Survey about creationism

[Frogman]

Originally posted by CyberShy

And no, scientists are no good reason to doubt, since they're as human as the writers of the OT.
In that case I prefer to listen to the eye-witnesses.

And what eye witness was that? Who exactly did God tell all this stuff to?

[Elok]

Who cares? We're here now. Does either evolution or creationism have any possible technological application except as a metaphor? I can't see how either one would. Argument seems to have no purpose.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lincoln
As far as a flood goes there is ample evidence for it. When it occured I do not know but the logistics are no problem.

That is simply not true. There is NO evidence for a massive worldwide flood as depicted in Genesis. The sediment layers show no such thing occured. So supernatural God would not only have had to contort his own laws of physics to an absurd degree to create the flood, he would also have had to contort them again to hide the evidence for it (i.e. cover it up, for some inexplicable reason).

Now I ask you, why would an omnipotent, omniscient being, who knew since the dawn of time that the Flood would happen, go through the extreme measures of bothering to create an extremely complex and sensible set of physical laws for how the universe works, only to have to violate those very laws at every turn? If God knew the Flood was coming, he should have just made it so it could happen naturally, if he wanted there to be no evidence of supernatural intervention. But that's not what he did, if the Biblical account is accurate. He bent over backwards to do it, then did so again to hide it. Why? Why didn't he work smarter, not harder, and prepare for the Flood contigency? Why didn't he do it in a way that would be physically possible?

God would have to have been dumb to have done the Flood as described in Genesis.

And we know how the Grand Canyon was made: by steady erosion over millions of years. It wasn't created by a 40-day flood.

[Jon Miller]

I am a creationist of some type

basically I am not sure how much God used 'natural' processes for creation

pretty sure that the universe is billions of years old (whatever number frogger quoted)

I think that the earth and the like could have come about 'naturally' (I think that our science is right) but also don't see anything wrong with it being created 7000ish years ago (it would be created as if it had been evolving for 4 billion or so years), dinosaur bones in this case would have been created as part of a complete and well made world

I beleive in Noahs flood (it at least wiped out all the human lands, I suppose it did not need to be elsewhere)

my church is deffinitely in the YEC camp

Jon Miller

[Frogman]

Jon Miller

The extreme literalists take the dinosaurs to be on the ark and everything before the flood was a vegetarian. Where does your church stand on that? I would have said no one in our church believes either of those, but start asking and I think you'd be amazed at how many do.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
I thought the latest estimates for the universes' age is about 13.7 billion

Oh yah, that's right. I was off by a billion years.


CyberShy, scientists may be humans, but they're humans that employ the scientific method in order to come to conclusions. They observe, analyze, process. And they do this over and over again.

While they can obviously make mistakes, everything in the scientific community is looked at by very critical eyes. It takes a long time for something to become an accepted theory, because science tries to find the real answer before coming to any conclusions.

The writers of the Bible have only their word that what they wrote was divinely inspired. There is nothing to corroborate these claims, so it is more likely that the conclusions of the vast scientific community with all its experimention and observation and continuous revision of the laws of the universe is more accurate than those of a number of individuals making unsubstantiated claims.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


...If God knew the Flood was coming, he should have just made it so it could happen naturally, if he wanted there to be no evidence of supernatural intervention. But that's not what he did, if the Biblical account is accurate. He bent over backwards to do it, then did so again to hide it. Why? Why didn't he work smarter, not harder, and prepare for the Flood contigency? Why didn't he do it in a way that would be physically possible?

God would have to have been dumb to have done the Flood as described in Genesis.

And we know how the Grand Canyon was made: by steady erosion over millions of years. It wasn't created by a 40-day flood.

You do not understand the God of the Bible. He explicitly states in several places in scripture that he does hide evidence from people, especially if their purpose is to elevate themselves, in their own mind, above God. I can quote you several passages if you like. Your above statement, "...he should have..." qualifies you to be one to whom he has hidden knowledge. "He resists the proud..." Which is among other things a mindset that presupposes more knowledge and wisdom than their Creator.

As far as the flood goes, there is ample evidence that the entire planet was under water and the Grand Canyon has evidence that does not support your theory of millions of years of "steady" erosion. Infact there is obvious evidence there of a cataclysmic and rather sudden event.

The bottom line is that I cannot argue about evidence that is both supernatural and physical. It is kind of like asking a scientist to examine Lasarus after Jesus raised him from the dead. What does he prove? He only sees the physical evidence that remains, the supernatural is gone except in the testamonies of those who witnessed the event. Because skeptics do not believe witnesses then the argument is fruitless. I have been a witness of several supernatural events. Do you believe me?

That is why I do not often engage in these types of debates, as there is never a resolution, nor can there ever be one.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Frogman
Jon Miller

The extreme literalists take the dinosaurs to be on the ark and everything before the flood was a vegetarian. Where does your church stand on that? I would have said no one in our church believes either of those, but start asking and I think you'd be amazed at how many do.

no dinosaurs on the ark

everyone (humans) shuold have been vegetarrian before ark but weren't

all creatures vegetarrian before fall

Jon Miller

[Robert]

Originally posted by Lorizael


Oh yah, that's right. I was off by a billion years.


CyberShy, scientists may be humans, but they're humans that employ the scientific method in order to come to conclusions. They observe, analyze, process. And they do this over and over again.

I think that if we talk about simple things like gravity, shape of the earth, solar system etc. I'll believe scientists over the bible. The bible is not a scientific book, neither tries it to put down a scientific statement if it talks about the 'corners of the earth' etc.
Besides that it was written by scientific ignorant people in those days.

No problem there.

But I don't believe scientists in detail if they talk about billions of years and billions of miles. (lightyears)
The circumstanses are too unsure and too complex.

I respect scientists very much, but some stuff doesn't get my faith that easy.

Things like the flood seem to be very common in ancient stories worldwide. I think it's hard to deny that.

Besides that do scientists have something to lose,
their job. If evolution / ice ages etc. all are been proven wrong scientificly, their duty is gone.
Only the guy who 'discovered it' will be famour.
The rest of them will be considered to be a bunch of idiots.

If not only for that reason the current scientific clan will never ever admit that ie. evolution never happened on macro level.

[Ben Kenobi]

Frogman:

What part of "We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). " leads you to say that?

You have to look at the context of any statement before you can see where it is coming from. Should we trust the scouts looking at Canaan, when their actions cause Israel to wander in the desert for forty years?

You are ignoring the plain statement and twisting it to meet your own understanding. Your interpretation has no Biblical basis.

Now, cite a source please that has a different interpretation than mine. This is no different than what my church teaches on this point.

I don't blame God for anything. Its just a pathetic vision of God. He creates all the beauty of the universe, and the earth, and the balance of nature, and he tops it off with mankind only to be disappointed in the end?

Yeah, God is so pathetic that he created mankind with all their flaws. Would you prefer sinless automatons?

Of all the people on the earth I can't believe Noah and his family were the only decent people. Noah was prone to getting drunk, he wasn't perfect.

Noah doesn't have to be sinless to find favour in the eyes of God.

Plus it didn't fix anything. People are just as sinful later. This God of yours needs some therapy.

But not as sinful, sin has lessened since the flood. God made a covenant with Noah, and later with Abraham, all encouraging the growth of those who do follow his ways. I'm amazed that God still loves people despite our sinfulness.

Yeah, laugh it off. Thats the only way you can anwer this ridiculous belief that we were all vegetarian before Noah.

That's a different point from before. Before you said that the bible taught vegetarianism is the root of all evil.

The passage in question:

Genesis 1:29

Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.


Why is this interpretation ridiculous? Can't people survive on a vegetarian diet?

[Boris Godunov]

Why would God use a massive flood requiring the complete contradiction of his own established laws of the universe and then a subsequent cover up of that event just to kill all the evil people in the world? He could have just smote everyone who was evil. No need to destroy all the animals and land and such with the flood whatsoever. And in the flood he must have killed thousands, perhaps millions of babies and children. Was every one of them wicked, too, and deserving of such a fate? What about all those animals who weren't on the Ark, why did they deserve to perish?

Come to think of it, what about all the plant life? Being submerged for a year underwater would undoubtedly kill everything except sea plant life.

The Flood is fairy tale, it's obvious by its sore lack of common sense. Omnipotent God went a lot out of his way to be dramatic, when all he had to do was just strike down those he knew were evil and leave everyone and everything else alone.

Is it based on true events? Probably, but huge floods aren't exactly miraculous. So a huge flood devastated the area around the Black Sea some 10,000 years ago, legends got made and passed down through the generations, and then it got co-opted by various civilizations into flood myths, be it Gilgamesh or the Bible. It's curious that the Egyptians had no such flood myth, though they had been operating blissfully before, during and after the supposed time of the Biblical flood.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why would God use a massive flood requiring the complete contradiction of his own established laws of the universe and then a subsequent cover up of that event just to kill all the evil people in the world? He could have just smote everyone who was evil.

Unlike smiting all the evil people, the flood allows God to test Noah and his family, to see if he really trusts God.

Is it based on true events? Probably, but huge floods aren't exactly miraculous.

Why would God use a massive flood requiring the complete contradiction of his own established laws of the universe and then a subsequent cover up of that event just to kill all the evil people in the world?

So which is it Boris?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Unlike smiting all the evil people, the flood allows God to test Noah and his family, to see if he really trusts God.

So God destroys an entire planet-worth of wildlife and fauna, as well as innocents (the babies and children), to test a family? How nice.

Now, couldn't he have tested their trust of God sans massive contradiction of his own physical laws? And why is God constantly testing people through subjecting them to misery? Is he horribly insecure, sadistic, or both?

So which is it Boris?

You'll notice I was referring to large localized floods as not being miraculous (i.e. the Black Sea flood). You do tend to take a lot of things out of context in these arguments...

[Q Classic]

Re: Survey about creationism

1. How old is the Universe?
really, really, really old. in fact, you wouldn't believe how old it was.

2. How old is the Earth?
a few million years old, designed by deep thought and constructed by the magratheans

3. How old is life?
really, really, really old. in the case of earth, however, just a few million years.

4. Was there a Flood? If there was, when?
nope. that was faked too.

5. Was there one Ice Age or more? When?
no. all of that was faked. in fact, slatfartiblast was the one responsible for the fjords in norway.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Lincoln

As far as the flood goes, there is ample evidence that the entire planet was under water and the Grand Canyon has evidence that does not support your theory of millions of years of "steady" erosion. Infact there is obvious evidence there of a cataclysmic and rather sudden event.

Please share some of this "ample evidence" with us.