not delusional. If this were the case, every scientist with a legitimate hypotheses would also be delusional.

When reality says one thing and the Bible says another, Christians throw reality out in favor of their heartfelt beliefs.

That's absurd.

Your statement is an untrue blanket statement. Some do, some don't like anything else.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I think so. Which begs the question; "If evolution is described in the Bible, how did the 'author' know thousands of years before scientist?"

Because the person talking to the author was the one who set evolution in motion to begin with.

But, as I've said, that is wild speculation.

 

[Cephus]

Yes I agree up until the "delusional" useless jab.

It wasn't a useless jab, it was truth. Many, perhaps even most Christians, think they magically know the mind of God and can tell everyone else what they're supposed to do, even if those commands appear nowhere in the Bible. That kind of thinking is central to many of the differences in many sects of Christianity. The fact is, most of the theist social commentators we have are making pronouncements based on absolutely nothing but their own personal emotional comfort levels and demanding that "God said so!" I suppose it's one thing if they're trying to use God as an authority for some claim, even though they can't demonstrate that God actually exists, it's certainly another if they really believe that their own personal ideas accurately represent those of their imaginary friend. That's delusion, pure and simple.

No we have not. A lack of evidence is not delusional. If this were the case, every scientist with a legitimate hypotheses would also be delusional.

A scientist with an unverified hypothesis doesn't go around declaring their ideas to be absolutely true and correct, they go out and test their ideas to find out if they are true. A scientific hypothesis is an idea, nothing more, nothing less. It still needs to be verified. Religious belief, while in some ways very much like a scientific hypothesis in that it has not been verified, becomes a matter of unsupported faith, demanded as absolutely true even though it has not been supported by any evidence, logic or experimentation whatsoever.

That's delusion.

Your statement is an untrue blanket statement. Some do, some don't like anything else.

I've yet to find anyone who follow exactly what the Bible says to the letter, virtually all interpret the text to fit in with their own personal views. Most say "I think X, therefore I'm going to interpret passage Y to support my already existing belief". Liberal theology does it all the time, especially with regard to the Old Testament, which they feel free to ignore and explain away when it gets in the way of modern ideas. It's emotionalism, not rationalism.

 

[Black Dog]

It wasn't a useless jab, it was truth.

Not really. Typical angry atheist angst. It was a lame blanket statement with no bases in reality you claim to hold so dear.

Many, perhaps even most Christians, think they magically know the mind of God and can tell everyone else what they're supposed to do, even if those commands appear nowhere in the Bible.

Got any evidence of this or are you just guessing? Actually I know you don't because most Christians will tell you we don't know the mind of God and have to go by his word. Now some manipulate the word and claim to talk directly to God on purpose for power and control, just like politicians. This has little to do with being delusional or a Christian and more to do with being a human.

But most militant or angry atheists would rather judge all Christians the same just like any run of the mill racist would to to any race he deems unfit.

That kind of thinking is central to many of the differences in many sects of Christianity.

Actually claiming to "know the mind of God" is claimed by NO main stream denomination, none.

Please feel free to post evidence of this phenomenon.

The fact is, most of the theist social commentators we have are making pronouncements based on absolutely nothing but their own personal emotional comfort levels and demanding that "God said so!" I suppose it's one thing if they're trying to use God as an authority for some claim, even though they can't demonstrate that God actually exists, it's certainly another if they really believe that their own personal ideas accurately represent those of their imaginary friend. That's delusion, pure and simple.

This is just your opinion, not much else. You don't know God does not exist, so it is not your call to make for anyone else. Many psychiatrists, sociologists etc would say matter of fact your statements are just flat out not true and based on your own limited perception.

Please point out even a televangelist who said he knows what God thinks? Saying something according to the Bible is not even remotely the same thing.

A scientist with an unverified hypothesis doesn't go around declaring their ideas to be absolutely true and correct, they go out and test their ideas to find out if they are true.

Obviously you are not reading some of the story's around the forum. :lol:

A scientific hypothesis is an idea, nothing more, nothing less. It still needs to be verified. Religious belief, while in some ways very much like a scientific hypothesis in that it has not been verified, becomes a matter of unsupported faith, demanded as absolutely true even though it has not been supported by any evidence, logic or experimentation whatsoever.

That's delusion.

Faith is not delusion. But you can think what you like as in the end it is still nothing but your own opinion.

I've yet to find anyone who follow exactly what the Bible says to the letter, virtually all interpret the text to fit in with their own personal views. Most say "I think X, therefore I'm going to interpret passage Y to support my already existing belief". Liberal theology does it all the time, especially with regard to the Old Testament, which they feel free to ignore and explain away when it gets in the way of modern ideas. It's emotionalism, not rationalism.

That's funny.

The OT has no relevance to modern Christians at all. We are not bound by the old laws in any way. And you say you are well versed? The OT is a good reference into the wants of God and the foretelling of the savior, that's it. When Jesus died, a new law was written for man, the old one one was between God and the people of Israel.

It's funny in that you will warp to destroy the true meaning of the Bible and then claim that is why we are somehow delusional? :lol: