The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

mickoneill31 · 17-05-2016 08:44AM

The bit I never get about this kind of argument is when people say life couldn't have come from nowhere. It must have had a designer.
Then when you ask them who designed God. You get answers that roughly equal "magic".
Could you not remove the God bit and just say magic for the first answer. I think it's still wrong but if God didn't need a designer then why does other life?

robdonn · 17-05-2016 08:45AM

steamengine wrote: »

It is interesting how many of man's later inventions were popped into place millions of years ago. Forty years ago, a bumble bee couldn't theoretically fly, weight to lift ratio and all that jargon. It can now be understood how it does, so are you trying to tell me that all that expertise just popped out of nowhere millions of years ago ? - or as I am inclined to believe, a designer was involved.

What expertise?

endacl · 17-05-2016 09:53AM

steamengine wrote: »

It does for the most part, otherwise we'd still be in the sea somewhere. Evolution is the process whereby the world as we know it developed, but does not necessarily preclude a creator i.e. God. Many Christians believe in evolution.

Oh. You have that (mis)understanding. What about all the mutations that don't lead to a survival/reproduction advantage? The vast majority? Or those that turn out to be a disadvantage? Evolution only works because it has such a lot of time to make mostly mistakes, with a relatively few happy accidents.

Speedwell · 17-05-2016 09:57AM

endacl wrote: »

Oh. You have that (mis)understanding. What about all the mutations that don't lead to a survival/reproduction advantage? The vast majority? Or those that turn out to be a disadvantage? Evolution only works because it has such a lot of time to make mostly mistakes, with a relatively few happy accidents.

Exactly. Things look exactly as we would expect them to look if there were no God at all, so what do we need with a God?

Incidentally, before we go too far off track with evolution, both Christians and non-Christians are barking up the wrong tree here. Even if evolutionary theory were proven false tomorrow by some unexpected discovery (for example, rabbits being interfertile with daisies), it would not count as a proof of the existence of God.

Akrasia · 17-05-2016 10:21AM

steamengine wrote: »

It does for the most part, otherwise we'd still be in the sea somewhere. Evolution is the process whereby the world as we know it developed, but does not necessarily preclude a creator i.e. God. Many Christians believe in evolution.

Evolution doesn't drive to 'improve' (whatever that is, improvement is entirely subjective) Evolution drives for adaptation.

I know you probably don't like Richard Dawkins, but if you read the selfish gene, it explains really well how natural selection works on the genetic level.

Complex organisms are just habitats for the genes that are expressed in them. Humans live for a hundred years if we're lucky, but our genes can 'live' for thousands and millions of years if they are passed on from one generation to the next. Any gene that harms the organism is less likely to be passed on because the carrier of the gene is less successful at reproducing, so this means that over long periods of time, animals and plants become more adapted to their environment.

It is interesting how many of man's later inventions were popped into place millions of years ago. Forty years ago, a bumble bee couldn't theoretically fly, weight to lift ratio and all that jargon. It can now be understood how it does, so are you trying to tell me that all that expertise just popped out of nowhere millions of years ago ? - or as I am inclined to believe, a designer was involved.

These things don't just appear out of nowhere, the complexity emerges over hundreds of millions of years and billions of generations of evolution. The bumblebee is just one species of bee, which is one species of insect all of whom had many many different iterations of ancestors who had different adaptations depending on their environment.

A bumblebee doesn't need to understand the physics of bumblebee flight any more than a human needs to understand the physics of how we walk without toppling over or ants need to understand the architecture of their colonies. Billions of tiny instruments each doing their own little task have come together to create complex life in one individual animal, or a colony of insects comprised of millions of individuals, or an entire planet working to regulate the temperature and atmosphere to sustain the conditions for life

(see the gaia hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis)

I fully appreciate how it appears so far fetched, and that it must have a guiding intelligence to regulate everything or set up the rules, but if you think about it carefully, all evolution really requires is replication, mutation and somewhere to live, and it's inevitable that complexity will emerge. Planet earth is a rare place that is especially hospitable to life (probably not unique given the vast scale of the universe) but the planet was terraformed by early life forms who created the oxygen and regulated the temperature. As a human living now, you could think that all those cyanobacteria were put there with the purpose of creating a breathable atmosphere for us, but that's a bit arrogant and the real answer is that humans evolved to fit the environment

Delirium · 17-05-2016 10:30AM

MOD NOTE

Evolution/creationism tangent moved to Creationism super-thread.

