atheists

[AvalonXQ]

Why do you care about what evidence we have or don't have? In your eyes, it doesn't matter because we're wrong, creationism is wrong, and you and evolution are right.

I was a creationist most of my life, and am still a Bible-believing Christian. I accept evolution, not because I like the consequences, but because I studied the evidence and came to the conclusion that it actually occured.

Of course, the unfortunate reality that creationists like you constantly make judgments and personal attacks on others based on scant evidence certainly helps reaffirm the factual nature of my decision, but I would be absolutely thrilled to find evidence that contradicts evolution or supports special creation. I have looked for it in more places than I expect you have, read more books by creationists than probably anyone else in this thread, and not a bit of it stands up to honest scrutiny.

So, stop projecting. The evidence is exactly what matters to me - and if you have any, I want to see it.

 

[megaman125]

You're not a Bible believing Christian if you don't believe God created this planet and all the life we have on it, so don't kid yourself.

 

[Cycel]

As a Christian I believe the flood happened. The question I have is was it global or regional?

I've talked with Creationists who were themselves quite convinced that the evidence supported a local flood and an old Earth. For my part young Earth creationism just doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. It creates a huge number of problems for itself. If a person is going to be a creationist, the old Earth variety is the only way to go.

I can't say. I have never placed a date on it [Noah's Flood] or cared to "prove" it existed. Science is man's attempt to group thru reality to find truth. Science is limited to what it can test.

Science may be limited to what it can test, but that's just about everything in the physical universe. For example, we don't currently possess the technology to test for life on other worlds, but that ability is under development. If something possess physical properties it remains within our scope to examine it, if not now then in the future.

The science of today may not be the science of tomorrow as science if frequently updated as new evidence is discovered.

A good thing too or our knowledge would never progress. As a rule, however, theories remain strong; its typically only the details that get rewritten. Off the top of my head I can't think of any theory that's been discarded by science. Can you?

Perhaps today the evidence can not prove a flood. Who knows what tomorrow might bring?

Not possible. The evidence demonstrates beyond any doubt that the Grand Canyon, for example, is ancient. Its exposed strata shows strong evidence of forming over millions of years, and there is further evidence that the same strata could not have been laid down in a single flood. The evidence really does rule out a world wide flood; but if you decide to investigate keep in mind that Creationist websites, especially those pushing a young earth hypothesis, deliberately leave out any information that doesn't support their view. Once you have all of the evidence the problems with the Young Earth Creationist position will seem glaring to you.

 

[Cycel]

You're not a Bible believing Christian if you don't believe God created this planet and all the life we have on it, so don't kid yourself.

Avlon is a Bible believing Christian, that's pretty obvious to me. A person doesn't have to lock themselves into a literal view of Genesis. Read Francis Collins. He's an evangelical Christian who accept the view that God created Earth and the life on it; but he also accepts the evidence for an ancient universe, and for evolution. Let's face it, if the view is taken that God directed evolution on earth over billions of years, how can anyone possibly disprove that? There is no way to distinguish between evolution directed by God and evolution occurring by natural selection.

 

[megaman125]

Once you have all of the evidence the problems with the Young Earth Creationist position will seem glaring to you.

You mean once you have one side of the argument. Anything can be easily convincing when you only ever hear one side of the argument. I used to be an old earth believer, but that was just by indoctrination. I was never presented with any alternative, and when I first heard people talking about seriously believing in a young earth today, my initial reaction was "how is that even a thing? It raises so many questions." Then I actually went out and looked at the young earth view, and hence, I am now a YEC.

 

[megaman125]

Avlon is a Bible believing Christian, that's pretty obvious to me. A person doesn't have to lock themselves into a literal view of Genesis.

One isn't a Bible believing Christian just because they claim to be. And Genesis isn't the only place in the Bible where God is called the Creator. God is called the Creator of heaven and earth throughout the entire Bible. To deny creationism is to say that you don't believe in the God of the Bible, hence you can't be a Bible believing Christian.

Read Francis Collins. He's an evangelical Christian who accept the view that God created Earth and the life on it; but he also accepts the evidence for an ancient universe, and for evolution. Let's face it, if the view is taken that God directed evolution on earth over billions of years, how can anyone possibly disprove that? There is no way to distinguish between evolution directed by God and evolution occurring by natural selection.

So I guess God just tricked everyone who lived prior to the 1800's into believing that the earth was young? Sorry, but that's not logical to me.

 

[Red_Tory]

So which do you think is the best example of a civilization in terms of being able to date it to the correct time period, and what is the specific evidence we have of the believed date?

An example would be sitting right beside the Israelites, wouldn't it? The Egyptians, with their cities and monuments, didn't seem to notice that a flood had destroyed the vast majority of life on earth. The structures they built, the lists of their kings, and their religious mythology all still exist to this very day. 2344 BC - that would supposedly be right at the start of the reign of Teti.

But herein lies the issue... If there were a cataclysmic event in which everyone on earth was killed save those who fled in large boats, we would expect a pretty massive gap in ancient history. Everything all over the world would grind to a halt. We would see no construction, no kings, no wars, no recorded history etc. except for the record-keeping of a single family and their descendants. Everyone else would be dead.

This gap does not exist. There would be no Pharaohs, no Xia Dynasty, no early Mayan civilization - they would all have been obliterated by a flood that covered the tops of the mountains.

 

[megaman125]

But herein lies the issue... If there were a cataclysmic event in which everyone on earth was killed save those who fled in large boats, we would expect a pretty massive gap in ancient history.

Only if people were really around that long of a time before said flood.

 

[Red_Tory]

Only if people were really around that long of a time before said flood.

If the flood took place in 2344 BC then that would appear to be the case. Unless, of course, they packed their historical records with lies. I don't think that's the case. Nor do I think that the pyramids (or any other buildings constructed before 2400 BC) are elaborate fakes constructed to confuse people.

 

[danschance]

I've talked with Creationists who were themselves quite convinced that the evidence supported a local flood and an old Earth. For my part young Earth creationism just doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. It creates a huge number of problems for itself. If a person is going to be a creationist, the old Earth variety is the only way to go.

I lean towards an old earth, as you call it.

I can't think of any theory that's been discarded by science. Can you?

Yes there have been many. It was a theory that a human embryo went thru the stages of evolution as it grew in the womb. That has been fully discredited. It was once assumed that the sun revolved around the earth. In modern times I think the major laws of science have been discovered. Newtonian physics were considered absolute until Einstein proved they were a special case.

Not possible. The evidence demonstrates beyond any doubt that the Grand Canyon, for example, is ancient. Its exposed strata shows strong evidence of forming over millions of years, and there is further evidence that the same strata could not have been laid down in a single flood. The evidence really does rule out a world wide flood; but if you decide to investigate keep in mind that Creationist websites, especially those pushing a young earth hypothesis, deliberately leave out any information that doesn't support their view. Once you have all of the evidence the problems with the Young Earth Creationist position will seem glaring to you.

Could be. It just isn't a passion of mine.

 

[Cycel]

You mean once you have one side of the argument. Anything can be easily convincing when you only ever hear one side of the argument.

Which is the point myself and other evolutionists make all the time about creationists who constantly asked pointed questions that make no sense in terms of what evolutionary theory claims. For example, they will say 'How did we evolve from chimpanzees when there are still chimpanzee?' We are constantly correcting creationists and telling them this is not a claim being made by evolution. This is only one example, there are many others. This happens so frequently that it begins to look as though most creationists understand very little about evolution.

I used to be an old earth believer, but that was just by indoctrination. I was never presented with any alternative...

The same is true of me, but with Old Earth Creationsim. I was never presented with an alternative.

.. and when I first heard people talking about seriously believing in a young earth today, my initial reaction was "how is that even a thing? It raises so many questions." Then I actually went out and looked at the young earth view, and hence, I am now a YEC.

When I first heard alternative explanations my first thought was, ‘Why doesn’t Genesis match up with the evidence?’ Being very young I simply jumped to the conclusion that if Genesis was wrong then the whole Bible must be a lie. That Genesis was the Word of God was so ingrained in my thinking, that when any part of it was thrown into doubt the same dispersion was then cast upon the entire Bible.

Unlike you I think nothing in Genesis makes sense except in terms of an ancient belief system. It’d be happy to argue Genesis line by line with you, in another thread, if you are so inclined. Once Genesis is demonstrated wrong then there is no need to deny the scientific evidence in biology, geology, astronomy, chemistry, and so.

 

[AvalonXQ]

You're not a Bible believing Christian if you don't believe God created this planet and all the life we have on it, so don't kid yourself.

Can someone tell me if he's breaking any forum rules by repeatedly telling me that I'm not a Christian? Pretty much every post this guy makes is attacking/insulting me, and I really don't appreciate it.

 

[AvalonXQ]

An example would be sitting right beside the Israelites, wouldn't it? The Egyptians, with their cities and monuments, didn't seem to notice that a flood had destroyed the vast majority of life on earth. The structures they built, the lists of their kings, and their religious mythology all still exist to this very day. 2344 BC - that would supposedly be right at the start of the reign of Teti.

Okay, so what is the actual primary evidence for the duration and dating of the Egyptian dynasties? How do we know that the 2300s BC coincided with the reign of Teti; what's the evidence?

 

[megaman125]

Can someone tell me if he's breaking any forum rules by repeatedly telling me that I'm not a Christian?

Can someone tell me if he's breaking any forum rules by claiming to be a Bible believing Christian while denying God as a creator?

Pretty much every post this guy makes is attacking/insulting me, and I really don't appreciate it.

Says the one who evades my questions then calls me dishonest when I don't want to answer his questions. The kicker is, the only reason I'm not answering his questions is because he's been evading mine for much longer (Of course, that's not the way he sees it, but what can be expected from evolutionists).

 

[IntoTheVoid]

I love these creation vs evolution debates. Mainly because everyone forgets that if one side is proven false then it doesn't automatically mean that the other is true. You could disprove evolution right now and it doesn't not mean that god did it, there are plenty more explanations. Same as if it was proved god didn't create the world then it wouldn't automatically mean the theory of evolution is correct. Disproving one argument still leaves you with all your work ahead of you.

 

[megaman125]

I love these creation vs evolution debates. Mainly because everyone forgets that if one side is proven false then it doesn't automatically mean that the other is true. You could disprove evolution right now and it doesn't not mean that god did it, there are plenty more explanations. Same as if it was proved god didn't create the world then it wouldn't automatically mean the theory of evolution is correct. Disproving one argument still leaves you with all your work ahead of you.

And that's one of the reasons evolution is really just a giant red herring and a waste of time, even moreso when the evolutionist isn't open to the possiblity that their beliefs about events of billions of years ago could be wrong.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

Is it safe to say though that if your are open to the possibility about being wrong, then your belief in something isn't that strong?

 

[megaman125]

Which is the point myself and other evolutionists make all the time about creationists who constantly asked pointed questions that make no sense in terms of what evolutionary theory claims. For example, they will say 'How did we evolve from chimpanzees when there are still chimpanzee?' We are constantly correcting creationists and telling them this is not a claim being made by evolution. This is only one example, there are many others. This happens so frequently that it begins to look as though most creationists understand very little about evolution.

Yeah, the question 'How did we evolve from chimpanzees when there are still chimpanzee?' might not be the best worded question, but I think we can all see what they are trying to ask and point out about evolution. Now I wouldn't ask that question, but here's a couple examples of what I would ask in relation to what is trying to be conveyed to the evolutionists.

"How did non-chimpanzees evolve into chimpanzees?" (remember, if the evolutionary tree is true, the single living cell that at the base of the tree must have evolved into every animal we see today. That cell is not a chimpanzee, so evolution is making a claim that non-chimpanzees evolved into chimpanzees. And you can replace chimpanzee with any animal you want.

"What is a chimpanzee evolving into, and how do we know/determine when it evolves into something that isn't a chimpanzee?" (if non-chimpanzees evolve into chimpanzees as evolution claims, then the animals we have today should be evolving into something else, like this chimpanzee to non-chimpanzee question)

Unlike you I think nothing in Genesis makes sense except in terms of an ancient belief system. It’d be happy to argue Genesis line by line with you, in another thread, if you are so inclined. Once Genesis is demonstrated wrong then there is no need to deny the scientific evidence in biology, geology, astronomy, chemistry, and so.

Well, we could do that, but I think it would be a huge waste of time for both of us, because it seems we both have already made up our minds and did our own research on the subject, and I'm not sure about you, but I'm not about to change any of those beliefs. You can claim that you can demonstrate Genesis is wrong, but you won't get me to agree with that claim. If the vice-versa is true for you, then it would be an utterly pointless discussion.

Is it safe to say though that if your are open to the possibility about being wrong, then your belief in something isn't that strong?

Now that's an interesting question, to which you might be on to something there. At the moment I'm inclined to agree with that statement.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Is it safe to say though that if your are open to the possibility about being wrong, then your belief in something isn't that strong?

Not at all; all that it means is that you're intellectually honest.

Beliefs should properly be based on observation and experience. All humans are limited creatures, which means that our observation is never perfect or our experiences complete. In turn this means that there's always the possibility that what we haven't yet observed or don't yet experience may show our current beliefs to be wrong.

A belief may be very strong - it may be confirmed by lots of different observations and experiences such that we find it very, very likely to be true. But no matter how strong, an intellectually honest person must always concede the possibility that it may be wrong, or else wrongfully claim a completeness to their knowledge and understanding that is simply not possible for a human being.

 

[AvalonXQ]

"What is a chimpanzee evolving into, and how do we know/determine when it evolves into something that isn't a chimpanzee?"

Actually, under the modern classification scheme, the answer may very well be "never." As I understand it, cladistics identifies creatures according to common ancestry.

So, for example, birds are still dinosaurs. Certain dinosaur species eventually became birds, but they didn't cease to be dinosaurs. Similarly, whatever further modifications occur to bacteria, the result is still classified as bacteria - even if it develops new traits not seen in bacteria today.

Humans are still considered hominids, great apes, primates, placentals, mammals, amniotes, vertebrates, chordates, animals, and eukaryotes. A species doesn't "evolve out of" any of its classifications; it just picks up new and additional ones.

I'm not sure, though, that anything I've just said actually applies to specific species names like "chimpanzee;" hopefully there's a biologist on the thread that can tell us if all descendants of a chimpanzee would be considered a chimpanzee as well or if this is a specific-enough moniker that it doesn't fall in the same category as the clades I listed above.