Donutz

This, and the comments that Snowolf made, are (IMO anyway) the biggest problem with creationist arguments. Creationists tend to take a reductionist view of arguments, i.e. everything's a two-horse race and it's all me or thee. It's evolution or creationism, it's christianity or atheism, it's carbon-14 or nothing, etc. The problem is, it's almost never so simple. For instance, the circular argument posted in that vid near the beginning of this thread (bible is infallible because it's the word of god, it's the word of god because it says so, and you have to accept that because it's infallible [loop] ). The problem with this argument is that I can prove the Truth of Islam, Hinduism, and any other religion that has a "holy book". You could even make a pretty good argument for religions with only verbal traditions using the same "inspired by [insert deity here]" argument. So now the xians have the additional problem of proving that THEIR circular argument is right while the other religions' circular arguments are nonsense.

With "proofs" like carbon-14, they forget that there are many different pieces of evidence that not only point to an old universe, but also corroborate each other. Various radioactive dating techniques corroborate each other, and agree with dendrochronology, ice core samples from the arctic, sediment samples from the bottom of the ocean, DNA ancestry tracing, language evolution, magnetic fossilization in lava flows, etc, probably many more than I can think of while sitting here recovering from work.

Then there's the historical problems: No record whatsoever of the Jews in Egypt, or of all the firstborn male Egyptians dying; no evidence of ten thousand-odd hebrews wandering the desert for 40 years; no evidence of the Flood; Archeological evidence that indicates that the Hebrews didn't defeat the Canaanites, but are the Canaanites, and so on.

Anyway, the point is, it's one thing to take it on faith (which I believe is the whole point according to JC) and another to try to present it as a rigorously defensible theory.

__________________

Illegitimi non carborundum

Mountain Days: 30

Donutz

If only creationists applied the same level of skepticism to their own claims that they do to science claims.

No we can't be absolutely certain that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, despite the mountains of evidence pointing that way; but we're supposed to accept that a magical sky fairy (for whom there's no evidence whatsoever) created the world 6000 years ago (even though there's no evidence pointing to this) and that he loves us (even though if you read the bible objectively he comes across as a total psycho) and that he gave us a set of moral standards to live up to (even though when you actually list said standards they're midieval at best) and we'll all go to heaven (for which there's no evidence).

Hm. Pass.

__________________

Illegitimi non carborundum

Mountain Days: 30

davidj

WORD!

Atheism = religion. Both are belief systems.

Agnosticism is the only paradigm that has true "scientific integrity", because it does not make leaps of faith beyond what science can offer us today. With a little humility, maybe we can all get along, celebrating the fact that the planet is a much richer place because of our diversity.

CalvaryCougar

I do take the whole Bible literally and when people say a problem with Christians is they don't take the whole book literally drives me crazy. There are many different beliefs among atheists but one atheist should be taken to show the beliefs of the whole.

And to the quote above have you read the Bible in its entirety? If you do you can see that God is not how you depict him.

"16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. " John 3:16-17

"20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."
-Galatians 2:20

"6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
Romans 5:6-8

And there are many more examples. How is a God who gives His Son so that those who have sin against him can gain eternal life be what you think he is?

__________________
Snowboarders For Christ USA

CalvaryCougar

And as Christians we are suppose to believe that the complex structure of the human body and the brain that we use in understanding these thing (which we still are currently not 100% sure how it works) came from absolutely nothing? Time space and matter just happened? Even if you believe that some matter is eternal you really believe that the specific and complex code comes from nothing? You believe that as frail as human life is, you want to believe that it happened by chance? A random explosion that created the order of the universe and the complexity of animal and human bodies seems more logical?

__________________
Snowboarders For Christ USA

tylerkat89

Calvary why do you take a book that was written by man, that has been RECORDED to have been censored numerous different times under pope command. That has ALSO been a collection of books from OTHER cultures that also give detailed info that are considered blasphemous views. The story of Adam came from the book of Adamu from the ancient Samarian texts. These same samarian texts have detailed information on science, math, and astronomy. They also talk of higher beings of conciousness. The entire old testament isn't even Christian yet here you are quoting as if it represents Christianity. Christianity wasn't considered "established" until lady magdeline had announced Jesus's resurrection. Why then are certain texts being selected? And why do you choose to BELIEVE the bible should be taken LITERAL? I bet you at one point, just like the majority of the population still currently does, believe that Lady Magdeline was a prostitute when in fact she was not. Where is your assurance in that

CalvaryCougar

I wasn't sure if he was joking or mocking.

It really doesnt matter about the age of the earth. The one thing that does matter though is why would we take the New Testament as literal but not take the Old Testament as literal also? Christians who believe the New Testament but believe the Old Testament is fully of fairy tales are picking and choosing which part of the Bible they want to believe.

If you believe in Jesus as your Lord and Savior then look at how he viewed the Old Testament
What did Jesus teach about the Old Testament? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

__________________
Snowboarders For Christ USA

CalvaryCougar

Links?
10Char

__________________
Snowboarders For Christ USA

CalvaryCougar

I have been finding though that online forum debates dont do much good and generally just turn into a name calling match.

__________________
Snowboarders For Christ USA

tylerkat89

I did not once name call you. Wow, liking to worm your way out of not answering one point I made? What are you talking about. Links? Seriously? I'm not going to sit here and browse the internet to find links to interviews and documentaries. I really don't care enough to try and change one persons faith. Utilize Google. Educate yourself on the book you so fondly follow, not just on what it says or what you have been told. The 4 books of the new testament themselves contradict themselves. They don't even follow up with each other. I need to provide you a link to prove lady magdeline wasn't a prostitute? Then that is arrogance. Like I said. Educate yourself, don't be a mindless sheep led by the wolves.