Speedwell · 17-05-2016 10:34AM

Delirium wrote: »

MOD NOTE

Evolution/creationism tangent moved to Creationism super-thread.

I hope you're getting paid overtime for this

indioblack · 17-05-2016 05:04PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Evolution doesn't drive to 'improve' (whatever that is, improvement is entirely subjective) Evolution drives for adaptation.

I know you probably don't like Richard Dawkins, but if you read the selfish gene, it explains really well how natural selection works on the genetic level.

Complex organisms are just habitats for the genes that are expressed in them. Humans live for a hundred years if we're lucky, but our genes can 'live' for thousands and millions of years if they are passed on from one generation to the next. Any gene that harms the organism is less likely to be passed on because the carrier of the gene is less successful at reproducing, so this means that over long periods of time, animals and plants become more adapted to their environment.

These things don't just appear out of nowhere, the complexity emerges over hundreds of millions of years and billions of generations of evolution. The bumblebee is just one species of bee, which is one species of insect all of whom had many many different iterations of ancestors who had different adaptations depending on their environment.

A bumblebee doesn't need to understand the physics of bumblebee flight any more than a human needs to understand the physics of how we walk without toppling over or ants need to understand the architecture of their colonies. Billions of tiny instruments each doing their own little task have come together to create complex life in one individual animal, or a colony of insects comprised of millions of individuals, or an entire planet working to regulate the temperature and atmosphere to sustain the conditions for life

(see the gaia hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis)

I fully appreciate how it appears so far fetched, and that it must have a guiding intelligence to regulate everything or set up the rules, but if you think about it carefully, all evolution really requires is replication, mutation and somewhere to live, and it's inevitable that complexity will emerge. Planet earth is a rare place that is especially hospitable to life (probably not unique given the vast scale of the universe) but the planet was terraformed by early life forms who created the oxygen and regulated the temperature. As a human living now, you could think that all those cyanobacteria were put there with the purpose of creating a breathable atmosphere for us, but that's a bit arrogant and the real answer is that humans evolved to fit the environment

It's an argument between purpose and randomness.
Evolution doesn't need purpose or design.
Include a creator into the debate and explanations are required for existence.

Cabaal · 17-05-2016 05:40PM

There is another reason why people "bash" Christianity and that is the proven stolen stories and factual errors, we learn about Noah and the Ark in school in religion class. Only to learn that this is stolen from much folder flood stories that by far pre-date the Christian bible and belong to other religions.

For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh

Its evident some sort of flood happened in that part of the world, causes of it vary from just a very big monsoon season, idea of a impact of some sort to tsunami but the whole earth sure as hell did not flood like the bible likes to claim. It merely got "borrowed" and edited in the christian bible.

Other issues in the bible come about from the downright factual error's claiming Camels existed in an area where they most certainly did not exist at the time the bible claims it was. Clear indications of the bible being re-edited over and over by men.

Newly published research by two archaeologists at Tel Aviv University in Israel shows that camels weren't domesticated in the eastern Mediterranean until the 10th century B.C.—several centuries after the time they appear in the Bible. - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140210-domesticated-camels-israel-bible-archaeology-science/

love humanity · 17-05-2016 05:45PM

Cabaal wrote: »

There is another reason why people "bash" Christianity and that is the proven stolen stories and factual errors, we learn about Noah and the Ark in school in religion class. Only to learn that this is stolen from much folder flood stories that by far pre-date the Christian bible and belong to other religions.

[/url]

It's evident some sort of flood happened in that part of the world, causes of it vary from just a very big monsoon season, idea of a impact of some sort to tsunami but the whole earth sure as hell did not flood like the bible likes to claim. It merely got "borrowed" and edited in the christian bible.

Other issues in the bible come about from the downright factual error's claiming Camels existed in an area where they most certainly did not exist at the time the bible claims it was. Clear indications of the bible being re-edited over and over by men.

Answer: There are many similarities between the Gilgamesh flood account and the biblical flood account (Genesis 6—8), beginning most importantly with God choosing a righteous man to build an ark because of an impending great flood. In both accounts, samples from all species of animals were to be on the ark, and birds were used after the rains to determine if flood waters had subsided anywhere to reveal dry land. There are other similarities between the Gilgamesh flood account and the biblical flood account.

One major point of clear agreement is that a global flooding disaster occurred in ancient times. Portions of the Gilgamesh account (Chaldean Flood Tablets) have been found dating back to 2000 BC or earlier. Tablets containing the full story, however, date to approximately 650 BC, or well after the Genesis account (c. 1450—1410 BC). These Chaldean tablets, from the city of Ur (modern-day southern Iraq), describe how the Babylonian God Ea decided to end all life except for the ark dwellers with a great flood. Ea, believed by the Babylonians to be the god who created the earth, selected Ut-Napishtim (or Utnapishtim) to construct a six-story square ark.

During the mid-nineteenth century, this complete “Epic of Gilgamesh” (from 650 BC) was unearthed in some ruins at Nineveh’s great library, and the depth and breadth of similarities and differences became evident. Here is a more extensive listing of the similarities and differences:

• God (or several gods in the Gilgamesh account) decided to destroy humankind because of its wickedness and sinfulness (Genesis 6:5–7).

• A righteous man (Genesis 6:9) was directed to build an ark to save a limited and select group of people and all species of animals (Noah received his orders directly from God, Utnapishtim from a dream).

• Both arks were huge, although their shapes differed. Noah’s was rectangular; Utnapishtim’s was square.

• Both arks had a single door and at least one window.

• A great rain covered the land and mountains with water, although some water emerged from beneath the earth in the biblical account (Genesis 7:11).

• Biblical flooding was 40 days and nights (Genesis 7:12), while the Gilgamesh flood was much shorter (six days and nights).

• Birds were released to find land (a raven and three doves in the biblical account, Genesis 8:6–12; a dove, swallow, and raven in the other).

• After the rains ceased, both arks came to rest on a mountain, Noah’s on Ararat (Genesis 8:4); Utnapishtim’s on Nisir. These mountains are about 300 miles apart.

• Sacrifices were offered after the flood (Genesis 8:20).

• God was (or gods were) pleased by the sacrifices (Genesis 8:21), and Noah and Utnapishtim received blessings. Noah’s blessing was to populate the earth and have dominion over all animals (Genesis 9:1–3); Utnapishtim’s was eternal life.

• God (or the many gods) promised not to destroy humankind again (Genesis 8:21–22).

Perhaps most interesting is how the stories remain consistent over time. Although the complete Epic of Gilgamesh was discovered in the mid-nineteenth century, much earlier segments (before the writing of Genesis) have been discovered and dated. Yet most significant is the greater fidelity of the Hebrew account. This is attributed to the importance of Jewish oral tradition and the possibility that some of the story was recorded by Noah or from his time, which would make the Hebrew account precede the Babylonian version.

Some scholars hypothesize the Hebrews borrowed the Babylonian account, but no conclusive proof has been offered to support this. Based on the many and varied differences and details within these stories, it seems unlikely that the biblical version depended upon an existing Sumerian source. Further, given the Jews’ reputation for passing down information scrupulously from one generation to another and maintaining a consistent reporting of events, Genesis is viewed by many as far more historical than the Epic of Gilgamesh, which is regarded as mythological because of its numerous gods and their interrelationships and intrigues in deciding the fate of humankind.

Certainly, for those who believe the Bible is God’s Word, it is sensible to conclude He chose to preserve the true account in the Bible through the oral traditions of His chosen people. By God’s providence, His people kept this account pure and consistent over the centuries until Moses ultimately recorded it in the Book of Genesis. The Epic of Gilgamesh is believed to contain accounts which have been altered and embellished over the years by people not following the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Cabaal · 17-05-2016 05:59PM

love humanity wrote: »

One major point of clear agreement is that a global flooding disaster occurred in ancient times.

