The creator did it.

[Subduction Zone]

Does anyone on this forum believe the bible? The genealogy of Jesus in Luke chapter 3 traces Jesus back to Adam, showing that Adam is a historical person. Jesus said in Mathew chapter 19 verse 4 "Haven't you read, he said, " that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female."
It appears that Jesus himself believed the bible.

Since Luke's account is clearly fictitious how does that help you? If one reads the Bible literally sooner or later one should realize that is calling God a liar.

 

[He has Risen!]

What are human beings evidence of? What is the universe around us evidence of?

You seem to think they are evidence of the existence of your particular vision of a deity. Others think they are evidence of some other vision of a deity. Still others think they are evidence of the intricacy of the natural laws.

I have found that it is very common among some religious believers to think that any structure or non-randomness must be caused by an intelligence. They think that anything *we* consider to be beautiful must be produced by some mind.

But, looking around me, I find that the parts of the universe known to be produced by minds are very few and localized to this small planet of ours. Instead, the vast majority of the beauty in the universe is produced by the action of fairly simple natural laws without any need for a guiding intelligence.

So, yes, we all have access to at least some of the same evidence. I find that many ultra-religious people don't really look at *all* the evidence against their position, so what they base their views on tends to be limited, but I also find they are much more prone to jumping to the conclusion that an intelligent agent is operating than is really justified.

Just because we see faces in the clouds doesn't mean the clouds are watching us.

There are 3 known ways that we understand how something is made and they are 1.Chance; 2.Law; 3.Design so let us briefly look at all three...
1)Chance is the unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause. Some things are the cause of random processes occurring by chance, simple order not complex. Chance processes do not produce complex information.
2)Law is a formulation describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met (e.g.,the law of gravity). Other things are caused by regular predictable processes which can be formulated as laws of nature. (e.g., snowflakes, crystals) Laws do not bring about high content information order.
3)Design on the other hand is deliberate intention. Some things are the result of design like houses, cars, computers and books. Specified complexity/high content information order.
The more complex something is, the more reasonable explanation is that it was designed rather than happened by chance. When the famed atheist philosopher Antony Flew changed his mind about God, he stated that in keeping his lifelong commitment to go where the evidence leads, he now believed in the existence of a God. Antony Flew, C.S.Lewis, Mary Poplin and Joy Davidman, just to name a few former highly educated intellectual atheists who changed their mind about the existence of God when they looked in His direction.

 

[Rapture Era]

The implications of your form of YEC are quite far-reaching. Even if we leave the origin of life and evolution out of it, you are in effect requiring that God:
- put the fossils in the rocks to fool the scientists, giving the illusion of progressive development over millions of years,
- tinkered with the radioisotope ratios in the rocks to delude science into thinking they are older than they are,
- put magnetic stripes on the ocean floor to give the illusion that oceans have opened over millions of years,
- made the continental shelves match as if they had once fitted together, when really they never did.
- made the oceans spread at a measurable rate, to further the illusion.
- embedded seashells in the Himalayas, to give the illusion that the rocks were once under the ocean
etc, etc.

I suspect you would have the same difficulty as me in believing in a God that could be so deceitful. I imagine it is just that you have never realised that creationism necessarily implies a God that behaves in this way. But that is why, to the scientifically educated Christian, creationism is so unacceptable. It would mean we could not trust our senses at all when exploring nature, for fear of some further arbitrary trickery by God.

As to what church I belong to, I am astonished that you do not seem to realise that most major denominations of Western Christianity see Genesis as allegorical, as Origen already did in 200AD.
More here on the credentials of the allegorical interpretation: Allegorical interpretations of Genesis - Wikipedia

As far as my YEC being far-reaching, that’s a bit odd coming from a so-called intellectual Christian. You obviously have not researched the well-known and documented history and genealogy from Jesus to Adam. If you knew anything about this, you would know that from creation until now is about 6,000 years from the scripture in Genesis. You either believe the plain text of scripture that God created heaven and earth in six literal 24 days like he said he did, or you don’t. I’m somewhat surprised and disappointed that you would start your response with a strawman regarding the fossils, radioisotope ratios, magnetic strip, continental shelf, ocean spread and the sea shells in the Himalayas! All I was saying is that when God created the earth and all life, he created it mature and fully functioning with the appearance of age due to the fact that plants and trees and all the creatures both on land and sea were in a mature state. This makes good logical and rational sense to be able to be fruitful and multiply. To dismiss this and insert something that is never spoken of or alluded to in any way shape or form, with another process like evolution is absolutely ludicrous, why? First, even evolutionary scientists, honest ones, admit that evolutionary processes to explain origins of life on this planet is impossible! Many evolution scientists will not debate anymore since they know and understand this hypothesis is baseless and are not finding what they expect to find. Not only that but the more science understands about life, the more it bends its knee to the scriptures. Look, if evolution theory is true, the fossil record must be what this theory requires, on the other hand, if creation is true, the fossil record must be in accord with that theory. So, what are the geologists and paleontologist’s finding in these areas all over the globe? A vast array of complex invertebrates abruptly appearing fully formed in the Cambrian rocks and they are found on every continent of the world! Now, this should be a clue to all people! But if that’s not enough common sense for an intellectual and non-intellectual mind, how about this. Pre-Cambrian rocks should contain billions upon billions of fossils of evolutionary ancestors of the complex invertebrates. Additionally, we must see evidence in the billions of transitional forms of these complex invertebrates. Results? No one has found fossilized ancestors for a single one of the Cambrian invertebrates, or transitional forms linking, say, brachiopods with clams, sponges with jelly fish, or any other possible linkages. What does this tell you? It should tell that if either one of these theories is true, you would find overwhelming evidence in the fossils for that specific theory, right? It’s not complicated. Are they finding what is needing to support evolution? Absolutely NOT! Douglas Futuyma an evolutionist and ardent anti-creationist is a Distinguished Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at Stony Brook University in Stony Brook, New York and a Research Associate on staff at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. He states, “It is considered likely that all the animal phyla became distinct before or during the Cambrian, for they all appear fully formed, without intermediates connecting one form to another.” Nothing more needs to be said, evolution is quite dead! This is one count in the creationists’ charge that can only evoke in unison from the paleontologists a plea of nolo contendere! As you know, or don’t, Nolo contendere is, of course, a guilty plea by a defendant who must admit that he has no defense. And it is now widely known that evolutionists, honest ones that is, are forced to admit this, and they do. Now, you and others can keep kicking the goad on this subject but, eventually your intellectual mind is going to bow down and admit evolution is IMPOSSIBLE! Why? Because it is! A truer statement from you would have been, but that is why, to the “scientifically educated Christian, evolution is so unacceptable!” Because this is exactly what the reality of current science (Christian or not) is finding and forcefully having to swallow, like it or not. The true and plain text of the Genesis account of history is exactly what the Hebrew language has stated. Nothing in the Hebrew language asserts this is any type of allegory. You would be hard pressed to prove otherwise! Good luck!

Now, as far as Origen is concerned, some of his teachings were condemned on an ecumenical council, but he as a person was not. The teachings that fathers found heretical from his discourse were:

The teaching of preexistence of the souls in God

The teaching about the “apokatastasis”, or final reconciliation of all created beings with God. Origen was a Platonist.

Now, as I’m sure you already know, but then again, perhaps you don’t, Apokatastasis (restoration) is a major patristic doctrine stemming from Greek philosophy and Jewish-Christian Scriptures. Ramelli argues for its presence and Christological and Biblical foundation in many Fathers, analyzing its meaning and development from the birth of Christianity to Eriugena. The problem here, is that when you stray away from the plain text of scripture, you are in danger of false heretical teachings. This is where Origen fell. So, you can reference him all you like, but when it comes to his teaching of preexistence of the souls in God, and the teaching about the “apokatastasis”, or final reconciliation of all created beings with God, you are forced to admit, it is in direct opposition of the true scriptures. Satan for example will not be saved, period! So, he is in direct violation of the scriptures! If you want to follow someone like this, be my guest, but you have been cuckolded. So basically, your allegiance to these teachings of Origen doesn’t mean a whole lot if your desire is to place your confidence in truth.

 

[He has Risen!]

Since Luke's account is clearly fictitious how does that help you? If one reads the Bible literally sooner or later one should realize that is calling God a liar.

Please explain how the fist century historian Luke has been writing in a fictitious manner when he clearly states at the begging of his narrative that he has carefully investigated what the eyewitness have said. He is writing his account with accurate knowledge in regards to geography as well as the historical figures and events of his time. He wrote "that we might know for certain''(Luke1:4).

 

[exchemist]

Here is a quick reference for you,
Church Fathers - Wikipedia

Eh? Where in this article is there any evidence, independent of the 2 sources we've already discussed, for the historical existence of Jesus?

It seems to be a list of the fathers of the church - a different topic entirely.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please explain how the fist century historian Luke has been writing in a fictitious manner when he clearly states at the begging of his narrative that he has carefully investigated what the eyewitness have said. He is writing his account with accurate knowledge in regards to geography as well as the historical figures and events of his time. He wrote "that we might know for certain''(Luke1:4).

Story tellers quite often use that literary tool. And you tell for it. You should be asking how we know that he was just a story teller.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are 3 known ways that we understand how something is made and they are 1.Chance; 2.Law; 3.Design so let us briefly look at all three...
1)Chance is the unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause. Some things are the cause of random processes occurring by chance, simple order not complex. Chance processes do not produce complex information.
2)Law is a formulation describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met (e.g.,the law of gravity). Other things are caused by regular predictable processes which can be formulated as laws of nature. (e.g., snowflakes, crystals) Laws do not bring about high content information order.
3)Design on the other hand is deliberate intention. Some things are the result of design like houses, cars, computers and books. Specified complexity/high content information order.
The more complex something is, the more reasonable explanation is that it was designed rather than happened by chance. When the famed atheist philosopher Antony Flew changed his mind about God, he stated that in keeping his lifelong commitment to go where the evidence leads, he now believed in the existence of a God. Antony Flew, C.S.Lewis, Mary Poplin and Joy Davidman, just to name a few former highly educated intellectual atheists who changed their mind about the existence of God when they looked in His direction.

Anthony Flew believed in a god when he died. He thought that the Christian version of God was fictional.

And your claim about "information" needs both a working definition of information and substantiation.

 

[Polymath257]

There are 3 known ways that we understand how something is made and they are 1.Chance; 2.Law; 3.Design so let us briefly look at all three...
1)Chance is the unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause. Some things are the cause of random processes occurring by chance, simple order not complex. Chance processes do not produce complex information.
2)Law is a formulation describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met (e.g.,the law of gravity). Other things are caused by regular predictable processes which can be formulated as laws of nature. (e.g., snowflakes, crystals) Laws do not bring about high content information order.
3)Design on the other hand is deliberate intention. Some things are the result of design like houses, cars, computers and books. Specified complexity/high content information order.
The more complex something is, the more reasonable explanation is that it was designed rather than happened by chance. When the famed atheist philosopher Antony Flew changed his mind about God, he stated that in keeping his lifelong commitment to go where the evidence leads, he now believed in the existence of a God. Antony Flew, C.S.Lewis, Mary Poplin and Joy Davidman, just to name a few former highly educated intellectual atheists who changed their mind about the existence of God when they looked in His direction.

The point is hat we know *laws* that increase complexity and thereby make the design scenario less likely. Having complexity, alone, is very far from proving design. And, in fact, it is often the *simplicity* of something that proves design. Complexity is a ready result of many physical processes (laws). This shows your claim that laws do not bring about high information content systems to be false.

 

[ecco]

For more outside sources please click on the link on my post #253

That is a link to a very long Wikipedia entry. Do you expect me to read through it all to find support for your argument? How does something like...

Cyril of Alexandria (c. 378 – 444) was the Bishop of Alexandria when the city was at its height of influence and power within the Roman Empire. Cyril wrote extensively and was a leading protagonist in the Christological controversies of the late 4th and early 5th centuries. He was a central figure in the First Council of Ephesus in 431, which led to the deposition of Nestorius as Archbishop of Constantinople. Cyril's reputation within the Christian world has resulted in his titles "Pillar of Faith" and "Seal of all the Fathers".​

...support your position?

If you want to use Wikipedia to support your argument - OK. But you have to be a lot more specific than just posting a link.

 

[ecco]

All I was saying is that when God created the earth and all life, he created it mature and fully functioning with the appearance of age due to the fact that plants and trees and all the creatures both on land and sea were in a mature state.

By your own logic you must admit that it is equally likely that everything was created 6000 years ago and that everything was created LastThursday.

How could you tell the difference?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

What about Jesus' genealogy that is traced back to Adam? Can a real person have Mythological people in his genealogy and still be considered an accurate and believable genealogy? Jesus has Adam, Noah, Abraham and King David in His line. At which point do you start having a real genealogy, and how can the reader know the difference? It is put there to show a very real pedigree.

Only real humans have a genealogy. If a historical Jesus really did exist, he would have a normal ancestry just like the rest of us. Although, the independent evidence does suggest that a historical Jesus had two fathers, with different names. This would suggest that there are two historical Jesus being referenced. One, was the son of a carpenter, and the other the son of a Jewish Priest. You need to establish objectively that your premises are true, before you can make the above assumption.

Of course there is a big difference between a historical human Jesus, and the claim that the historical Jesus is the son of a God. If he truly is a son of a God, well then anything is possible. But merely creating a faulty premise to support a self-serving conclusion is unfortunately an obvious fallacy. The Bible is far too errant and inaccurate to ever be considered as a reliable source of historical truths. The Bible is simply a foreign book of fictitious stories and superstitions, designed to entertain children, and control the minds of Bronze and Iron Age peasants. It is a book written by man, edited by man, compiled by man, and contracted by man. Even the true authors writing many of the the texts(books), still remain unknown or obscure.

 

[ecco]

First, even evolutionary scientists, honest ones, admit that evolutionary processes to explain origins of life on this planet is impossible!

Please show a quote from an honest evolutionary scientist that admits that attempts to explain origins of life on this planet are impossible!

Not only that but the more science understands about life, the more it bends its knee to the scriptures.

Examples?

 

[ecco]

Are they finding what is needing to support evolution? Absolutely NOT! Douglas Futuyma an evolutionist and ardent anti-creationist is a Distinguished Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at Stony Brook University in Stony Brook, New York and a Research Associate on staff at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. He states, “It is considered likely that all the animal phyla became distinct before or during the Cambrian, for they all appear fully formed, without intermediates connecting one form to another.” Nothing more needs to be said, evolution is quite dead!

Thank you for providing yet one more piece of evidence showing the dishonesty of the Creationist Camp.

One long known and often used tactic is to make out of context quotes.

Above you quoted Douglas Futuyma “It is considered likely that all the animal phyla became distinct before or during the Cambrian, for they all appear fully formed, without intermediates connecting one form to another.” And concluded: Nothing more needs to be said, evolution is quite dead!


This quote is repeated on many Creo websites. I suppose it plays well with creos who just accept it as proof that even a "Distinguished Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution" doesn't believe in evolution.

In point of fact, Futuyma is an outspoke critic of creationists.




Here is a partial review of his book Evolution.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273029300_Evolution_Second_Edition_Douglas_J_Futuyma

But to this pantheon have been
added pieces that Darwin did not have at hand:
the synthesis, heterochrony, allometry, tectonics,
radiometric dating, and especially genetics and evo-
devo—not to mention lucid armories for the fight
against creationism and other anti-intellectual forces
that would find the scholarly mass of the rest of the
book an affront to their misguided sensitivities.
Futuyma deftly covers the issues of why “creation
science” is oxymoronic, and how it squeezes itself into
new shapes to confound and confuse those not yet
equipped to evaluate the difference between fact,
theory, science and ideological obfuscation. The book
is worth every penny for this alone.​

 

[ecco]

...C.S.Lewis, ... just to name a few former highly educated intellectual atheists who changed their mind about the existence of God when they looked in His direction.

Return to Christianity
Lewis was raised in a religious family that attended the Church of Ireland. He became an atheist at age 15, though he later described his young self as being paradoxically "angry with God for not existing".[39] His early separation from Christianity began when he started to view his religion as a chore and a duty; around this time, he also gained an interest in the occult, as his studies expanded to include such topics.[40] Lewis quoted Lucretius (De rerum natura, 5.198–9) as having one of the strongest arguments for atheism:[41]

*The argument from poor design, also known as the dysteleological argument, is an argument against the existence of a creator God, based on the reasoning that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God would not create organisms with the perceived suboptimal designs that can be seen in nature.

​

Being angry with God is not indicative of atheism. Viewing religion as a chore and a duty is not indicative of atheism. Being interested in the occult is not indicative of atheism. Being upset with God's design capabilities is not indicative of atheism.

 

[He has Risen!]

Story tellers quite often use that literary tool. And you tell for it. You should be asking how we know that he was just a story teller.

William Ramsay was known for his careful attention to New Testament events, particularly the Book of Acts and Pauline Epistles. When he first went to Asia Minor, many of the cities mentioned in Acts had no known location and almost nothing was known of their detailed history or politics. The Acts of the Apostles was the only record and Ramsay, skeptical, fully expected his own research to prove the author of Acts hopelessly inaccurate since no man could possibly know the details of Asia Minor more than a hundred years after the event—this is, when Acts was then supposed to have been written. He therefore set out to put the writer of Acts on trial. He devoted his life to unearthing the ancient cities and documents of Asia Minor. After a lifetime of study, however, he concluded: 'Further study … showed that the book could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement' (The Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 85). On page 89 of the same book, Ramsay accounted, 'I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it there [in Acts]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment...'
When Ramsay turned his attention to Paul's letters, most of which the critics dismissed as forgeries, he concluded that all thirteen New Testament letters that claimed to have been written by Paul were authentic. William Mitchell Ramsay - Wikipedia

Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, FBA (15 March 1851 – 20 April 1939) was a Scottish archaeologist and New Testament scholar. By his death in 1939 he had become the foremost authority of his day on the history of Asia Minor and a leading scholar in the study of the New Testament. Although Ramsay was educated in the Tübingen school of thought (founded by F. C. Baur) which doubted the reliability of the New Testament, his extensive archaeological and historical studies convinced him of the historical accuracy of the New Testament.[1] From the post of Professor of Classical Art and Architecture at Oxford, he was appointed Regius Professor of Humanity (the Latin Professorship) at Aberdeen. Knighted in 1906 to mark his distinguished service to the world of scholarship, Ramsay also gained three honorary fellowships from Oxford colleges, nine honorary doctorates from British, Continental and North American universities and became an honorary member of almost every association devoted to archaeology and historical research. He was one of the original members of the British Academy, was awarded the Gold Medal of Pope Leo XIII in 1893 and the Victorian Medal of the Royal Geographical Society in 1906.

 

[He has Risen!]

Of course there is a big difference between a historical human Jesus, and the claim that the historical Jesus is the son of a God. If he truly is a son of a God, well then anything is possible.

This is "The Greatest Question We Should Investigate...Who Is Jesus?"
Read John chapter 1 to find out.

 

[He has Risen!]

That is a link to a very long Wikipedia entry. Do you expect me to read through it all to find support for your argument? How does something like...

Cyril of Alexandria (c. 378 – 444) was the Bishop of Alexandria when the city was at its height of influence and power within the Roman Empire. Cyril wrote extensively and was a leading protagonist in the Christological controversies of the late 4th and early 5th centuries. He was a central figure in the First Council of Ephesus in 431, which led to the deposition of Nestorius as Archbishop of Constantinople. Cyril's reputation within the Christian world has resulted in his titles "Pillar of Faith" and "Seal of all the Fathers".​

...support your position?

If you want to use Wikipedia to support your argument - OK. But you have to be a lot more specific than just posting a link.

No, I did not expect you to read it...although I hoped you would read it and look into the references it shows for yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

William Ramsay was known for his careful attention to New Testament events, particularly the Book of Acts and Pauline Epistles. When he first went to Asia Minor, many of the cities mentioned in Acts had no known location and almost nothing was known of their detailed history or politics. The Acts of the Apostles was the only record and Ramsay, skeptical, fully expected his own research to prove the author of Acts hopelessly inaccurate since no man could possibly know the details of Asia Minor more than a hundred years after the event—this is, when Acts was then supposed to have been written. He therefore set out to put the writer of Acts on trial. He devoted his life to unearthing the ancient cities and documents of Asia Minor. After a lifetime of study, however, he concluded: 'Further study … showed that the book could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement' (The Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 85). On page 89 of the same book, Ramsay accounted, 'I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it there [in Acts]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment...'
When Ramsay turned his attention to Paul's letters, most of which the critics dismissed as forgeries, he concluded that all thirteen New Testament letters that claimed to have been written by Paul were authentic. William Mitchell Ramsay - Wikipedia

Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, FBA (15 March 1851 – 20 April 1939) was a Scottish archaeologist and New Testament scholar. By his death in 1939 he had become the foremost authority of his day on the history of Asia Minor and a leading scholar in the study of the New Testament. Although Ramsay was educated in the Tübingen school of thought (founded by F. C. Baur) which doubted the reliability of the New Testament, his extensive archaeological and historical studies convinced him of the historical accuracy of the New Testament.[1] From the post of Professor of Classical Art and Architecture at Oxford, he was appointed Regius Professor of Humanity (the Latin Professorship) at Aberdeen. Knighted in 1906 to mark his distinguished service to the world of scholarship, Ramsay also gained three honorary fellowships from Oxford colleges, nine honorary doctorates from British, Continental and North American universities and became an honorary member of almost every association devoted to archaeology and historical research. He was one of the original members of the British Academy, was awarded the Gold Medal of Pope Leo XIII in 1893 and the Victorian Medal of the Royal Geographical Society in 1906.

All that Ramsay did was to verify the geography of Acts, not the history of it. Meanwhile history does refute the nativity in Luke.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I did not expect you to read it...although I hoped you would read it and look into the references it shows for yourself.

It is best to at least quote one passage from a source that supports your claims. Though I know when I am using a tablet that can be rather difficult. He did read at least part of the article. Since you did not quote anything specific he did more than his share of the work there. He did not totally ignore your link.

 

[He has Risen!]

The point is hat we know *laws* that increase complexity and thereby make the design scenario less likely. Having complexity, alone, is very far from proving design. And, in fact, it is often the *simplicity* of something that proves design. Complexity is a ready result of many physical processes (laws). This shows your claim that laws do not bring about high information content systems to be false.

For example, what laws can you point to that can produce the information you find in DNA? Laws such as Gregor Mendel discovered help us to understand DNA better and have shown themselves to be Laws that do not support evolution, even though the article I am referencing claims that it does but does not show were evolution has anything to do with these laws.Mendelian inheritance - Wikipedia