Creationists

Post Reply New Topic

Ah, the "no true christian" argument.

If they've lapsed, they never got it in the first place? Right. Well, believe whatever you like.

Of course the Bible was written by and for certain people of the ancient Near East. The spiritual teachings (whether or not of divine inspiration) were expressed in terms of their language and culture, obviously. You agree with that, yes? Now to get back to the original subject of this thread: what about the age of the earth and the evolution of life? Do you deny the evidence for these exist? There's a lot more evidence of more different types that is far less ambiguous than any outside sources used to corroborate the Bible. The writings of Josephus, for example, have been suspected for centuries of having the bit about Jesus inserted at a later date by a Christian apologist. There are many clues (of style, subject etc.) that seem to show this is the case for at least this bit of "evidence" authenticating the Bible.

Compare that to Human Chromosome 2, which shows many clear signs of being two ape chromosomes fused together. The equivalent chromosomes exist unfused in our close relatives such as Chimpanzees. Endogenous retroviruses can also be found at the same locations in DNA of related species, with exactly the same degree of relationship explained and predicted by other evidence such as the fossil record. And then there's the fossil record showing MANY transitional forms over the ages (when hardcore Creationists insist there are none). What about Tiktaalik? It wasn't "just a fish" anymore than Australopithecus afarensis was "just an ape."

Tiktaalik is similar to your example of going to a place you hadn't been and finding what you expect to find there. Shubin knew from the existing fossil record the approximate time of the transition from fish to land animals, and he knew the types of rocks to search in based on the supposed creatures' lifestyle. He searched the earth to find rocks of that type and age exposed on the surface, went there, and found exactly what he was looking for: a fish with legs (like those Darwin parodies of the Christian symbol some people put on their cars). It wasn't just the legs that make this a transitional form. Tiktaalik has many features intermediate between fish and land animals, including a flat head, a neck and wrists.

I don't pretend to know whether there was or was not a Creator, or if it was the God of the Christian Bible. However, I am quite familiar with the evidence for the age of the earth and the fact that biological evolution happens. I am also quite familiar with the arguments fundamentalist Christians use to argue against these facts, and their arguments are based on ignorance, distortions, lies, and misunderstandings of what science is and how it works. Garbage in, garbage out. IF evolution were the way the Creationists describe if, and IF the evidence really didn't exist or was as they describe it, then of course evolution is garbage. However, they have been LIED to and are busily trying to spread those lies everywhere. That offends me, especially when it affects children and the future of our planet.

+1 Bicyclingguitarist, +1

And RKB.. Yea, I think I'm going to coin the phrase "prophet complex" for deluded theists who sincerely believe they have vast, sweeping tracts of wisdom and insight when really all they say equates to the same old blah blah blah we've all dispatched before.

Real evidence or GTFO.

You really think it is a cultural thing, I guess. Just a matter of choice.

I did the violin for - what - say 9 years. Nice instrument I loved it. But it never went anywhere - never could get through the finger exercises. I'm not a musician.

Ah, the "no true violinist" argument. Instead of pulling out pat putdowns, do try looking at facts.

Josephus was not an eye-witness to any of the New Testament events. He wrote his testimonial from hearsay in a vain attempt to impress his sponsors into letting him keep his job.

Tacitus was born about 20-odd years after the alleged death of Jesus, thus making him just one more rumor-monger.

Pliny the Younger was born 30-odd years after the alleged death of Jesus.

None were eye-witnesses, and all merely passed along things that they'd heard elsewhere.


Faith itself is irrational, since it is not based on rational thought, but only on belief - Sola Fidelis, not "Fides quod Causa Una".

Actually, I do know about faith - "The belief in unprovable things" - which itself proves nothing. As for Hebrews 11, it carries validity only for those who have faith in the inerrrancy of the Bible.

We have much textual evidence - which is testimony - not material evidence. A piece of textual evidence that might corroborate the apostolic accounts would be the actual "Death Warrant", signed by Pontius Pilate, but this piece of "evidence" is lacking, if it ever existed in the first place.

You can still post the URL, but they won't link to anything.

As for the so-called "Archaeological Evidence", just because a geographical location that is mentioned in the Bible actually exists, it does not necessarily follow that any events actually occurred at those places as described in the Bible, much less that the people allegedly involved actually existed and were involved in the alleged events. Many writers set their fictional stories in real cities to enable their audiences to acquire a suspension of disbelief. Unfortunately, some poor folks take that suspension too far and end up believing in magical beings, alternate realities, and miraculous events.

Finally, as I pointed out before: Tokyo exists, but that fact does not validate the claim that Godzilla is real, even though I have seen with my own eyes several movies depicting Godzilla's alleged destruction of Tokyo.

A movie is only a movie, and a book is only a book.

Even if they were eyewitnesses (which they were not), eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. In courts of law, material evidence trumps eyewitness testimony. There are literally tons of material evidence supporting the age of the earth and the fact of evolution, evidence of many different types that stand alone but also corroborate each other in stunning fashion.

What's more, the people of that time and place were much less educated and much more superstitious than the people of today, hence more likely to "see" miraculous things because their minds were more predisposed to seeing such things.