I think you mean regional flood,

There was no global flooding event that covered all the land on this planet during our species existence and certainly not in more "modern" times when our species had the ability to talk, build citys etc

Certainly, for those who believe the Bible is God’s Word, it is sensible to conclude He chose to preserve the true account in the Bible through the oral traditions of His chosen people. By God’s providence, His people kept this account pure and consistent over the centuries until Moses ultimately recorded it in the Book of Genesis. The Epic of Gilgamesh is believed to contain accounts which have been altered and embellished over the years by people not following the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

The problem is you are ignoring the massive flaws in the account of Noah's story and really all of the stories (they all have factual error's after all)

Even if you believe the entire world was flooded very simply the ark could not do what it was claimed to do, it couldn't be build large enough to keep two of each species, it could not hold the food etc it would have required.

Its not a pure story at all, its Chinese whispers and will always be the case.

The best you can hope actually happened was regional flooding in the area and some guy put some animals into a large boat to keep them from drowning.

We are at the end of the day talking about uneducated people in the ways of the world and what would have seemed like an end of the world event was merely regional flooding in the area.

Much like if the 2004 Tsunami happened say 3000-4000 years ago it would have seemed to people effected like it effected the "entire world". But it did no such thing. I'm sure you can agree how such an event could very easily get out of hand if it was stuck into the bible.

love humanity · 17-05-2016 06:37PM

Cabaal wrote: »

I think you mean regional flood,

There was no global flooding event that covered all the land on this planet during our species existence and certainly not in more "modern" times when our species had the ability to talk, build citys etc

The problem is you are ignoring the massive flaws in the account of Noah's story and really all of the stories (they all have factual error's after all)

Even if you believe the entire world was flooded very simply the ark could not do what it was claimed to do, it couldn't be build large enough to keep two of each species, it could not hold the food etc it would have required.

Its not a pure story at all, its Chinese whispers and will always be the case.

The best you can hope actually happened was regional flooding in the area and some guy put some animals into a large boat to keep them from drowning.

We are at the end of the day talking about uneducated people in the ways of the world and what would have seemed like an end of the world event was merely regional flooding in the area.

Much like if the 2004 Tsunami happened say 3000-4000 years ago it would have seemed to people effected like it effected the "entire world". But it did no such thing. I'm sure you can agree how such an event could very easily get out of hand if it was stuck into the bible.

Creationists and biblical literalists tend to recognize this passage as historically accurate. Proofs from Tradition and from the words of the Old and New Testament give credit to some historicity of the account, but many varying opinions have grown to speculate on the why's and how's of the Deluge.

The main two categories of interpretation are the global flood theory and the local flood theory. The first exegetical school teaches that a catastrophic world-wide submersion of the dry lands really occurred, so that no survivors escaped the cataclysm except for those on the Ark. The second position states that either humanity was concentrated in Mesopotamia so that a local flood in the Tigris-Euphrates valley would have wiped out all humans, or on the contrary that by "all the earth" the Bible understands "all the region" requiring the extinction of only one civilization. That some planetary flood or dramatic climatic changed brought many civilizations to extinction is indeed possible. There are lots of independent flood myths around the world, with a variety of data which doesn't separate these texts from the Biblical narrative too much, so that a common origin for this myth is to be looked for in the geological history of the earth.

Delirium · 18-05-2016 08:58AM

MOD NOTE

Posts moved to creationism mega-thread

looksee · 18-05-2016 09:17AM

Where would all the extra water come from for there to be a global flood?

Timberrrrrrrr · 18-05-2016 09:21AM

love humanity wrote: »

Creationists and biblical literalists tend to recognize this passage as historically accurate. Proofs from Tradition and from the words of the Old and New Testament give credit to some historicity of the account, but many varying opinions have grown to speculate on the why's and how's of the Deluge.

The main two categories of interpretation are the global flood theory and the local flood theory. The first exegetical school teaches that a catastrophic world-wide submersion of the dry lands really occurred, so that no survivors escaped the cataclysm except for those on the Ark. The second position states that either humanity was concentrated in Mesopotamia so that a local flood in the Tigris-Euphrates valley would have wiped out all humans, or on the contrary that by "all the earth" the Bible understands "all the region" requiring the extinction of only one civilization. That some planetary flood or dramatic climatic changed brought many civilizations to extinction is indeed possible. There are lots of independent flood myths around the world, with a variety of data which doesn't separate these texts from the Biblical narrative too much, so that a common origin for this myth is to be looked for in the geological history of the earth.

Because it fits their belief, they can never explain where so much water came from, never explain how they fit 2 of every animal.plus food for all of those animals into such a small space, can never explain how the kangaroo (indigenous only to Australia) managed to get all the way to the mid East. Same with polar bears *Antarctic), koala bears (Australia) and a myriad of other animals that would have no way of travelling so far.

And please don't reply with a stock answer of "god did it"

robdonn · 18-05-2016 09:25AM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And please don't reply with a stock answer of "god did it"

I think that "god did it", or some variation of that, is a perfectly reasonable explanation for a believer to give to such a question because that's probably what they believe. It's only a problem if the believer is actually trying to convince you (or someone else) to believe it as well.

Timberrrrrrrr · 18-05-2016 09:33AM

robdonn wrote: »

I think that "god did it", or some variation of that, is a perfectly reasonable explanation for a believer to give to such a question because that's probably what they believe. It's only a problem if the believer is actually trying to convince you (or someone else) to believe it as well.

I see where you are coming from but I always see it as a cop out answer.

Leroy42 · 18-05-2016 10:08AM

From the outside it really all seems that christians use a circular argument to justify their position, while simultaneously condemning others from not having proof.

In terms of the Noah story, the fact that the same account, or similar, appears in few different places does not in itself prove anything. It all depends which came first. Since the only survivors of the flood was Noah and his family then that can be the only version, all other recants are based on that. So it all comes from the one source. Having a second copy doesn't prove the veracity of the original, it just proves that the original was told to someone else. I can tell you I am 21, and you may well tell someone else but it doesn't make it true (more's the pity!).

So who wrote the old testament and where did they get the information? Is it direct from God as in verbatim or is it based on a series of dreams?

Even the new testament is not first hand accounts, its was, the latest position at least, written many years after the events and not by the actual disciples themselves and so filtered through others and their bias. It seems strange that God would come down to earth to deliver first hand his message but not ensure that future generations had a perfect copy of that by at least having a scribe accompany him.

J C · 19-06-2016 11:46AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

There are an untold amount of things that we as humans can't explain. Atheists are generally happy to admit that we can't explain it, or search for answers, rather than filling in the gaps with the primitive interpretations of people who lived at least 2 millennia ago.

Hi Kiwi.
Firstly, Creation Scientists don't fill in the gaps in scientific knowledge with the interpretations of the (Israelite) people who lived over 2 K years ago.
We do accept that these people accurately wrote down what actually happened to themselves and their ancestors, in the OT ... and we also use forensic science to fill in the gaps within science on the origins of the Universe and all life therein as well as to examine and expain the geology of the Earth.

PopePalpatine · 19-06-2016 12:02PM

J C wrote: »

Hi Kiwi.
Firstly, Creation Scientists don't fill in the gaps in scientific knowledge with the interpretations of the (Israelite) people who lived over 2 K years ago.

For once, you're actually right there.

J C · 19-06-2016 12:03PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Snowflakes look designed but they're just spontaneous creations emerging from random impurities in the water and the laws of physics

Snowflakes may look 'designed' ... but they are spontaneously created by repeatably observable physical deterministic processes. Snowflakes contain Complex Information ... but this information lacks specificity and functionality. They therefore don't require any intelligent input into their creation.
Life, on the other hand, has never been observed to be spontaneously created ... and the reason for this becomes obvious when we examine living creatures and find that they have CFSI (Complex Specified Functional Information) .... a type of information that is observed to always have an intelligent source, whenever that source has been established.

J C · 19-06-2016 12:04PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

For once, you're actually right there.

Thanks.

J C · 19-06-2016 12:46PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Because it fits their belief, they can never explain where so much water came from, never explain how they fit 2 of every animal.plus food for all of those animals into such a small space, can never explain how the kangaroo (indigenous only to Australia) managed to get all the way to the mid East. Same with polar bears *Antarctic), koala bears (Australia) and a myriad of other animals that would have no way of travelling so far.

And please don't reply with a stock answer of "god did it"

Although God may have 'done it', Creation Scientists don't rely on just proclaiming that 'God did it' ... even when He did ... they go and find physical evidence for their hypotheses.

For example, I'll answer each question in your post with the current Creation Science explantion for each item (my answers in blue):-

Quote:-
"they can never explain where so much water came from, There is sufficient water in the oceans of the World to cover the entire planet to an average depth of 2.7 Kilometres. I'd say that provides enough water to flood the entire Earth !!!!
https://www.quora.com/If-earth-was-a-solid-smooth-ball-how-deep-would-it-be-covered-by-the-total-water-it-has-now

never explain how they fit 2 of every animal.plus food for all of those animals into such a small space, Firstly, they only needed two of each Kind of animal ... i.e just two of the Dog Kind ... and not two wolves, two Foxes, two Dingos, etc. Secondly, it is thought that the animals may have entered a form of Hibernation during the Flood (a Diluviation) which would have slowed their metabolism and greatly reduced the need to provide food for them. When it comes to space we shouldn't forget that the Ark was the size of some of the largest of our modern ships and therefore had massive amounts of space for thousands of animals. In this regard, please also bear in mind that the vast majority of animal Kinds are quite small. Most are mouse or Rabbit sized ... which makes the average size something about the size of a Sheep ... and even the large-sized Kinds could have been taken aboard as much smaller juvenile representatives of their Kind - such as two baby Elephants, etc.

can never explain how the kangaroo (indigenous only to Australia) managed to get all the way to the mid East. Same with polar bears *Antarctic), koala bears (Australia) and a myriad of other animals that would have no way of travelling so far." They would have spread out across the Earth by walking/hopping possibly over hundreds of years following the Flood. Isolation in new habitats would have caused speciation using the pre-existing genetic diversity possessed by these creatures. For example Polar Bears are just Brown Bears selected for thicker, white fur. Indeed they can still hybridise in the wild and in captivity ... to produce a Grolar or a Prizzly Bear – depending on which species is father and mother!!!

P.S I'm sure it was just a typo on your part, but Polar Bears are found in the Arctic (not the Antarctic)

J C · 19-06-2016 01:06PM

robdonn wrote: »

I think that "god did it", or some variation of that, is a perfectly reasonable explanation for a believer to give to such a question because that's probably what they believe. It's only a problem if the believer is actually trying to convince you (or someone else) to believe it as well.

I fully agree ... but I wouldn't go as far as saying that it is perfectly reasonable to state that 'God did it' without some evidence for the assertion that He did.

Delirium · 19-06-2016 01:20PM

J C wrote: »

Snowflakes are may look 'designed' ... but they are spontaneously created by repeatably observable physical deterministic processes.

You're contradicting yourself in the same sentence :pac:

Safehands · 19-06-2016 01:57PM

J C wrote: »

We do accept that these people accurately wrote down what actually happened to themselves and their ancestors, in the OT ... and we also use forensic science to fill in the gaps within science on the origins of the Universe and all life therein as well as to examine and expain the geology of the Earth.

Hi JC, I don't think you can say that people accurately wrote down what happened to them. The Noah story was told in the third party, not the first party. So it was told as it happened to somebody else. That someone else (Noah) supposedly lived for about 900 years. No forensic, scientific study authenticates the flood story or any human being living for 900 years.
There are thousands of independent scientific studies, papers, articles and presentations which demonstrate that the Earth is billions of years old. Similarly there is endless modern evidence that the Earth is round, yet there are many people who are convinced that the Eart is actually flat. I would suggest that you and other believers who take the bible literally, actually believe the Earth is about 10,000 years old. So arguing with you about this is a little like arguing with a flat earther. If you are more convinced by the Biblical tales than by scientific evidence, then you are not going to convinced by posters on this forum.
But its great to talk to you again.

