Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 8:30 PM
20 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Percy (Admin) (3 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,645 Year: 3,682/19,786 Month: 677/1,087 Week: 46/221 Day: 17/29 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
10Next
Author Topic:   Why prefer the Biblical creation account over those of other religions?
Stumpy McPatch
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 146 (367638)
12-04-2006 9:19 AM


Let's say for the sake of argument, Evidence is found that proves Darwin wrong. How do you know that the Biblical account of creation is the true story, and not the accounts told by the Shinto and Hindus (Both of which are living faiths) for example?

Citing the Bible is really invalidated by the other sagas (The Bible by itself is no more valid the others). What empirical evidence is there that proves the biblical creation story true and/or the other stories false.

P.S. Flood stories are common many cultures. So citing evidence of flood doesn't invalidate other sagas.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed topic title from "A question for creationist" to "Why prefer the Biblical creation account over those of other religions?"

Edited by AdminPD, : Cleanup


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-05-2006 11:05 AM Stumpy McPatch has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Archer Opteryx, posted 12-05-2006 7:19 PM Stumpy McPatch has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Buckfan328, posted 05-13-2008 5:47 PM Stumpy McPatch has not yet responded
 Message 43 by Chuck77, posted 09-06-2011 5:41 AM Stumpy McPatch has not yet responded
 Message 56 by Buzsaw, posted 09-06-2011 9:39 PM Stumpy McPatch has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 146 (367754)
12-04-2006 10:48 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 3 of 146 (367770)
12-05-2006 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stumpy McPatch
12-04-2006 9:19 AM


Creation Myths
There are some examples here.

Teach the controversy, that's what I say.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stumpy McPatch, posted 12-04-2006 9:19 AM Stumpy McPatch has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by dwise1, posted 12-05-2006 8:22 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 7 by iceage, posted 12-07-2006 1:28 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1678 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 4 of 146 (367852)
12-05-2006 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stumpy McPatch
12-04-2006 9:19 AM


Never mind. I gave up trying to insert a functioning URL.

___

Edited by Archer Opterix, : URL code.

Edited by Archer Opterix, : URL

Edited by Archer Opterix, : Disgust.


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stumpy McPatch, posted 12-04-2006 9:19 AM Stumpy McPatch has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by AdminAsgara, posted 12-05-2006 8:39 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3310
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 5 of 146 (367858)
12-05-2006 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Dr Adequate
12-05-2006 11:05 AM


Re: Creation Myths
Teach the controversy, that's what I say.

But that would need to involve presenting creation science claims and then examining and discussing them. Which would necessarily include why they are so incredibly false.

It's been done. Drs. Thwaites and Awbrey ran a two-model class at San Diego State University in which they gave half the lectures and ICR creationists gave the other half. That was where Gish's false bombadier beetle claim was exposed. After several semesters, the class had to be cancelled due to student protests led by Christian clubs on campus. Seems the last thing they wanted was to have the controversy actually taught.

My own experience in discussions with creationists is that the surest way to anger them was to take their claims seriously and to try to discuss those claims with them.

Lastly, when the "controversy" has been taught completely by creation science's rules (eg, without any actual examination of their claims), it has been found to change elementary-grade students into atheists. Ray Baird's "two-model" class, Livermore, Calif, 1981: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/Livermore.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-05-2006 11:05 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 382 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 6 of 146 (367862)
12-05-2006 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Archer Opteryx
12-05-2006 7:19 PM


You had it working the second time hun. It was just trailing html code after the tag
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Archer Opteryx, posted 12-05-2006 7:19 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

    
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3995 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 7 of 146 (368117)
12-07-2006 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Dr Adequate
12-05-2006 11:05 AM


Acoma Myth
I particularly liked the Acoma creation story. The passage that caught my attention was:

Acoma Creation Story writes:

Tsichtinako replied, "I did not make you. Your father, Uchtsiti made you, and it is he who has made the world, the sun which you have seen, the sky, and many other things which you will see. But Uchtsiti says the world is not yet completed, not yet satisfactory, as he wants it. This is the reason he has made you. You will rule and bring to life the rest of the things he has given you in the baskets."

The message that humans, or self-aware intelligent life, are to bring into manifestation the full creation is an interesting one. That we are partners in the flowering of the universe.

This could be construed as a pro-scientific religious ideology and is positive and goal oriented instead of condemning. Also find it more inspiring than the misogynist concept that women in particular are responsible for mankind's deception and therefore ya all and the whole of creation are fallen.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-05-2006 11:05 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by MacCullock, posted 02-02-2007 12:49 AM iceage has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Doddy, posted 02-02-2007 5:09 AM iceage has responded

  
MacCullock
Junior Member (Idle past 4342 days)
Posts: 5
From: Southern California, USA
Joined: 02-01-2007


Message 8 of 146 (381806)
02-02-2007 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by iceage
12-07-2006 1:28 AM


Re: Acoma Myth
iceage writes:

The message that humans, or self-aware intelligent life, are to bring into manifestation the full creation is an interesting one. That we are partners in the flowering of the universe.

On the sixth yom (Hebrew word for period of daylight activity) God created man in His own image, gave mankind rule over every living thing on all the earth, then ...

God, thru Moses writes:

God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. Genesis 1 verse 31 NASB

I cite the NASB because if you read the references to each of the six yom that is the only version which clearly preserves the meaning of the original Hebrew scriptures regarding how specific each yom is.

For example, God lets the daily light cycle reach the earth's surface on "one day" (not "the first"), separates the thick cloud layer from the seas on "a second" yom (not "the second"), and God completed His purpose for the sun, moon, and stars in the time represented as "a fourth" yom, not "the fourth".

This means "the sixth" yom indeed culminates the entire process of completing the creation, after which all His work of completing the creation was "very good".

I realize of course that the NASB is using "day" where I assert "yom" is more appropriate. Every translation process has to decide the most obvious rendering of the text into a very different language for contemporary men, and I am no expert, just an amateur lover of God's Word.

As iceage comments this is a pro-science theology. The Bible has no issues with evolution, but only Darwin's unproven assertion that evolution occurs due to random chance over very long periods. In fact the prototype for the scientific method can be found in God's instructions about how to determine a false prophet to be stoned from a true prophet to be obeyed (Deuteronomy 18) - if the claim is consistent with past truth, and demonstrates power to predict truth then it is valid.

As for:

Let’s say for the sake of argument, Evidence is found that proves Darwin wrong. How do you know that the Biblical account of creation is the true story, and not the accounts told by the Shinto and Hindus (Both of which are living faiths) for example?

Citing the Bible is really invalidated by the other sagas (The Bible by itself is no more valid the others). What empirical evidence is there that proves the biblical creation story true and/or the other stories false.

Christianity is unique in the way it spread in the face of persecution. Much of the nation of Israel was in Jerusalem, saw Christ put to death by suffocation on the cross (what kills is the extreme effort to breath very visibly). That cannot be mistaken. When he was dead many other people rose from the dead (Mattew 27:52-53). Finally many saw Christ alive in the flesh afterward.

The standard for Christian behavior (which no one can actually fulfill) is unique. What other religion commands that we love our enemies (Matthew 5:43)? That lusting for a woman is adultery (Matthew 5:28)? That one should not trust humans who call themselves special masters or teachers (Matthew 23)? That the human source of the religion is God in the flesh (John 1:1, Colossians 1:15-17, Daniel 7:13-14, Isaiah 9:6)?

As for the validity of the Biblical creation story, one must be careful not to mistake the interpretations of human YEC's for what God's Scripture actually teaches. There are no verses of the Bible which say God "created" the earth during those six periods. This needs to be a whole thread. Instead every reference to those six periods refers to it as when God completed the making of heaven and earth, which in the original Hebrew is the final part of the process. The creation of heaven and earth is during "the beginning" which may preceed the so-called "first day" - the first appearance of sunlight at the surface of the earth. Each of the last five yoms begins with "And God said" or "Then God said", so there is every reason to believe that the day in which daylight first reached the earth's surface actually begins with Genesis 1, verse 3.

I believe the scientific evidence is that:


  • the stars and sun existed before the earth (Gen 1:1),
  • the surface of the earth was completely covered by the seas and darkened by thick clouds before daylight would have been apparent at the surface (Gen 1:2-5),
  • that land vegetation was produced before land animals (Gen 1:11-12),
  • the sun, moon, and stars would have been apparent before air-breathing sea and land animals (Gen 1:14-18),
  • sea and land air-breathing creatures existed before mankind (Gen 1:20-24).

Yes there remain other issues about how to interpret Genesis regarding what science has learned. Those are matters for later discussion.

PS: If you are a Young Earth Creationist, consider the following and respond in love, please.

Every word of God proves true.
He is a shield to all who come to him for protection.
Do not add to his words,
or he may rebuke you and expose you as a liar. Proverbs 30:5-6, NLT

Edited by MacCullock, : Getting back to the topic.

Edited by MacCullock, : No reason given.


My child, pay attention to what I say. Listen carefully to my words. Don’t lose sight of them. Let them penetrate deep into your heart, for they bring life to those who find them, and healing to their whole body. Proverbs 4:20-22, NLT
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by iceage, posted 12-07-2006 1:28 AM iceage has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Reserve, posted 04-24-2007 9:01 PM MacCullock has not yet responded
 Message 22 by caffeine, posted 08-20-2010 5:03 AM MacCullock has not yet responded

    
Doddy
Member (Idle past 3989 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 9 of 146 (381821)
02-02-2007 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by iceage
12-07-2006 1:28 AM


Re: Acoma Myth
IceAge writes:

The message that humans, or self-aware intelligent life, are to bring into manifestation the full creation is an interesting one.

That idea certainly matches the viewpoint of many extropians, singularitarians and posthumanists I've met.


"Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will." (Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.) - Arthur Schopenhauer
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by iceage, posted 12-07-2006 1:28 AM iceage has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by iceage, posted 04-25-2007 1:30 AM Doddy has not yet responded

    
Reserve
Junior Member (Idle past 4259 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 03-29-2007


Message 10 of 146 (397185)
04-24-2007 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by MacCullock
02-02-2007 12:49 AM


Re: Acoma Myth
Hello MacCullock,

I am a YEC.

Exodus 20.

quote:
8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

It is obvious whether or not day can mean a thousand years or a single day that in this context, all references to days are literal days.

Matthew 19

quote:
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,

Mark 10

quote:
5"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.

Notice that Adam and Eve were created at the beginning, vice billions years later after creation.

This is the plain teachings of the Bible, even in Genesis 1 it reads plainly in days. Even though yom can mean a single day or a longer/ shorter time period, there is no clearer way to describe yom as a literal DAY than how God has it written in the Bible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by MacCullock, posted 02-02-2007 12:49 AM MacCullock has not yet responded

    
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3995 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 11 of 146 (397226)
04-25-2007 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Doddy
02-02-2007 5:09 AM


Re: Acoma Myth
Doddy I have to admit that I had to look up "extropians, singularitarians and posthumanists".

Bottom line is that if you are going to go all the effort to convince yourself that some obvious myth is reality why not pick a positive one :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Doddy, posted 02-02-2007 5:09 AM Doddy has not yet responded

  
Buckfan328
Junior Member (Idle past 3878 days)
Posts: 5
From: Ohio
Joined: 05-13-2008


Message 12 of 146 (466226)
05-13-2008 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stumpy McPatch
12-04-2006 9:19 AM


The simple answer stumpy is that we have accepted the other tenets of Christianity for various reasons and have come to the conclusion that if we accept Christianity we must accept all of it.

You ask for empirical evidence, though I believe that there is certainly some I would offer that I believe in Christianity in part because I believe that empiricism is not the only way to obtain knowledge so it would probably be fruitless for me to try and convince you, nonetheless I will throw out some reasons people might come to a belief in Christianity.

1.) Personal experience with the depravity of mankind both inside ourselves and in our interactions with others causing us to realize our need for a Savior.

2.) Historical evidence for the honest to goodness, actually happened resurrection of Jesus Christ (see Josh McDowell or Lee Stroebel books for a detailed explanation if you so desire).

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added a couple of blank lines.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stumpy McPatch, posted 12-04-2006 9:19 AM Stumpy McPatch has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by bluescat48, posted 05-13-2008 11:11 PM Buckfan328 has not yet responded
 Message 14 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-14-2008 12:07 AM Buckfan328 has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2269 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 13 of 146 (466253)
05-13-2008 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Buckfan328
05-13-2008 5:47 PM


2.) Historical evidence for the honest to goodness, actually happened resurrection of Jesus Christ (see Josh McDowell or Lee Stroebel books for a detailed explanation if you so desire).

Where is the historical evidence?


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Buckfan328, posted 05-13-2008 5:47 PM Buckfan328 has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3708
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 14 of 146 (466262)
05-14-2008 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Buckfan328
05-13-2008 5:47 PM


The Bible = Christianity???
The simple answer stumpy is that we have accepted the other tenets of Christianity for various reasons and have come to the conclusion that if we accept Christianity we must accept all of it.

As I'm seeing it, the above could (and actually often is) phrased as:

The simple answer stumpy is that we have accepted other parts of the Bible for various reasons and have come to the conclusion that if we accept part of the Bible we must accept all of the Bible.

I find the all or nothing perspective of any area to be most troubling. In the case of the Bible, it is a collection of stories, selected and edited by man. It is divided into two major distinct parts (Old and New Testaments). Parts are presented as history while other parts are presented as spiritual teachings.

Why can't part of the Bible be valid information while other parts are erroneous? I say the Genesis creation story, especially if taken as precise and literal, is erroneous or at least flawed information. It badly conflicts with the information that can be seen in the creation itself.

Are you to believe what you can see in the real world or someones fanciful story about that real world?

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Buckfan328, posted 05-13-2008 5:47 PM Buckfan328 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Phat, posted 05-29-2009 7:07 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 12179
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 15 of 146 (510232)
05-29-2009 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Minnemooseus
05-14-2008 12:07 AM


Why Not Start A New Religion?
Moose writes:

I find the all or nothing perspective of any area to be most troubling. In the case of the Bible, it is a collection of stories, selected and edited by man. It is divided into two major distinct parts (Old and New Testaments). Parts are presented as history while other parts are presented as spiritual teachings.

Why can't part of the Bible be valid information while other parts are erroneous? I say the Genesis creation story, especially if taken as precise and literal, is erroneous or at least flawed information. It badly conflicts with the information that can be seen in the creation itself.

Are you to believe what you can see in the real world or someones fanciful story about that real world?

I have often wondered about starting a new religion. Science has been villified to no end as the "bad guy" when early creation accounts are discussed. Yet GOD, if God exists, surely understands that the human animal is going to ask a lot of questions and discard old beliefs that are no longer relevant. Only an immature God would smite everything out of existence that He allegedly created, right?

Perhaps my new belief could be called Scientology...oh wait! That's been taken! :o How about Christian Science? err...ahhh...sorry...also been taken. :rolleyes: Well then how about we just do away with religion entirely, while still acknowledging the possibility of God? :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-14-2008 12:07 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
1
23456
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019