To get this thread back on topic though, how do young earth creationists account for the overwhelming physical evidence that the earth is ancient and life evolves? I haven't seen any new arguments in a long time, only PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times). How anyone can continue to use arguments that have been proven false is beyond me. That's the difference between science and religion. Science changes when it finds out it is wrong. Religion does too, sometimes, but slower.

For example, the "official" position of Christianity used to be that the sun goes around the earth. Most Christian denominations today accept the fact evolution happens just as they now accept the earth goes around the sun, or they say whether or not evolution happens doesn't matter to their faith. It is scary that such a large percentage of American adults are so incredibly misinformed about the fact of evolution. How can so many people be so misinformed about something that has so much evidence of so many different types clearly showing it happened?

Finally, let me share again a song I wrote in 1991 about Evolution that is, sadly, still relevant today.

@Fnord

Are you claiming that there was no historical person of Jesus? If you intend to argue against the weight of the historical evidence (and the consensus of modern historians) with references to Godzilla, I am afraid that this just does not cut it.

See:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/JesusExist.htm

Which ones are you comparing?

I like the fact that the only proper reference provided for the article came from Bart Eherman (FYI, despite being a terrible historian, he accepts the historical person of Christ). I distrust popular level articles that reference other popular level articles. It creates a train of useless references that makes it impossible to determine the veracity of the statements being made.

Also, referencing people like Rene Salm (a man with ZERO qualifications in archaeology), Frank Zindler (a biology instructor another fringe 'scholar' of ancient history), Earl Doherty (BA) and to top it off Richard Carrier... the self styled 'internet infidel'. A man who has ZERO intellectual credibility when it comes to textual criticism of the historical Jesus. I actually find this utterly ironic that this level of unintellectual nonsense is being put forward in a thread devoted to criticism of creationism. It may be true that many silly Christians embrace pseudoscience, but many self professing 'children of reason' atheists are very quick to embrace pseudohistory.

If you want good textural criticism here are some proper works on the subject (from oxbridge not internet infidels):

Christopher M. Tuckett, "Sources and Methods" in The Cambridge Companion to Jesus (London: Cambridge University Press, 2001)

"Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically."
- Stanton, Graham. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, 2002; first published 1989, p. 145.

It might be worthwhile examining and evaluating the material before disregarding it on the basis of prejudicial judgments about authorities.

The lack of records about some pretty big (alleged) events is pretty suspicious to me. But whether the gospels were based on a guy named jesus or one of the many other cult leaders/ magic men of the time, like Apollonius of Tyana or whatever isn't of much consequence. It still doesn't add any evidence to support the magical claims of religion, let alone creationism.

[oh god, people are going to misread and distort this post, I just know it.]

but at same time you DO trust the train of references the bible is comprised of that makes it impossible to determine the veracity of it?

wow.

you are hopefully aware of that this is the second time i can do this simple childish reversal trick with your own arguments in this thread...


http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp3730271.html#3730271

^^^^

I suppose your fantasic wit does not move me any more than the arguements you have so far made. I took your parting comment to be a flippant statement from a poster without anything more substantial to add.

As to your new contention. If historians could not establish the veracity of the NT books then most of them would not conclude that Jesus was a historical person. Your position is bunk and it has already been dealt with by my previous post.

@Sand

While I have not read the majority of the references your article put forward. I have read some of the work done by the Jesus Seminar on the subject. The Jesus Seminar is about as far to the critical side as you can get and still verge on legitimate mainstream criticism.

Anybody who does not take all history well salted is usually rather romanced by a particular idea. Anything two thousand years old written and rewritten and interpreted and reinterpreted and overflowing with the sticky honeys of avarice, power, wishful desire, and, of course galaxies of gullibility must be regarded with, at minimum, a raised eyebrow.

Given that the label "fundamentalism" doesn't refer to literalistic interpretations so much as inerrantist interpretations and/or views of the Christian religion that fundamentally clash with believed scientific claims as well as more socially liberal views of society, I don't think you've shown yourself a non-fundamentalist with such a statement, at least not in the meaning of the word generally accepted. If anything given that you are a 7 day creationist, you've literally shown yourself as a fundamentalist. As well, the distinction you point out on hermeneutics isn't really an alteration on beliefs commonly known as "fundamentalist". In fact, many complain about fundamentalists being too loose in their reading when it favors their assumptions, mostly in the inerrancy of scripture, which a lot of scholars will argue doesn't cohere with the basic interpretation of scripture using a reasonable methodology.


Sounds like somebody is influenced by the presuppositionalist view of apologetics. Likely not a full-on presuppositionalist though given that no reference is given to this method. I am not sure that atheists will claim themselves to consider God does not exist a presupposition. A good number will consider it a lack of a presupposition.(Note: this gets into terminological debates that are fruitless if you insist this is "properly agnosticism") Most of the rest will consider it a conclusion. I suppose that you have a set of presuppositions that leads to the conclusion that atheists are presupposing the non-existence of God. (Question: is this a necessary conclusion?)

Additional concern though: If we are talking about the parsimony of assumptions, which is a assumption almost universally accepted, then shouldn't reductionist towards an assumption of the existence of God? After all, claiming that the Christian God is basic is a questionable move as it does appear to be special pleading(why not Allah?). However, starting with more basic assumptions tends to undermine the point you have somewhat?