J C · 19-06-2016 02:01PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

From the outside it really all seems that christians use a circular argument to justify their position, while simultaneously condemning others from not having proof.

In terms of the Noah story, the fact that the same account, or similar, appears in few different places does not in itself prove anything. It all depends which came first. Since the only survivors of the flood was Noah and his family then that can be the only version, all other recants are based on that. So it all comes from the one source. Having a second copy doesn't prove the veracity of the original, it just proves that the original was told to someone else. I can tell you I am 21, and you may well tell someone else but it doesn't make it true (more's the pity!).

... You're correct that people can say and write anything ... but in Noah's (and indeed Adam and Eve's) case, this is where modern science comes in. It has been discovered that our mitochondria show that we are all descended from one woman (Mitochondrial Eve) ... and our Y-chromosomes show that all men are descended from one man. Equally, genetic studies of the Human population show that there was a genetic bottleneck when the population of the world was reduced to a few individuals (which corresponds to the population wipe-out during Noah's Flood).

Leroy42 wrote: »

So who wrote the old testament and where did they get the information? Is it direct from God as in verbatim or is it based on a series of dreams?

Moses wrote the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) and other authors wrote the other books of the OT. Moses would have experienced the events of the Exodus personally ... and he would have access to people and sources to accurately write the Genesis account ... and we have the further assurance, that he was also writing with the guidance and the inspiration of God.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Even the new testament is not first hand accounts, its was, the latest position at least, written many years after the events and not by the actual disciples themselves and so filtered through others and their bias. It seems strange that God would come down to earth to deliver first hand his message but not ensure that future generations had a perfect copy of that by at least having a scribe accompany him.

Matthew and John were disciples of Jesus and lived alongside Him, during His ministry on Earth. Luke was physician to St Paul and Mark was an assistant to St Peter. All were living at the time of Jesus and either knew Him personally or knew people who knew Him personally.

J C · 19-06-2016 02:04PM

Delirium wrote: »

You're contradicting yourself in the same sentence :pac:

How so ?
Physical deterministic processes can and do spontaneously create things ... like snowflakes, chemical crystals, etc.:pac:

Delirium · 19-06-2016 02:13PM

J C wrote: »

How so ?
Physical deterministic processes can and do spontaneously create things ... like snowflakes, chemical crystals, etc.:pac:

In forensics 'spontaneous' denotes that something happened in an unexpected manner, e.g. 'spontaneous combustion '.

I'm presuming you aren't saying that don't know how snowflakes come to be.

J C · 19-06-2016 02:20PM

Safehands wrote: »

Hi JC, I don't think you can say that people accurately wrote down what happened to them. The Noah story was told in the third party, not the first party. So it was told as it happened to somebody else. That someone else (Noah) supposedly lived for about 900 years. No forensic, scientific study authenticates the flood story or any human being living for 900 years.

Here is a neat summary of the physical evidence for a worldwide flood AKA Noah's Flood
https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/global/worldwide-flood-evidence/

Safehands wrote: »

There are thousands of independent scientific studies, papers, articles and presentations which demonstrate that the Earth is billions of years old.

... all use debatable premesis and are often circular in reasoning e.g. rocks are sometimes dated by the supposed age of the fossils found in them and fossils are dated by the supposed age of the rocks they are found in.

Safehands wrote: »

Similarly there is endless modern evidence that the Earth is round, yet there are many people who are convinced that the Eart is actually flat.

I would suggest that you and other believers who take the bible literally, actually believe the Earth is about 10,000 years old. So arguing with you about this is a little like arguing with a flat earther.

We both agree that the Earth isn't flat ... so please don't intoduce this as an erroneous 'straw man' to discredit the Creationist position.

Safehands wrote: »

If you are more convinced by the Biblical tales than by scientific evidence, then you are not going to convinced by posters on this forum.
But its great to talk to you again.

This is the Chrisitianity Forum ... and therefore would be expected to have some posters with an identical worldview to myself.
Anyway, in relation to your substantive point, I'm convinced by both Biblical truths and scientific evidence for these truths.
I'm just as logical and in search of the truth on where we have come from and where we are going ... as you are.:)

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments