Questions for creationists

[Goingonit]

Genesis says; “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” There is no time line from that verse.”
Most Christians that you continually ridicule do not believe in a young earth or universe. And the Bible itself forbids a strictly literal interpretation.

You do not understand the spiritual significance of the Ark. The flood, whether taken literally or figuratively is an example of destruction of the old creation and creation of the new. The New
Testament uses the type of the Ark as an example of the new life available to the believer because of the death and resurrection of Jesus on the cross. There was death (destruction) and resurrection (new creation). In the flood there was death and destruction and then a new creation. “Kangaroos” may or may not have existed before then. The point is that there was a miraculous new creation so science really
doesn’t enter into the picture because it is in the realm of the supernatural and divine intervention.

Well if we're throwing science out the window, it's impossible to debate. You cannot ask for empirical evidence when you are adopting a tautological position.

If they did then it wouldn’t be the God described in the Bible because he said that he hides himself and that he is only know through supernatural revelation. The effects of his existence are clearly seen however.

If it is clear to see that God exists, then what element does faith play? Likewise, if it is not clear to see that God exists, where is the evidence for His existence? The faith argument is self-annihilating if you are trying to argue God empirically (which, I might add, is not the only way to debate about God).

Most of LR's other arguments were wrong, so I won't try to save them (sorry LR!

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by MacTBone
How exactly was it that the Far East had no knowledge of God? Or Jewish people?

Why did the Greeks worship a Pantheon?

Why were the Germanic tribes pagan?

Why did the Native Americans practice animism?

I would think that an all powerful creator would be able to get his message across, "Yo, I created you", or at least have some kind of prophet like he did for the Jews and Christians...

Judaism was never meant to be a universal religion, it is far more tribal. And Christianity eventually reached to the ends of the earth, and all the places you mentioned.

[mactbone]

But if God really created everyone, why would he choose to only announce his presence to a few people and not all?

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by MacTBone
But if God really created everyone, why would he choose to only announce his presence to a few people and not all?

because if he announced his presence to everyone, there's no faith involved.

[mactbone]

So why didn't he instruct Moses to find the Chinese or build a boat to the Americas to spread the word?

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by MacTBone
So why didn't he instruct Moses to find the Chinese or build a boat to the Americas to spread the word?

As I said, Judaism wasn't a universal religion, nor meant to be. And Christians did find China and build numerous boats to the Americas, in due time.

[mactbone]

But God never told anyone to, like God told Moses to, or Jesus told Christians.

I just doesn't make sense that God would tell at least one, or maybe three people all about the way he thought things should be, and they would all be in the ME. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the prophets out?

[Lincoln]

Here is some stuff on the blind spot in the human eye:

The nerves are transparent, so don’t detectably affect the image. More importantly, the ophthalmology researcher George Marshall pointed out:

The light-detecting structures within photoreceptor cells are located in the stack of discs. These discs are being continually replaced by the formation of new ones at the cell body end of the stack, thereby pushing older discs down the stack. Those discs at the other end of the stack are ‘swallowed’ by a single layer of retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) cells. RPE cells are highly active, and for this they need a very large blood supply — the choroid. Unlike the retina, which is virtually transparent, the choroid is virtually opaque, because of the vast numbers of red blood cells within it. For the retina to be wired the way that Professor Richard Dawkins suggested, would require the choroid to come between the photoreceptor cells and the light, for RPE cells must be kept in intimate contact with both the choroid and photoreceptor to perform their job. Anybody who has had the misfortune of a hemorrhage in front of the retina will testify as to how well red blood cells block out the light. ...

The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy...

If the photoreceptors were not in contact with the choroid, as per the ‘superior’ design of Dawkins et al., they could not be regenerated efficiently. Thus it would probably take months before we could drive if we were photographed with a flashbulb, as another ophthalmologist, Joseph Calkins, points out.

[Lincoln]

"Well if we're throwing science out the window, it's impossible to debate. You cannot ask for empirical evidence when you are adopting a tautological position. "

Right. That is why I seldom enter the debates in these threads. When we are dealing with a supernatural being (or a supposed one) then the debates become rather futile. Creation science is a misnomer in my opinion but people who are trying to put down the Bible really ought to read it sometime.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by Lincoln
"Well if we're throwing science out the window, it's impossible to debate. You cannot ask for empirical evidence when you are adopting a tautological position. "

Right. That is why I seldom enter the debates in these threads. When we are dealing with a supernatural being (or a supposed one) then the debates become rather futile. Creation science is a misnomer in my opinion but people who are trying to put down the Bible really ought to read it sometime.

OK - that's my opinion on God as well. I consider myself agnostic, in that I'm not sure whether or not God exists, and have not recieved any sort of revelation to that effect. As (I believe) I previously stated, I think creationists are wrong only when they say that their creationism is scientific rather than faith-based.

[mactbone]

I consider myself agnostic, but since I like to ask questions, I seem more atheistic. There really isn't anything you can ask an atheist about their beliefs...

[Ethelred]

I hope you always do the same. Of course the many conflicting modern theories of evolution, speciation, origin of information, and various abiogenesis stories are built upon speculation based upon limited evidence but for some reason you require a handicap on your opponents.

Like depending on an ancient book written long ago by men that knew nothing of science. Is that the handicap. I am afraid you took that on yourself.

One would NOT think that God would have preserved his creation when he clearly said he had cursed the earth and repeatedly promised destruction throughout scripture. The only one who would think the opposite is one who is not familiar with the Bible that they presumptiously ridicule.

Yet jehovah designed and created all those creature he found wanting. Including those that don't buy the bible as the word of god. Bad designer.

Or are you saying god cursed the world just because he felt like being a pain?

[QUOTE]
Genesis says; “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” There is no time line from that verse.” [QUOTE]

It also has a creation that takes six days. With morning and evenings. Hard to have those without the Sun but the Bible has that problem as well. There isn't even an Earth till the Bible starts counting days. Are you claiming the Bible is wrong about it being days with morning and evenings.

And the Bible itself forbids a strictly literal interpretation.

Then I choose to interprate it as a book written by men that didn't know what they were doing.

You evaded the question. Nice dodge.

Now about those sedimentary layers.

Eagle eyes are even better.

True. Yet it doesn't answer the question.

Or deal with this:

So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

So then god has poor eyesight in comparison to an eagle then.

The New
Testament uses the type of the Ark as an example of the new life available to the believer because of the death and resurrection of Jesus on the cross.

Your right you do intreprate a lot. To the point of invention and beyond. The Bible says you aren't supposed to add things. You just did.

The point is that there was a miraculous new creation so science really
doesn’t enter into the picture because it is in the realm of the supernatural and divine intervention.

Except that the world looks exactly like it 4.6 billion years old and live evolved on it. So that means god made it look different then it was. Deceptive.

Probably because they evolved that way in order to adapt to their environment.

Nice answer but it doesn't fit the Bible.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Evolution is changing kind.

Do you really think that a God who claimed to make all of creation including the universe itself cannot make or remove water?

Sure makes Jehovah look devious and deceptive. Still it appears you are changing back and forth.

Do you think there was a world wide flood or not? Do you think the Ark story is a metaphor or a true history. If it is mere metaphor why is the Bible so clear about it. Why do others in the Bible act as if it was a factual representation of a real event?

If they did then it wouldn’t be the God described in the Bible because he said that he hides himself and that he is only know through supernatural revelation. The effects of his existence are clearly seen however.

Not clear at all. He doesn't always hide himself in the Bible either. Oh I forgot you don't actually believe what the Bible says. You change it suit your needs.

See your version of the Ark. Yours not the Bible's.

The Bible does speak of a general decline however which partly answers the above questions and it also answers the question of why you are now ridiculing your creator when you claim to be so intelligent.

In other words we are deficient. You do believe we were created by Jehovah don't you? He seems to bad at creation. Things keep going wrong.

Regardless of the number of days or ages it took you seem to have no grasp of the concept of God at all if you have to ask that question.

Evasion of the worst sort.

Again you may have to actually read the Bible. It no where says that “all languages were created at the tower of Babel”.

True. Hey a non-evasive answer. Still there are serious time problems with the Babel story. The Bible has very clear time constraints due the listing of births and deaths. Even the most flexible reading of them put the Flood around 4400 years ago. During the same time the Egyptians were building the Pyramids. Babel comes even later. The Egyptians failed to notice being anahilated. Their language doesn't seem to have changed either.

There certainly is enough capacity or are you suggesting that a miracle happened?

There isn't enough capacity. At all. I am not suggesting a miracle and I don't think he was. Are you saying god was deceptive on this. Our genes show that we have been evolving for a long time. They show there was a lot more the eight people 4400 years ago.

Personally I am not a big fan of deceptive gods. Can't be trusted. Can't be sure the book that claims to be gods word can be trusted if the god is deceptive.

They may have evolved from an amphibious creature of some kind.

See above for what Genesis says about kinds.

I’ll remember that requirement the next time I debate an atheist.

How about trying this time when you debate an agnostic. You gave no evidence. You evade. You reinterpreted the Bible to the point were its unrecognizable.

By the way.

Has anyone seen the face of god?

For extra points what were the last words of Jesus on the cross?

The questions are open to all.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Here is some stuff on the blind spot in the human eye:

The nerves are transparent, so don’t detectably affect the image. More importantly, the ophthalmology researcher George Marshall pointed out:

Its not transparent. You can easily detect your blind spot. It effects the image. Our brains mask the spot but it is there.

Its not called a blind spot for nothing.

[Lincoln]

"As (I believe) I previously stated, I think creationists are wrong only when they say that their creationism is scientific rather than faith-based."

Well buddy it seems like we are in agreement here. I used to be an agnostic. And I never found God. I'll pray that he finds you though like he did me. My life has never been the same since. The problem with discussing revelations though is they mean nothing to anyone except the one who receives them. So trying to prove it all by purely scientific means seems to be a contradiction. I respect people with different views than mine but I really do not see why some people have made a life's work out of ridiculing that which they do not understand.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
"Well if we're throwing science out the window, it's impossible to debate. You cannot ask for empirical evidence when you are adopting a tautological position. "

Right. That is why I seldom enter the debates in these threads. When we are dealing with a supernatural being (or a supposed one) then the debates become rather futile. Creation science is a misnomer in my opinion but people who are trying to put down the Bible really ought to read it sometime.

I have read it. Not all of it but enough to see its not describing the world we live in. Genesis is just plain wrong.

So why should I accept the rest. I can't check the other parts as there is NO physical evidence one way or the other to support the non-mundane parts. I can check the fantastic stories in Genesis and they don't match reality.

I have read the stuff that masquerades as Creation Science. Its not science. Its often dishonest. It never tries to prove creation.