What makes Creationism so hard to believe in, and evolution so easy?

[eMTee]

The Chinese, Hindu, and Buddhist religions have been around longer than Christianity.

 

of course they did, diffrent religion has been going on ever sence Cain and Abel.

 

Christianity has been around for only 2000 years.

[Buffy]

they are mentioned in the Bible..

So the Bible contains rules on how it was defined. (That violates Goedel's incompleteness theorem, Q!) I guest the real question is *where* are they?

I don't think you can come up with any reference suporting that the stories in the Bible are falce and never happened.

How would one for example prove that Lot's wife did not get turned into a pillar of salt? There's lots of pillars of salt where she was turned into one. Your statement is non-sequiter, since there's no way to prove many of these "events" as true OR false. The only response can be: so what? You can believe or not believe silly things written in a book long ago, and if you want to, that's fine. Some of these can be disproven, at least so long as you accept physical laws. If you want to say that a complete world wide flood was possible because God magically made all that water appear, there's not much we can say to refute you, but that does not change the fact that there's simply not enough water anywhere near the Earth--on it, in it, underneath it, orbiting anywhere near it, to cover every mountain. Sorry!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[C1ay]

they are mentioned in the Bible.

 

I don't think you can come up with any reference suporting that the stories in the Bible are falce and never happened.

I don't need to. You made the claim. You expressly proffered as fact:

One thing, when the Bible was decided what would be in it and no...they gave every book 5 tests before they would add them into the Bible..if eace one didnt pass all the tests, they would then be layed aside from the cannon.

You say they're in the bible then point them out. Here's on online copy you can use to provide links to these 5 tests. You made the claim, now support it. I still think you're just making it up.

[BEAKER]

Yep, you stepped in it alright. I can smell it all the way over here. At least you're honest about the fact that either we agree with you or we are damned. What arrogance!

We've all got the freedom to believe whatever we want. It's a beautiful thing! Arrogance certainly goes both ways. You think I'm arrogant because (you think) I think everyone should believe like me; and I think you're arrogant for giving utterly no credence at all to the possibility that perhaps I am right. - And by the way, if you recall, I didn't say you were damned; I said that "I'm damed if I do, and damned if I don't". - But if the shoe fits..... Take it off and trade it in for something less condemning.

[infamous]

We've all got the freedom to believe whatever we want. It's a beautiful thing! Arrogance certainly goes both ways. You think I'm arrogant because (you think) I think everyone should believe like me; and I think you're arrogant for giving utterly no credence at all to the possibility that perhaps I am right. - And by the way, if you recall, I didn't say you were damned; I said that "I'm damed if I do, and damned if I don't". - But if the shoe fits..... Take it off and trade it in for something less condemning.

 

Easy now BEAKER, you know that I see things more or less the same way that you do. But don't be surprised when you get this kind of response here at Hypography. It is however a science forum and will as a matter of course attract those with an atheistic point of view. I think we can all agree to disagree, a little respect will go a long way when trying to make a point. Remember what the book says: "a soft answer turns away wrath". Have a good one BEAKER, your OK by me.

[BEAKER]

Hey Beaker, you must feel somewhat beseiged. So forgive me, in advance, for jumping on the pile. Perhaps you believe that pain purifies the soul? I like you Beaker. You've got some cahones in the Quixotic sense.

Thanks for the new word Steve. (Quixotic) I'll try to use it sparringly. - But I like it. I had to look it up in Websters.

 

You said, Isn't humility the price of the ticket?

And why would God require humility?

One of the strangest observations I've ever made was the fact that if we ran across anyone that required that others bow down in submission, that person would probably be locked up and behind bars. He'd be categorized as a sociopath.

Now that you mention it, y'know I don't remember ever reading anywhere (in the bible) where God/Jesus said "BOW DOWN TO ME!" to anyone. It was always simply a natural response or a knee-jerk reaction whenever it happened; due to an obvious sense of being totally overwhelmed by the sheer majesty and power in the presence of the Creator of all things.

And we also ascribe to him the ability to put us in eternal pain? Jesus Christ, why would he want to? Doesn't that bother you just a little?

The God I believe in is the essence of Love. Your good and righteous idea of what love is supposed to be has it's roots in my God. If you choose by your lack of desire to really know Him and what He is all about; to die in a condition where eternal sepparation from Him is the bed you have made to lie upon; you have no one to blame but yourself. If someone slaps you in the face repetedly, you may turn the other cheek - but how long will you stand there and take it without eventually turning and walking away? A lack of desire to know Him is a slap in His face.

 

And yet, that is our idea of God - the ideal lifeform, our creator. I'm sorry, but anyone with the ability to design the universe the way it is designed wouldn't be standing around rubbing his hands waiting for judgement day so that he could inflict pain. It's absurd..

He died on a cross for you (and me). Not only is inflicting pain not His intention; He suffered death so you could live forever. The innocent for the guilty. What part of sacrifice don't you understand? He could't have demonstrated His love in a more profound and absolute way.

 

That's why creationism is so hard to accept. The identity behind the scenes would be a raving lunatic.

Ya' just can't please some people, no matter how hard you try.

[BEAKER]

Easy now BEAKER, you know that I see things more or less the same way that you do. But don't be surprised when you get this kind of response here at Hypography. It is however a science forum and will as a matter of course attract those with an atheistic point of view. I think we can all agree to disagree, a little respect will go a long way when trying to make a point. Remember what the book says: "a soft answer turns away wrath". Have a good one BEAKER, your OK by me.

Infamous, you're the best! I'm sorry, I'm just a little stressed out lately.:hihi:

[eMTee]

If you want to say that a complete world wide flood was possible because God magically made all that water appear, there's not much we can say to refute you, but that does not change the fact that there's simply not enough water anywhere near the Earth--on it, in it, underneath it, orbiting anywhere near it, to cover every mountain. Sorry!

 

When you flatten the Earth so that there wouldn't be any deep valleys and no realy tall mountains,(somwhat like foothills) then the water would be able to stand roughly 2 miles high, God did not magically make water apear..it came from the canopy and surly enough under the ground...also the structure of the Earth was extremely diffrent than today's world. magic is for witch's spells, God has power.

 

About me claiming that the event of the sifting of the Bible is mentioned in the Bible. I am sorry, the claimed I claimed might be inacurate...one of those subjects I am not an expert at. And I will not try to go into without knowing more.

 

You got me thinking there.

 

Seeing that you will not consider anything I say being any proof about the Bible being dependable, in it's historical claims, or of that there might be a supernatural god (mearly because I just so happen to be "religous"..and therefore blind to all science) I will drop the subject to only people who want to consider the possibility...I am sorry that I was shoving my "religous views" down your throats, and I do understand your view of that to an extent.

[Buffy]

When you flatten the Earth so that there wouldn't be any deep valleys and no realy tall mountains,(somwhat like foothills) then the water would be able to stand roughly 2 miles high, God did not magically make water apear..it came from the canopy and surly enough under the ground...also the structure of the Earth was extremely diffrent than today's world. magic is for witch's spells, God has power.

Yes, but as I pointed out before, the Bible very clearly says that the mountains were *not* flattened. You can't even pretend that you can get away with this as solely a *theological* argument when in the same breath you say the bible is true and false about the very same verses! I don't care if we argue about logic or theology, I'll argue them both, but from a *purely* theological aspect with an all powerful God, the book says he did NOT flatten the mountains! If you are going to argue on a logical level, you *still* need to admit that God did not flatten the mountains, and then *there is not enough water* over, under, in or around the Earth, period. I'm including the "canopy" I'm including underground water. I'm including the ice caps, without flatting all the land absolutely--I guess I have to keep repeating because you forget it every time I say it--there is not enough water *anywhere*.

 

This is not so much an issue of you not going to regular school or having a degree: we really don't care, but if you can't say two words without contradicting yourself, you're not even going to have the respect of your fellow believers! You really need to stop and think about what you are saying....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Zohaar818]

Yes, but as I pointed out before, the Bible very clearly says that the mountains were *not* flattened. You can't even pretend that you can get away with this as solely a *theological* argument when in the same breath you say the bible is true and false about the very same verses! I don't care if we argue about logic or theology, I'll argue them both, but from a *purely* theological aspect with an all powerful God, the book says he did NOT flatten the mountains! If you are going to argue on a logical level, you *still* need to admit that God did not flatten the mountains, and then *there is not enough water* over, under, in or around the Earth, period. I'm including the "canopy" I'm including underground water. I'm including the ice caps, without flatting all the land absolutely--I guess I have to keep repeating because you forget it every time I say it--there is not enough water *anywhere*.

 

 

I think this point can be quite easily resolved if you stopped taking things so literally and understood them from the point of view of the [alleged] observers .

It is not that the mountains were indeed flattened [or not] it is that to earth bound observers they appeared to flatten...and about the waters..a more than slight wobble of the earth or a radical pole wander would set the waters rushing to and fro across the planet and to earth bound observers it would appear as if the waters were rising to swallow the earth....

But you know..all of this is pointless really..and so is any argument which takes on faith that the Bible or any part of it is literal and not literature.

Which brings me to my most relevant point and on e which I hope everyone pays attention to...and that is, holy and sacred arguments and commentaries nothwithstanding..the new Testament as we know it was not decided upon through scholarship or priestly vision..it was compiled at the Council of Nicea. And what do we know about the Council , it's members, or its procedures? Anybody care to guess? And what was up with Constantine..why did he convene the Council?

Check my next post [below] to find the answer and the links to support my claim...

 

PS- Buffy, you slay me...

:hihi:

[Zohaar818]

I hope everyone pays attention to...and that is, holy and sacred arguments and commentaries nothwithstanding..the new Testament as we know it was not decided upon through scholarship or priestly vision..it was compiled at the Council of Nicea. And what do we know about the Council , it's members, or its procedures? Anybody care to guess? And what was up with Constantine..why did he convene the Council?

Check my next post [below] to find the answer and the links to support my claim...

 

 

As I was saying..about the Council of Nicea....convened by Constantine...

What do we know about Constantine other than that he was born a pagan [sun worshipper] and had a vison on successive nights before a great battle that the sun was being replaced by a blazing cross..which he adopted as his symbol...

He won the battle....and then:

...."Constantine celebrated his victory over Maxentius by the murder of the two sons of his adversary. This was followed in orderly succession by the murder of five members of Constantine's own household and later by the murder of his own wife and son. Eventually these crimes began to weigh upon his conscience. Although he had been fighting under the banner of Christ for twenty years, he turned to the pagan religions for absolution. He was told that no pagan religion offered absolution for such crimes as his. He then turned to the Christian Church, and was informed that Christian baptism would expiate any crime, irrespective of its magnitude. At the same time he was advised that baptism might he deferred to the day of his death without losing any of its efficacy. Thus, Eusebius relates that, When he thought that he was near his death, he confessed his sins, desiring pardon for them from God, and was baptized. So that Constantine was the first of all the Emperors to be regenerated by the new birth of baptism, and signed with the sign of the Cross. (Vita Constantin.)

From the moment that Constantine realized that his crimes could be expiated by Christian baptism, he declared himself the protector of a religion which treats criminals with such lenience. Immediately he began to show his gratitude to the Church. He donated the Lateran Palace to the Bishops of Rome. He sent his mother Helena on a journey to Jerusalem and erected several basilicas in the Holy Land. Then he turned his attention to increasing the membership of the Church. He offered freedom to all slaves who would accept the Christian faith, and to those who were not slaves he offered a white robe and twenty pieces of gold. As a result of this propaganda, twelve thousand converts were added to Christianity in the city of Rome alone. Next, he determined to increase the wealth of the Church. He gave permission to his subjects to bequeath their fortunes to the Church. Soon the rent-roll from the houses, shops and gardens attached to three basilicas brought in an annual income of $60,000. He raised the Bishops' salaries to $3,000 a year, and, in the Council of Nicea, assured the Bishops that if any of them were caught in the act of adultery the Imperial mantle would be thrown over them, so that the world at large might not learn of their offence. His next act was to issue an edict against all who refused to accept Christianity, commanding that their meeting places should be demolished or confiscated. ..."

 

"By the fourth century it became necessary for the Church to decide which of the many Gospels then in circulation were to be accepted as authentic. The question came up in the Council of Nicea. Fortunately the testimonies of two eye-witnesses have been preserved, so there can be little doubt as to the method used in the selection of the Gospels. There were 318 Bishops present in this Council, and one of the two eye-witnesses, Sabinus, Bishop of Heraclea, left a description of their mental capacities. "With the exception of the Emperor (Constantine)" he said, "and Eusebius Pamphilus, these Bishops were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing." About forty Gospels were submitted to these Bishops. As they differed widely in their contents, the decision was difficult. At last it was determined to resort to "miraculous intervention." The method used was known as the Sortes Sanctorum, or "the holy casting of lots for purposes of divination." Its use in the Council of Nicea was described by another eye-witness, Pappus, in his Synodicon to that Council. He says:

Having promiscuously put all the books referred to the Council for determination under a communion table in a church, they (the Bishops) besought the Lord that the inspired writings might get upon the table, while the spurious ones remained underneath. And it happened accordingly.

When the Bishops returned to the Council room on the following morning, the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were resting on the communion table. Their presence in the New Testament is due to the art of divination, for practicing which the Church subsequently condemned men and women as sorcerers, enchanters and witches, and burned them by the thousands."

 

We must not forget that the Christian Church owes its present canonical Gospels, and hence its whole religious dogmatism, to the Sortes Sanctorum. Unable to agree as to which were the most divinely-inspired of the numerous gospels extant in its time, the mysterious Council of Nicea concluded to leave the decision of the puzzling question to miraculous intervention. This Nicean Council may well be called mysterious. There was a mystery, first, in the mystical number of its 318 bishops, on which Barnabas (viii, 11, 12, 13) lays such a stress; added to this, there is no agreement among ancient writers as to the time and place of its assembly, nor even as to the bishop who presided. Notwithstanding the grandiloquent eulogium of Constantine, Sabinus, the Bishop of Heraclea, affirms that "except Constantine, the emperor, and Eusebius Pamphilus, these bishops were a set of illiterate, simple creatures, that understood nothing;" which is equivalent to saying that they were a set of fools. Such was apparently the opinion entertained of them by Pappus, who tells us of the bit of magic resorted to to decide which were the true gospels. In his Synodicon to that Council Pappus says, having "promiscuously put all the books that were referred to the Council for determination under a communion-table in a church, they (the bishops) besought the Lord that the inspired writings might get upon the table, while the spurious ones remained underneath, and it happened accordingly." But we are not told who kept the keys of the council chamber over night!

 

http://www.wisdomworld.org/setting/hypatia.html

http://www.wisdomworld.org/additional/christianity/MagicInTheChurch.html

http://www.christian-classic-books.com/suppressedepistles/supgospel4.html

 

Now..I am speaking to Christians here mostly..and more than a few who have deep seated reverence for their new testaments being the unaltered inspired word ofgf G*d...and they will probably see the above as the work of the devil, and me as his agent...but frankly to sit and argue for hours about the validity or sacredness of a book whose origins and compilation is so suspect..whose original authors maintained was metaphorical..and which has been proven beyond doubt to have undergone radical edits and changes in its composition and theospohic [doctrinal] content over the centuries is about as pointless as arguing the number of angels that can dance on a pinhead.

Add to that the fact that those who chose the books either couldn't read them or didn't read them..that they couldn't agree on which was more inspired or less and that they left it up to God to put the books on the table that He wanted in the canon..yada yada...plus the well documented amorality and immorality of the presiding bishops and Constantine himself..well...does it really make sense to any logical, rational, presumably adult individual to get so worked up over this Book?

 

The question was what makes Creationism so hard to believe in..and I take it the majority view is that what makes it hard to believe is the book in which the Creationsist stake most of their claim..destroy the book and Creationism falls. But you are only partly right.

You see there is still the abundant amount of unchallenged scientifically documented evidence which contradicts the evolutionist camp and the standard archeological anthropological record..and no one here is putting that forth for the ID-ers.

I find it a shame really since some of their evidence is indeed most compelling..but not in the way they think I mean it. No, it does not compel me to open my Bible and take every word on faith..but it does compel me to examine the stndard models of the secularists and see for myself that they are probably kidding themselves as much as the fundamentalists if they think they are anywhere near having an explanation for the Truth of our origin, evolution and pre-written history.

So..can we have that argument here please..or should we start another thread entitled What makes the truth so hard to believe?

[lindagarrette]

When you flatten the Earth so that there wouldn't be any deep valleys and no realy tall mountains,(somwhat like foothills) then the water would be able to stand roughly 2 miles high, God did not magically make water apear..it came from the canopy and surly enough under the ground...also the structure of the Earth was extremely diffrent than today's world. magic is for witch's spells, God has power.

 

.

There must have been mountains and bodies of water, though, before the flood. People and animals were supposedly living normal lives, then, right? Now, where did all the water from the caonopy go after the flood? Where was this canopy? That much water even as vapor in the atmosphere would surely cause a greenhouse effedt.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Hey Beaker,

 

The God I believe in is the essence of Love. Your good and righteous idea of what love is supposed to be has it's roots in my God. If you choose by your lack of desire to really know Him and what He is all about; to die in a condition where eternal sepparation from Him is the bed you have made to lie upon;

Well, then I guess I've over-reacted.

 

We might be closer than you think then. First, let's assume that God is as you say, a loving god. And I'd like to extend that image to one of a parent watching a child struggle to understand something. The lesson will only be learned after the child has traveled the distance required for understanding.

 

As his children then, we have been given certain capacities. They are part of our design. One of them is a highly developed brain which is our main means of survival. And survive we must because that is a task that is built in, all else is moot unless we do that.

 

We must identify the nature of existence, at least to the extent that it is required to survive. To survive is to extend our lives another moment in time. And this requires us to delve deeper and deeper into the nature of existence and, if you say, God exists, then we must identify His nature as well. That is the task layed out before us.

 

Non contradictory identification is the process we call logic. It's the only tool we have to comprehend the world. It involves the use of perception and conception. And the proper use of logic is to maintain clarity and purity in our thoughts and ideas.

 

This is as God would want it. I cannot imagine creating something and then expecting that thing to act against its own nature. That would not make sense. And I presume that God wants us to work out the sense behind all things, don't you?

 

And if God had not provided any good clear proof of what His nature was, then why would he expect us to guess at it? I should think he would require us to be skeptics. And perhaps this is where we differ.

[bumab]

Non contradictory identification is the process we call logic. It's the only tool we have to comprehend the world. It involves the use of perception and conception. And the proper use of logic is to maintain clarity and purity in our thoughts and ideas.

 

You sure about that? The world can only be known through logic, and logic alone? Many, many other cultures and times and people would disagree, saying things like music, art, emotions, etc., which are often non-logical, can reveal truths about the world (non-physical).

 

Just pushin' :hihi:

[Queso]

something i completely agree with.

[Biochemist]

You sure about that? The world can only be known through logic, and logic alone? Many, many other cultures and times and people would disagree, saying things like music, art, emotions, etc., which are often non-logical, can reveal truths about the world (non-physical).

once again, B, you left out communication through FOOD. The intrinsic spiritual value of cheesecake is pretty obvious to me. Not to mention rare beef, a nice cabernet. Beer on a hot day, etc. None of this is demonstrable through logic.

 

This sounds like a joke (and actually was intended that way) but a great portion of our perception of value in life is completely unrelated to logic. Our connections to our families, our appreciation of beauty, our personal sense of purpose: all of these are not logic driven.

 

And there is that issue about cheesecake.

[bumab]

This sounds like a joke (and actually was intended that way) but a great portion of our perception of value in life is completely unrelated to logic. Our connections to our families, our appreciation of beauty, our personal sense of purpose: all of these are not logic driven.

 

Exactly my point, and it's forgotton, especially in the scientific community. Logic is a tool, but to say all human interactions and truths are understandable through logic or they don't exist is either an incredible disregard of the majority of human experiences (justified or not) or very, very blind.

 

A good beer on a hot day (or a cold day) communicates about as much as anything can :hihi: