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

[paultrr]

Why should anyone even bother to look for scientific evidence of Biblical stories? By definition they happened with devine intervention so no other explanation is needed. Miracles are by definition physical impossibilities. It's silly to tri fitting them into a scientific framework. Why would a god do something impossible and then fool people into thinking it happened naturally? defeating the purpose of faith.

 

One thing Linda you need to do is quit assuming everyone thinks the way you do or that someone is suggesting a God did such in the first place. I'm not. I'm suggesting that if some of the people out there actually use a little logic they will discover that such does not make any sence. Personally, being an agnostic I do not believe there is some God who did all this. But having been a believer at one time unlike you I also know what are some of the things that caused me to take a hard look in the first place and eventually realize that the story of the Flood, and of creation just does not have any evidence in its support. Being negative on everything does not help people to use their heads for once. I think perhaps getting one person out there to use there head is worth a bit of mental exercise and patience. Or are you beyond patience? Scratch that, I forgot you tend to the robotic everything is predetermined camp. From that perspective perhaps it would be a waste of time.

[paultrr]

I think it depends on which ones you're lookin' at. Some of us just think of the Bible as a very interesting source of historical novel. "History" is really a fairly modern invention, so just about every written document going way back has to be interpreted and investigated in order to weed out the myth from the truth. This goes for not just the Bible but all documents. The thing I love most about Biblical archeology is how often it seems to show strong indications that certain things happened due to natural rather than mystical causes. Do you have any idea how common pillars of salt are in the area around the Dead Sea (which is salt water)? There's zillions of em...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

I'd agree about the natural cause issue which is one reason I personally no longer am a believer and hold the agnosticism line.

[Biochemist]

I can understand the use of the word "day" as being vague. Although, it is put into context when used in conjuction with the sun and the moon, also including the usage for a time table for man. Remember, God said "let there be light" even before there was a sun or moon...

I really don't mean to be evasive, but this is a long discussion, and I am not sure this is the right forum to have the discussion.

 

Clearly the discussion of "light" in Genesis was not talking about visible spectrum waveforms. Further, the use of the word "day" before the sun shows up suggests strongly that there was no time-oriented day definition, at least for several "days".

 

This passage has all of the earmarks of Hebrew poetry. Hebrew poetry is often not even chronological, much less technically complete. This characterization strongly applies to almost all of the text in the first 11 chapters of Genesis. It is very difficult to read these passages with a view toward technical detail.

[eMTee]

Clearly the discussion of "light" in Genesis was not talking about visible

spectrum waveforms. Further, the use of the word "day" before the sun shows up

suggests strongly that there was no time-oriented day definition, at least for

several "days".

If you had only one time to choose...would you stick to this answer?...Probably. Tell me, what other natural light is there? God is creating nature in this chapter...this is the simpleness of my beliefs, call me simple minded, call me unlearned...say that I have no proof to what I believe, when the morning comes, what do you see first? light.

 

Some say that I am bias toward evolution. look at "before death expeariences", I would say you are bias toward god. Sorry.

[Queso]

when the morning comes, i see light. hear birds, smell breakfast, taste plaque and feel cold all around my legs.

but if you were refering to death, i think the better analogy would be NIGHT, because it's like sleeping. falling beneath your subconcious ALL THE WAY INTO DEATH! it's like eternal slumber, except, you die. so you're not really sleeping, you're rotting and ceasing to exist.

[eMTee]

OK...so those experiences are like nothing...the people who had them never had them, and how they responded where stories told by people, and themselves, who wanted to make you think that it's true.

[Queso]

we have discussed "the white light" in fact i created a thread called "The white light" search for it and read it there is a lot of amazing information in it!

[Biochemist]

God is creating nature in this chapter...this is the simpleness of my beliefs, call me simple minded, call me unlearned...say that I have no proof to what I believe, when the morning comes, what do you see first? light.

Many scholars think the reference to light in Genesis 1:3 is not a reference to luminance, but rather to goodness. This is a similar usage to Jesus saying He was the "light of the world" in the gospel of John. In this view, verse 4 when God "separated the light from the darkness" would be a reference to the separation of good from evil, possibly a vague reference to Satan. This style is somewhat common in Hebrew postry. Again, this is a very difficult to interpret.

Some say that I am bias toward evolution....I would say you are bias toward god.

Well, I am certainly a theist. But the issue here is interpreting a difficult section of Genesis. I am not discussing whether it is true. I am just discussing what it might have meant to a Hebrew reader 4000 years ago. In that narrow sense, this is purely an academic discussion. In any case, interpreting details of this passage is a very difficult job.

[Queso]

emtee here you go

http://hypography.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1671

[eMTee]

Genesis is the most easyest book in the whole Bible to explain...especualy capter 1. You don't need a schaler to help you try to understand this portion of scripture in the least...unless you cannot comprehend the abuility of light with no sun or stars.

 

The symbol that you showed it as...

 

This is a similar usage to Jesus saying He was the "light of the world" in the gospel of John. In this view, verse 4 when God "separated the light from the darkness" would be a reference to the separation of good from evil

...is very unique, I have never thought it also as this, rather well put togeather. What is so hard about light before sun?...In the new heaven and Earth, there will be no sun..and God will be the light...and yes, literal light...and just to let you all know I'm monotheistic.

 

I heared that people have evidence against creation. What might it be?

[niviene]

Personally, I don't think you should ignore any facts when evaluating Christianity. You can ignore some opinions, however. Recognizing the difference is the challenge.

 

I agree with you a million percent; but it seems like in order to really believe all that they are asking me to, I must ignore some things (like.. the laws of physics, scientific discoveries, etc). Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way. I think that I really want to believe in something, but I can't seem to get the puzzle together, and forcing the pieces to fit changes the picture. :(

[Biochemist]

I agree with you a million percent; but it seems like in order to really believe all that they are asking me to, I must ignore some things (like.. the laws of physics, scientific discoveries, etc). Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way. I think that I really want to believe in something, but I can't seem to get the puzzle together, and forcing the pieces to fit changes the picture. :(

Hmmm. I recognize that there is pressure from many quarters (friends, "science", church, school, family, etc,) to believe things that are not in compliance with fact. You will be working on this resolution until your last days. Hang on to what you know, and keep open on things you don't. It is OK to have opinions on things that are not fact based. Just remember which (of the items you hold close) are opinions, since they will certainly change over time.

[bumab]

I agree with you a million percent; but it seems like in order to really believe all that they are asking me to, I must ignore some things (like.. the laws of physics, scientific discoveries, etc). Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way. I think that I really want to believe in something, but I can't seem to get the puzzle together, and forcing the pieces to fit changes the picture. :hyper:

 

I'm curious which laws of physics and scientific discoveries you are having problems with. What are they, and how do they come into conflict with your thinking?

[Queso]

Hmmm. I recognize that there is pressure from many quarters (friends, "science", church, school, family, etc,) to beleive things that are not in compliance with fact. You will be working on this resolution until your last days. Hang on to what you know, and keep open on things you don't. It is OK to have opinions on things that are not fact based. Just remember which (of the items you hold close) are opinions, since they will certainly change over time.

 

this is the greatest thing i've ever seen you type here.

[Biochemist]

this is the greatest thing i've ever seen you type here.

That is very kind of you, Orb.

[niviene]

Bio - I like what you posted. While I don't have any problems ignoring what friends or family have to say about it, I have a brother that I often rely on for advice, although he will not push me one way or another, because he knows that would be wrong of him to do. He is a nuclear physicist, and of course I think he's pretty smart, and so I ask him things about physics, the universe, and ultimately what his opinions are about theology and why he came to those conclusions. I do value his advice, but obviously I don't rely on it solely, or I would be a pure atheist, as he is. As you said, I know that it is opinion. But at least I do have a good, what I feel to be objective source of information on the science side, at least. What I need is a real intellectual on the religion side - someone that knows both sides of the story. My brother does not. He took the same classes (catholic ones) I did... and he's only 26, so what does he know? :(

 

I'm curious which laws of physics and scientific discoveries you are having problems with. What are they, and how do they come into conflict with your thinking?

 

Well, I have seen people debating in here about things that I have also had problems with, so at least I know that I am not alone. I took years of schooling to be converted to catholocism when I was in my late teens, then while in college (the first time) when I got into physics and things like that I couldn't make myself believe in the things I'd been taught in my courses in catholocism. I know if I bring things up this will turn into a debate about which things I should be struggling against and which things I should not be; but, I'll test the water anyway. The basics of how the world was created in 6 days (I saw th at debated elsewhere, I know) ...how we can have evidence of the world and universe being around for so long when supposedly we were only here for, what, 6000 years? I can't make myself believe that Jesus was conceived immaculately... I can't understand why a benevolent God would want us to suffer (even though I know why many say that is). I often feel that God either likes to play games or has a sense of humor. (If she exists... that is.) On the other side of that.... I look at how beautifully complex life and the universe are. I understand that nature has no emotion - death is a part of life, and it's not as hard to deal with (it seems) for other creatures in nature (of course they don't think like we do, but you see my point). I don't know how random things, even over such an expansive time period could create something so beautiful and intricate, seeming to be specifically engineered to survive on this planet, at this time, yaddayadda. These are mostly things I've seen debated in other threads, so I don't want to debate it all here - but these are the things on which I constantly dwell. And, of course, many other things in the Bible. I just wonder if things were lost in translation, or if they evolved like mythology probably did into similar but greater things (much like my dad's fishing stories do...) I cannot simply go into a church and listen to a sermon and accept it like I did when I was younger. I need to know more than being led along like a sheep and told "believe it all; faith is the way." Well, I understand faith, but I can't use faith to ignore the glaring gaps and contradictions. I actually want to believe, and I can't find a way to do it. As a police officer, I think quite often about my own death. I would much rather believe that I would be able to see my family again in heaven than that I just die out. If I were to see someone that I consider to be truly intelligent capable of believing, that would bring me to my knees.

[lindagarrette]

I agree with you a million percent; but it seems like in order to really believe all that they are asking me to, I must ignore some things (like.. the laws of physics, scientific discoveries, etc). Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way. I think that I really want to believe in something, but I can't seem to get the puzzle together, and forcing the pieces to fit changes the picture. :(

You don't have to believe anything. You should find out what is real. Belief is acceptance of hearsay. Everything you need to know is layed out in all aspects of scientific thought. You can choose to learn about many other subjects -- art, music, philosophy, sports, politics, etc... but they are not the key ingredients to your livelihood. Religion is a waste of time and effort. Religion and science are not reconcilable and people who try to mix them as if they were, end up confused.