Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 47
  1. #1
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Questions for Creationists

    1. How old was Adam when he died? Why was it possible to live that long 6,000 years ago, but not today?

    2. How do you account for the wide diversity within the human species (black, asian, white, etc.) if we all came from Adam and Eve and are their direct descendants? If we call came from Adam and Eve, then the gene pool was fixed and we would all resemble whatever race our ancestors were. At what point along the way did the gene pool become diversified? Remember, creationists claim Adam and Eve first, Cain and sister next, cousin and cousin thereafter and so on and so forth. Something had to happen to diversify the gene pool in a short 6,000 years, what was it?

    3. Give a comprehensive statement of creationism.

    4. Please provide for direct evidence of creationism -- please remember that merely finding problems with conventional science does not count as support for creationism, as it is possible that there are other theories which differ from both conventional science and creationism.

    5. Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates. (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)

    6. Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 6,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions? Is God testing our faith, tempting us not to believe?

    7. Is there any feature of creationism which is subject to scientific test? In other words, is creationism scientific in the sense that it could be falsified? If so, how so?

    8. Is it possible to fit the pairs (male and female) of all kinds of land animals and birds on the Ark? Remember to include all invertebrates as well as vertebrates, food and water, and neccesary environmental controls (e.g., cold for polar bears and penguins, hot for camels). The answer must give a detailed calculation. Further, explain how there were pairs (male and female) of parthenogenic (female only), hermaphroditic (both sexes in one individual) animals and social animals (i.e, those that rely on a colony to survive). What did the carnivores eat on the Ark?

    9. Another Ark question. Were the dinosaurs alive at the time of the Ark? If so, how did they fit? If not, why did they die beforehand (remember the Bible says every animal was included in the Ark).

    10. If the earth was around for 6,000 years, then dinosaurs were there from the beginning, at the same time as man. Why is there no account in the Bible of interactions with dinosaurs as there is with other animals? One would assume that if a T-Rex was running around chomping on humans, the Bible would at least mention it.

    11. What was the purpose of Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man? If all humans descended from Adam and Eve, were these genetic misfortunes caused by all the incest necessary to populate the earth? Were these creatures human? If they weren't human then aren't they a part of a separate evolutionary tree?

    12) What did all of the carnivores eat after leaving the Ark? (This is not a question about what they ate on the Ark.) In other words, explain how the food chain worked before the present ratios of a few predators to many prey.

    13. Explain how a viable population was established for all of those animal kinds from only a single pair of each and discuss how symbiotic animals and parasites survived immediately after the Flood.

    14. If God is omnipotent, why not kill what He wanted killed directly? The whole idea was to rid the wicked people from the world. Did it work? Why not?

    15. What does Psalm 93 really mean when it says, "the world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." The earth moves in many different ways (rotation and revolution, plate techtonics, etc.).

    16. Why is there no mention of the flood in the records of Egyptian or Chinese or Paleo Indian civilizations which existed at the time? Biblical dates (I Kings 6:1, Gal 3:17, various generation lengths given in Genesis) place the Flood around 2250 BC. Unfortunately, the Egyptians (among others) have written records dating well back before 2250 BC. (the Great Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century BC., 300 years before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 BC.

    17. How did the human population rebound so fast? Even if the population doubled every 25 years (a *very* generous estimate), there would be only 128 people in the world when the Tower of Babel was build 100 years later. Similarly, there would have been very few people around to build Stonehenge and the Pyramids, found the Sumarian and Indus Valley civilizations, populate the Americas, etc.

    18. How did koalas get from Ararat to Australia, polar bears to the Arctic, etc., when the kinds of environment they require to live doesn't exist between the two points?

    19. How could more than a handful of species survive the inbreeding depression that comes with establishing a population from a single mating pair? How do you explain the genetic variation in all populations today?

    20. How did Noah supply food and water for all the animals for a year? Food for a year would have taken up many times the space of the animals themselves. (I know of no animals, except some desert amphibians, that hibernate or aestivate for anywhere close to a year.)

    21. And finally, which human on the Ark had AIDS?

    This thread was started by Booger on www.ez-company.net. It has been moved to onlinedebate.net for further discussion.
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; November 19th, 2003 at 10:58 AM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    boca raton, florida.... BUT I WISH TEXAS!!1
    Posts
    258
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Questions for Creationists

    I wish I was both a science scholar, and a biblical scholar, but at 16 I cant very well do that now can I?, I can try though


    Concerning Adam, this link should suffice.
    http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/adamsage.html

    I'm seeking other answers as well, hopefully I will get feedback.

  3. #3
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    SF,CA
    Posts
    2,133
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Questions for Creationists

    From Jordan's link:

    "However, God created Adam perfect, so Adam didn't have the harmful health problems we have today (such as mutant genes, illnesses, and so on.). In fact, all the early people lived long lives, with Methuselah living even longer than Adam did (969 years). Life spans gradually decreased as more illnesses and mutations accumulated, until life spans reached today's average of about 70 years."

    Lol. Talk about a fairy tale!

  4. #4
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Questions for Creationists

    Quote Originally Posted by Booger
    Lol. Talk about a fairy tale!
    I agree that it definitely appears that way. But perhaps this is an instance where faith comes into play. I don't know that there is any empirical evidence that supports anything close to that "age theory", nor will there probably ever be any evidence in the future that supports it.

    I think this is a conclusion reached indirectly. There is evidence that supports that under ideal conditions and environments, organisms can live a lot longer than they normally would. I believe it is studies like these as well as evidences for the authenticity of the Bible (which is another thread of course) that bring theologians to the "age theory" mentioned above.

    I cannot refute nor support that theory at this time. Just my 2 cents.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    1,041
    Post Thanks / Like
    Apok - you started this thread with quite a long list of why 6000 year old creationism does not make sense. Would this be an example where you think the bible is wrong?
    Assume nothing. This includes assuming that you should not assume.

  6. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    1,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    From Jordan's link:

    "However, God created Adam perfect ........"

    Yet another dilemma is, if Adam was perfect, how could he be deceived? Was he designed with the proper "flaw"?

  7. #7
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like
    Anti-Mat, Creationists generally believe in a young earth. Young Earth (the term) varies upon which group you ask. Some say that the Earth is 6,000, others 10,000, others hundreds of thousands, or even millions. All are "young" compared to the traditional dating methods.

    The post was originally created by Booger on my gaming site. It was a good post, so I moved it here. Booger was attacking the extreme (it's a good tactic)...that is...the group that believes 6,000 yrs is the age of the earth. I don't know of younger age that is claimed.

    6.000 years is a number that certain creationists come up with tracing geneologies in the Bible. It is claimed, that the Bible says the earth (through geneologies) is 6,000 yrs old.

    I do not believe it is so. There are a variety of theories. After quite a bit of time examining them, it seems most unreasonable to assume a 6,000 yr old earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by F1Fan
    "However, God created Adam perfect ........"

    Yet another dilemma is, if Adam was perfect, how could he be deceived? Was he designed with the proper "flaw"?
    It means that Adam was perfect in nature. That is...he had the ability to freely choose. He had a self-will. He was complete. If he has freewill, he has the ability to choose to sin.

    It is not meant that he was AS perfect AS God. It means, he was perfect in his creation. If he were perfect literally, he would BE God (or God's equal). This was never what was implied, said, nor meant.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    1,041
    Post Thanks / Like
    OK, but however you interpret the Bible - the geneologies still lead to a very young Earth. Doesn't your belief in an old Earth contradict what the geneologies say?

    If we took a non-literal interpretation, and said that Adam was the first civilized human rather than the first human, then those dates could be just about right. The oldest civilization we know of is Jericho - which I think has been dated back to around 6000 BC.

    Do you take a non-literal interpretation regarding the Old Testament geneologies?
    Assume nothing. This includes assuming that you should not assume.

  9. #9
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't know what the age of the earth is. I won't side with either position at the moment, but I don't believe it is all that young. And this does not contradict the Bible in the least. There are actual gaps in the geneologies. The Bible was never attempting to establish the age of the earth. People have merely attempted to determine the age, THROUGH the Bible. As such, there are varying thoughts ranging from the youngest 6,000, to even the traditionally accepted age.

    Also, ages are defined in many ways in the Bible. Those who take ages to be days, take these passages literally. The Bible was written with many literary styles, including metaphorical.

    This is one area, where I don't believe the Bible can be used alone, to determine the age of the Earth. And both the young earthers and old earthers (when using ONLY the Bible), are in error IMO.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  10. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    1,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Apok
    It means that Adam was perfect in nature. That is...he had the ability to freely choose. He had a self-will. He was complete. If he has freewill, he has the ability to choose to sin.
    If he was free to choose, then did he have all the knowledge available to make a competent choice? The interpretation I hear is that Satan deceived Eve, and Adam as a consequence, which implies they were naive, and so freedom seems a little hard to swallow. Further, if one's nature is pure, and one is in balance, how could temptation play a part? Temptation implies a desire, yet in a pure and balanced state one is free from desire (to borrow from Eastern philosophy a bit). So to my mind, something is still not kosher (to borrow from Judaism a bit).

    So I'll ask, what does it mean to be in a perfect nature if it is so easily thwarted? Could it have a set up by god? At least subconsciously (in this I implicated the subconscious of the actual human writers, as a human error, anthropomorphizing their notion of god, therefore god reflecting human error unintentionally)?

  11. #11
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    1,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    A young earth

    If the earth was as old to the point where my ancestors can be traced, the earth is about 180 years old. If I write my Bible and begin with the first record of my forefathers, should it be taken as literal by future generations? Let's say my whole world is a few thousand square kilometers, and I speak of this world, and my version of god that created it, is it true to the exclusion of all other accounts? Does my account and testimony dismiss any future discoveries, say 2000 years from now? Let's say a majority read my testimony and think it a telling of their own history. and that of the universe, and shun any new information, even if it is objective, can we call them rational?

    The Bible has no authority in and of itself. Humans decide it does, and then assign it authority, and still, the Bible has power to act itself, only humans who have chosen it as a means to base behavior and action can and do. That it has been assigned great status by mere numbers, a consensus of the population, means nothing ultimately for its truthfulness or factual reliability, especially IF common interpretations cannot be reconciled to facts, and/or sound scientific theories.

    The Bible is great art, and a testimony to man through Western history, but it is of such dubious and questionable history that to take any of it as a primary account of natural history seems irrational given the availability and likelihood of more reasonable options and accounts. Does anyone have a case for why it isn't? That is, why should the Bible (and one's interpretation of it) be seen as a reasonable solution to the actual natural origins of the universe? A new thread perhaps, if a detailed answer is to follow.
    Last edited by F1Fan; February 11th, 2004 at 02:34 PM. Reason: word error

  12. #12
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like
    They did not have divine knowledge. That is, neither knew everything. God said "Don't do X". Satan later said "X is ok". They were thus tempted. Being tempted and giving in to temptation are 2 different things btw.

    Eve gave in, Adam did later. They believed Satan. Satan lied. Thus, they were deceived.

    If you cannot choose to do something and not do something...you are imperfect because you are lacking freedom of choice. Adam and Even had this.

    It doesn't mean they were 100% pure and incapable of making a mistake or being deceived. It means, they were created whole...complete and perfect as human beings. Had they not had the chance to choose, they would not be human. And their nature as humans, could not be said to have been perfect.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  13. #13
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    1,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Apok, then I don't understand what god's intention was for making them with a perfect nature if it was to be destroyed by them giving in to temptation. And it seems cruel that they didn't have full knowledge to make a choice, only to obey, or else. God knowing of Satan and Satan's deeds would have been a thought when creating man, perfect nature and all. So now I'm thinking god set this up, in complicity with Satan in a way, to see what man would do, assuming god didn't know before hand what the two would choose. This sounds like gambling with the fates of others.

  14. #14
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    1,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Also, just because they made an error, is it loving or reasonable that they (and all mankind) pay eternally? And then the need for god to send a sacrifice (some say is god himself) to save man (that god set up in the first place) to which each must accept, otherwise face eternal damnation (which is also a set up: I set you up and you are now fallen, but now if you believe in me, I will set you free in heaven, despite these concepts don't make sense, etc.).

    None of this adds up. Unless logic is another set up by god, and then we are back to a cruel god who confuses his creation deliberately

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    152
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Booger
    From Jordan's link:

    "However, God created Adam perfect, so Adam didn't have the harmful health problems we have today (such as mutant genes, illnesses, and so on.). In fact, all the early people lived long lives, with Methuselah living even longer than Adam did (969 years). Life spans gradually decreased as more illnesses and mutations accumulated, until life spans reached today's average of about 70 years."

    Lol. Talk about a fairy tale!

    i enjoyed your mockery :rolleyes: , however we are not here to tell other's that we think stuff is a fairytale we are here to get answers. so if you think its a fairytale, explain why. or can't you ?

  16. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    152
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by F1Fan
    If he was free to choose, then did he have all the knowledge available to make a competent choice? The interpretation I hear is that Satan deceived Eve, and Adam as a consequence, which implies they were naive, and so freedom seems a little hard to swallow. Further, if one's nature is pure, and one is in balance, how could temptation play a part? Temptation implies a desire, yet in a pure and balanced state one is free from desire (to borrow from Eastern philosophy a bit). So to my mind, something is still not kosher (to borrow from Judaism a bit).

    So I'll ask, what does it mean to be in a perfect nature if it is so easily thwarted? Could it have a set up by god? At least subconsciously (in this I implicated the subconscious of the actual human writers, as a human error, anthropomorphizing their notion of god, therefore god reflecting human error unintentionally)?
    agricola: dealing mostly with the underlined section

    Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

    that's where the desire comes in. they in their perfection were limited. they were not equal with God, there was still a higher state available. i think this also reinforces what was said earlier that while Adam was perfect, that does not mean he was God's equal, for if they were already equal with God, the serpent would not have said "you will be like God"

  17. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    152
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    I don't know what the age of the earth is. I won't side with either position at the moment, but I don't believe it is all that young. And this does not contradict the Bible in the least. There are actual gaps in the geneologies. The Bible was never attempting to establish the age of the earth. People have merely attempted to determine the age, THROUGH the Bible. As such, there are varying thoughts ranging from the youngest 6,000, to even the traditionally accepted age.

    Also, ages are defined in many ways in the Bible. Those who take ages to be days, take these passages literally. The Bible was written with many literary styles, including metaphorical.

    This is one area, where I don't believe the Bible can be used alone, to determine the age of the Earth. And both the young earthers and old earthers (when using ONLY the Bible), are in error IMO.

    agricola : if it was necessary for man's salvation, then i am sure the age of the earth would be in it

  18. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    152
    Post Thanks / Like
    answer to question 3:
    Briefly, my response is as follows.
    Evidence
    Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

    The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
    Past and present
    We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.

    However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.
    Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

    On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

    Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

    Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

    That’s why the argument often turns into something like:

    ‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’

    ‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’

    ‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’

    ‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.

    These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.

    It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.

    I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.

    It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.

    However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions—i.e. starting beliefs.

    As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’

    However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.

    What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result.

    Debate terms
    If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are:

    ‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions — see box below.

    Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ (Psalm 111:10); ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge’ (Proverbs 1:7). ‘But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’ (1 Corinthians 2:14).

    A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: ‘The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters’ (Matthew 12:30); ‘And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil’ (John 3:19).

    Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible’s account of the universe’s history is irrelevant to understanding that history!

  19. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    152
    Post Thanks / Like
    part two of previous message


    ltimately, God’s Word convicts
    1 Peter 3:15 and other passages make it clear we are to use every argument we can to convince people of the truth, and 2 Cor. 10:4–5 says we are to refute error (like Paul did in his ministry to the Gentiles). Nonetheless, we must never forget Hebrews 4:12: ‘For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.’

    Also, Isaiah 55:11: ‘So shall My word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do.’

    Even though our human arguments may be powerful, ultimately it is God’s Word that convicts and opens people to the truth. In all of our arguments, we must not divorce what we are saying from the Word that convicts.

    Practical application
    When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my response is as follows:

    ‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.’

    One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent Curse on creation, makes sense of the evidence of harmful mutations, violence and death.

    Once I’ve explained some of this in detail, I then continue:
    ‘Now let me ask you to defend your position concerning these matters. Please show me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence. And I want you to point out where my science and logic are wrong.’
    In arguing this way, a Christian is:
    Using biblical presuppositions to build a way of thinking to interpret the evidence.
    Showing that the Bible and science go hand in hand.
    Challenging the presuppositions of the other person (many are unaware they have these).
    Forcing the debater to logically defend his position consistent with science and his own presuppositions (many will find that they cannot do this).

    Honouring the Word of God that convicts the soul.

    Remember, it’s no good convincing people to believe in creation, without also leading them to believe and trust in the Creator/Redeemer, Jesus Christ. God honours those who honour His Word. We need to use God-honouring ways of reaching people with the truth of what life is all about.

    Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:

    A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the “big bang”, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’

    The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.

    On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.

    This young man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?


    In fact, science could avoid becoming still-born only in a Christian framework. Even secular philosophers of science are virtually unanimous on this. It required biblical presuppositions such as a real, objective universe, created by one Divine Lawgiver, who was neither fickle nor deceptive — and who also created the mind of man in a way that was in principle capable of understanding the universe.
    This assumption is even defended, as a ‘practical necessity’ in discussing scientific things including origins, by some professing Christians who are evolutionists.

  20. #20
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    1,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by agricola
    that's where the desire comes in. they in their perfection were limited. they were not equal with God, there was still a higher state available. i think this also reinforces what was said earlier that while Adam was perfect, that does not mean he was God's equal, for if they were already equal with God, the serpent would not have said "you will be like God"
    You're making it harder to believe that A&E were in a "perfect" state, yet here you say there was a higher level. We heck, who could blame them then? Would you, and any believer, do differently? How many believers do you know who live perfect lives, yet you're saying A&E did.

    Temptation and desire, despite Apok saying perfection was in the nature of the being, still seems something that affects imperfection of something somewhere. So frankly, I don't buy any of it.


    However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present?
    Like not knowing if the creation myth is correct? Good point, don't believe it.


    Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.
    Not really, the book is words, written by men. How do you know it wasn't just made up as a lark by humans? That's a lot more believable than all that old-earth evidence under the surface was manufactured and placed there by people. I think you'd better think through this more before making it a valid claim.


    Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.
    This is deception, and you should know better. Science, including those that deal with evolution, are NOT atheistic. They are science, using testable factors. Until believers can come up with a way to test for your version of god, or any god, then learn to keep quiet about how science denies a god that you can't show exists.

    Your argument is the typical creationist tripe. I've seen it before, and it all has internal and inherent flaws of logic, just like the I posed above.

    You can believe what you want, all based on an ancient and obsolete book of stories, but you should double think about trying to impose it on others without a valid argument. Too much is contingent on assumptions, and this is a major flaw of your strategy.

 

 
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •