Questions for creationists

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Zealot


Gee, how to put this without shocking you? :rolleyes
There are several factions of so-called cristians as there are evolutionists! And that link is just pointing to the home page.

Factions have nothing to do with it. Yes its the home page. Surely you can go on from there.

There are no factions of evolutionists. Evolutionist is a Creationist word only. There are scientist with different oppinions. They check those oppinions against reality. When an oppinion is found to be error it goes out the window. They do not merely ignore reality as Creationists do.

No, I love what the Bible says. It's my only defence against those who like to make up on their own, and create their own religion, and defend it like everyone else is a hypocrit! Gee, guess what, like what you're doing right now!

Pointing out the errors in the Bible. Just the internal ones.

Crap

Such a rebuttal. Show an error. Its a christian site and I quoted from it. Its nonsense to call that crap since its an accurate statement in every way.

crap

crap

crap

Gosh I love your brilliant rebuttals. They are so well researched and unasailable.

Its obvious that you can't refute a single word. Perhaps you simply don't know many more words than 'crap'.

I mean, long live your religion!

I don't have one.

Not believing is one thing; making up is another.

I made up nothing. You showed no error by me. Crap is not a devastatingly brilliant rebuttal. Its an admission you have no answer.

So preach all you want, you have just become the first Apolytoner to deserve to get into my ignore list

I am devastated. Its awful that a person with a closed mind would announce his intention to shutter it ever more tightly to all and sundry.

I accept your surrender.

And believe me, I tolerate[d] all religious points of view up to now

I see no reason to believe you. After all you haven't even noticed that I don't have a religion. Yet you asail it without knowing it. Hardly a sign of tolerance.

I have no religion in any case. Believing without reason is what religion is. That includes saying there absolutely is no god as pure atheists do. It is possible that there is a god. The god of Genesis however does not appear to be the creator of the world we live in. I will stick to being an agnostic till I see some evidence for any religion.

[Ethelred]

Such irony in that IMHO.

I am impressed Thrawn. You have slain the many headed beast that is Creationism vs. Science with you unmatched wit. We will all go into our PC rooms and hang our heads in shame by the glow of our monitors.

I abjectly surrender to your might.

Unless someone pops up with a rebuttal to me that is. I have one scalp allready on this thread. I might as well see if I can hang a few more next to my Cathode Ray Shrine.

[Jack_www]

I believe that God created the universe, the earth, and all life on the earth, though in many points creationists have things wrong. This is mainly do to missintripiting what the Bible really says. I know for many people who have heard the claims the creationists have made that the earth was created in 7 literal 24 hour days. There is extentisive evidence to indicate that the Earth is billions of years old. The creation account in Gensis though does not says that the earth was created in a week. THe Hebrew word "yohm", which is translated day can various lengths of time.

This word was used to represent long periods of time, and periods of time when something really important happened. Also today many people often use the term "day" to refer not to a 24 hour time period, but much longer periods of time.

Also the Bible uses the term "Day" sometimes to describe the passing of seasons and other time periods.

"And it must occur in that day that living waters will go forth form Jerusalem, half will go to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea. In summer and winter it will occur." -Zechariah 14:8

"Just like the coolness of snow in the day of the harvest is the faithful envoy to those sending him for he restores the very soul of his masters." -Proverbs 25:13

"Now Reubnen went walking in the days of the wheat harvest." - Gensis 30:14

"However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." - 2 Peter 3:8,10

Thus the days refered to in the Gensis creation account are not 24 hour days, but long periods of time that could have been millions of years long.

since it is getting late and I need sleep I will post more latter.

[Ethelred]

THe Hebrew word "yohm", which is translated day can various lengths of time.

The problem there is that nearly every day has a mention of morning and evening. Even ones before there is a Sun and an Earth.

The order of creation is wrong enough that using a variable length of time for the days don't fix up the problems. Plus there are two different stories of creation in the Bible and they have different orders. Its hard to patch over the differences.

So what do think about the Flood. That one is pretty specific about time?

Do you accept it as written or do you think its just a story?

While old Earth creationists aren't allowed in ICR there still are a lot of them. Thats why I often concentrate on the Flood.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous

And remember, the Serpent talked, and was in actuality Lucifer.

[QUOTE]

He wasn't Lucifer. He was a serpent or maybe the first serpent, the representant of all serpent. But just a serpent.

But the serpent was deceit by the satan.

---

Since Genese is wrong on physical fact.
Genese is a metaphore.

People who think that Bible describe physical factsare those people who will watch the finger of the wise-man when this wise-man will show the path of Wisdom.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Ethelred


The problem there is that nearly every day has a mention of morning and evening. Even ones before there is a Sun and an Earth.

The order of creation is wrong enough that using a variable length of time for the days don't fix up the problems. Plus there are two different stories of creation in the Bible and they have different orders. Its hard to patch over the differences.

So what do think about the Flood. That one is pretty specific about time?

Do you accept it as written or do you think its just a story?

While old Earth creationists aren't allowed in ICR there still are a lot of them. Thats why I often concentrate on the Flood.

The creation account in Gensis is written form the standpoint form an observer on the earth. The creation account in Gensis only focus on the creation of the Earth not the Universe. First as I said the term day in Gensis does not refer to a litteral 24 hour day. Thus saying this "day" had a morning and evening, even if the sun was not in extience is not a problem. The fact it say this day has a morning is more like stating that is has started and evening would indicated the day has ended.

In fact the rest of the universe was in extistence when the earth and all life on it was created. Inculding the sun. Also the reason why I was bring up the info about the creation days being much longer than 24 hour time period not to try to patch up any conflicts that apear to be in the Gensis Creation account, but for those who have a really hard time believe that the earth on all life no it could have been created in a week.

I will go over the creation account in Gensis latter to clearify what the Bible says. I think that it is improtant that first before anyone starts to try and say that the creation account in Gensis is wrong that they sould get the full facts, and accaully read what it says. I am not saying any of you have nopt done this, but I know most people have never read the Bible for themselves and they start making judgements on it based upon what other people say, without looking in to it for themselves. Also too many people in the general population know very little about science as well, which is also said. I heard that here in the US only 17% are litererate in science. Forget the poll, but I can get the info on that. Right now I am at school and need to go to class so I dont have time to post more right now.

ZoboZeWarrior can you please clearify what you are trying to say, I am have a hard time tyring to figure out what you are trying to say, I dont mean to be rude, and it most likly just me that is having the problem.

[Ethelred]

The fact it say this day has a morning is more like stating that is has started and evening would indicated the day has ended.

Nice dance around the words. OK we have that part settled. Then you don't believe the Earth is around 6000 years old. Many disagree with you though. I debate them too. So it would be good to keep that issue seperate.

Of course if you do believe the Earth is essentially young and you are just debating how young I don't see why you would bother. Days or weeks or kiloyears its still not 4.6 billion years.

but for those who have a really hard time believe that the earth on all life no it could have been created in a week.

Assuming an all powerfull god thats not a problem. The problen is the world doesn't match that story unless you assume that Jehovah created the world in six days and did so in way that makes it look exactly like a word that accretted out of a solar disk about 4.6 billion years ago. Thus requiring a deceptive god assuming the Bible is actually gods word. I go for the Bible as wrong rather than a deceptive god. I don't see how one could ascertain which was the true method of creation if you assume god is pulling your leg with one or the other.

I will go over the creation account in Gensis latter to clearify what the Bible says.

OK keep in mind though that there are two variations of creation in Genesis.

Because I will even if you don't.

. I think that it is improtant that first before anyone starts to try and say that the creation account in Gensis is wrong that they sould get the full facts, and accaully read what it says.

Too late I allready read Genesis. And have allready discussed it at length which has helped me to keep the details in mind. So yes I do know what it really says. I have even cross checked the Hebrew in parts. Of course I have to take the Blue Letter Bibles word on the definitions for the Hebrew terms since I don't know the language myself. I am willing to check with another source if you prefer another.

However outside Genesis and most of Exodus I have only read bits and pieces.

[Logical Realist]

THe Hebrew word "yohm", which is translated day can various lengths of time.

And I wonder, had scientists found that the world was 6,000 years old and had been created in six days, would you be saying the same thing?

What makes you think then, that out of all the possible dates that "yohm" can stand for that it will stand for the same date scientists say is the age of the Earth? Was such a "date" chosen based on what the Isrealis and stuff really believed, on the actual merits of such an interpretation, or was it chosen to make the Bible compatible with science? If the latter is the case, isn't it likely that you might be basing all such "interpretations" on pure preference?

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Ethelred

Assuming an all powerfull god thats not a problem. The problen is the world doesn't match that story unless you assume that Jehovah created the world in six days and did so in way that makes it look exactly like a word that accretted out of a solar disk about 4.6 billion years ago. Thus requiring a deceptive god assuming the Bible is actually gods word. I go for the Bible as wrong rather than a deceptive god. I don't see how one could ascertain which was the true method of creation if you assume god is pulling your leg with one or the other.

I with Jehovah time does really matter to Him, He has all the time he could possibly want. Maybe he could create the earth in 7 days, but the Bible does not tells us that, refer to my post above.

OK keep in mind though that there are two variations of creation in Genesis.

Because I will even if you don't.

Dont worry I will address this.

Too late I allready read Genesis. And have allready discussed it at length which has helped me to keep the details in mind. So yes I do know what it really says. I have even cross checked the Hebrew in parts. Of course I have to take the Blue Letter Bibles word on the definitions for the Hebrew terms since I don't know the language myself. I am willing to check with another source if you prefer another.

However outside Genesis and most of Exodus I have only read bits and
pieces.

I was not trying to say that you did not read the Bible at all, what I was saying there are a alot of people out there, even people who believe that the Bible is inspired by God who do not read the Bible. I am sorry for the missunderstanding.

[Jack_www]

I will now go over the Gensis Creation account.

First Day- Gensis 1:1-5
Here the Bible states that the earth was already in existence for quite some time and was orbitting the Sun already. It says that the earth was covered with water and that light apeared on the suface of the earth and a division between light and darkness had appeared. A translation of the Bible by J.W. Watts says this, "God Proceed to say, 'Let there be light.'; and gradually light came inot existence." (Gensis 1:3). The hebrew verb which is translated here as "gradually ... come" is a verb that denotes progressive action that takes a long time to complete. Thus the Sun was in existence, but the sunlight could not reach the reach, most likely because there were gases such as water vapor and volcanic ash in the atmosphere and that this gradually started to clear and let light reach the surface of the earth.

Second Day- Gensis 1:6-8

God now formed a layer of water vapor that was in the upper atmosphere of the earth and cover the whole earth. This layer of water vapor was created form the earth's occeans. The space in between these layers was called the heavens, a term which many people use today to discribe the part of the atmosphere were plans and birds fly.

Third Day - Gensis 1:9-13

During this period of time God started to form major land masses. He most likely used the geological forces that are still move the plates of the earth crust. Also plant life was created at this time and appears to have continued into the Sixth creative day.

[Jack_www]

Fourth Day- Gensis 1:14-19

Here the process that was started in the first creative day came to an end, and the earth's atmosphere was clear enough to be able to now see the Sun, moon, and stars form the surface of the earth.

Fifth Day- Gensis 1:20-23

During this time period sea animals and animals that fly in the air were created.

Sixth Day- Gensis 1:24-31
Now land animals were created, and so was the first human pair. The garden of Eden was made at this time and the first humans were put into the garden.

Seventh Day- Gensis 2:1-3
This is the day that God stop creating, and thus rested in the sense that he was not creating anymore. It is also interesting to note that no were in the Bible does it say that this day has yet ended. In fact the bible stated 4000 years after this Seventh Day began that is was still going on. (Hebrews 4:4-6). Thus anther reason why the creative days do not represent a 24 hour period of time.

orginally I had the preivisous three post as one, but since it took me a long time, when I selected post that it promted me to log in again, and then it said something like no thread was specfied and I lost all the stuff I typed. Thus when I retyped my post I broke it up so this would not happen again to me.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Logical Realist


And I wonder, had scientists found that the world was 6,000 years old and had been created in six days, would you be saying the same thing?

What makes you think then, that out of all the possible dates that "yohm" can stand for that it will stand for the same date scientists say is the age of the Earth? Was such a "date" chosen based on what the Isrealis and stuff really believed, on the actual merits of such an interpretation, or was it chosen to make the Bible compatible with science? If the latter is the case, isn't it likely that you might be basing all such "interpretations" on pure preference?

This is based on what was wriiten in other parts of the Bible. In fact the Bilbe refers to the whole time period Jehovah God created the earth as one long period of time, "the day in which Jehovah made the earth and heaven."(Gensis 2:4; compare 2 Peter 3:8).

The fact is the earth is very old and is not 6000 years old. If we look at how the Bible uses the term day in various part of it to refer to a time period that is longer, much longer than 24 hours, and the fact that evidence shows us that the earth is not 6000 years old that the conclusion you would reach is that the term day in the creation account refers to a really long period of time.

[mactbone]

Why didvide into time divisions in the first place? The guys who wrote this really needed a wake up call. As has been pointed out, time would be meaningless for an omnipotent being, so... what's the point of using anything, especially time to divide up when things happened? Does it matter how they happened? Is this supposed the real actual factual account? Someone needs to write the OC Bible in a hurry.

[Lung]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
lung,

Not that we have a facination with silly creationists - okay, can't speak for the psychologists among us - but we are just doing this to stop them from spreading their falsehood around.

The creationists are still going around with their own warped version of various scientific laws and theories to attack evolution. The best way to defend against this crap is an attack against creationism. Hey, if they got all tied up defending, they can't attack

Great idea, but it makes little difference. I prefer to sit back and watch as creationists try to defend their stance in the face of ever increasing evidence to the contrary, making the position more and more untenable as each year goes by They either must retreat to whatever's currently impregnable to current knowledge, or look more and more ridiculous in the face of new evidence.

Personally, i don't know why they even bother to defend the old testament, as christianity is based primarily on the new testament, with the old testament being the domain of Judaism. The new testament is far harder to disprove, as supernatural events cannot be disproved until such time as we have effectively conquered all physics. I doubt if that will happen any time soon.

I say "live and let live", and if they insist of closing their minds to anything beyond the scope of the bible, so be it. Of course, their feeble attempts to convert those who base their beliefs on knowledge are destined to fail, so we have nothing to fear. I think the big difference is creationists place their faith in religious institutions in the absence of knowledge, while evolutionists place their faith in knowledge and the promise of science to uncover truths not yet revealed.

I must say that putting faith in creation is much more promising with the promise of an after-life, but the bombardment of evidence to the contrary makes that faith seem more and more delusional. In light of this, it's no wonder many people prefer to not know the complete truth. After all, the shattering of such illusions would be quite devastating to the unprepared!

Curse the truth! CURSE IT ALL!!!

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Lung


Great idea, but it makes little difference. I prefer to sit back and watch as creationists try to defend their stance in the face of ever increasing evidence to the contrary, making the position more and more untenable as each year goes by They either must retreat to whatever's currently impregnable to current knowledge, or look more and more ridiculous in the face of new evidence.

Personally, i don't know why they even bother to defend the old testament, as christianity is based primarily on the new testament, with the old testament being the domain of Judaism. The new testament is far harder to disprove, as supernatural events cannot be disproved until such time as we have effectively conquered all physics. I doubt if that will happen any time soon.

I say "live and let live", and if they insist of closing their minds to anything beyond the scope of the bible, so be it. Of course, their feeble attempts to convert those who base their beliefs on knowledge are destined to fail, so we have nothing to fear. I think the big difference is creationists place their faith in religious institutions in the absence of knowledge, while evolutionists place their faith in knowledge and the promise of science to uncover truths not yet revealed.

I must say that putting faith in creation is much more promising with the promise of an after-life, but the bombardment of evidence to the contrary makes that faith seem more and more delusional. In light of this, it's no wonder many people prefer to not know the complete truth. After all, the shattering of such illusions would be quite devastating to the unprepared!

Curse the truth! CURSE IT ALL!!!

I dont believe many of things that Creationists says, much of it does not make any sense. Up to the 8th grade I went to private school, and of course the only private schools are religous ones, at least were I live. Accept in 5th grade I went to one that was not a religous school, but that school only went up to the 5th grade. Anyways the science text books that they used did not make any sense to me and from my understanding of the Bible, most of it had no basis in the Bible etheir.

I love science. Right now I am going to collage and my major is Computer Science, allthough I am also thinking about majoring in Eneirgering as well. I am going to bring up scienctific evidence that proves that God created the Universe. I just wanted to first clearfy what the creation account in Gensis really says. For I am a Christian and regard the whole Bible as the word of God.
I would also like to think that I would like to keep an open mind, and rexam my own beliefs to make sure that they are really true, or just a bunch of falsehoods. I do not blindly believe in Creation, I have made proved this to my self by studying the Bible and scientific evidence.