• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do creationists have anything new?

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Let me just ask. So what?

I am not a Christian. I am an atheist. I don't believe in anything you stated. I don't believe in an all-powerful deity.

Is that clear?[/QUOTE

Then stop referring to the Bible as being not actually.
Let me just ask. So what?

I am not a Christian. I am an atheist. I don't believe in anything you stated. I don't believe in an all-powerful deity.

Is that clear?[/QUOTE

Ok so your an Atheist, you say don't believe in any that I said. Ok
God does know everything, though. And I know Him. That's good enough.
God does know everything, though. And I know Him. That's good enough.


Yeah sure you know God, if to what you say, that you know God, then please do tell.

God given in the book of Revelation many Prophecy's, What is the last Prophecy that God gave in the book of Revelation.

That when this last Prophecy in the book of Revelation happens Christ Jesus returns.

Now Remember you said you know God, so how much do you really know God.

Do you know God enough to know what the last Prophecy is in the book of Revelation, that when this last Prophecy happens Christ Jesus returns.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Take the dinosaurs bones, which are dated to be around to Millions to Billions of years old.
But because christians are taught, that the earth is only 6000 yrs old, and the dinosaurs bones does not fit into their equation, the Christians goes on the attack.
Not realizing that God's word does indeed support that the earth is alot older than 6000 years old.
And everyone else, including yourself, will run with it, but still you can't figure how something that is Millions to Billions of years old, how does this fit into the earth as being 6000 years old?

That's because your running with what christians are being taught by their pastors and not what God teaches in his word.

You as a anthropologist, should know this, that you can not take something that Millions to Billions of years old and to fit into 6000 years old, it just will not fit or work.
Back when I was in the 8th and 9th grade science class's, when I first heard about the dinosaurs bones, that started me down the road to question what I was taught in the church about the earth is only 6000 years old.
I would ask myself, how does this work or fit with the dinosaurs bones that are dated to be Millions to Billions of years old.

That here on one side you have Christians and the other you scientist, one claiming one thing and then on the other one claiming another thing.

So I would reason this inside of myself, who's right and who's wrong. This lead me to only one who would and have the answers to all of this that is God in his word.
And behold, it's all there about that first earth age, of where the dinosaurs bones came from and alot of other things that are found here in the earth.

But what I would like you to do with all your expertise show how to fit Millions to Billions of years into 6000 years?

If you can do that maybe I will listen to what your trying to say?

Study up a bit, Faithofchristian.

Dinosaurs have not been around for billions of years.

In total, dinosaurs have flourished for about 135 millions years, starting from the beginning of the Triassic period, 231 million years ago, till the end of Cretaceous period, 66 million years ago.

The earliest Homo sapiens humans was dated around only 200,000 years ago.

As to the 6000 years, that come from calculating the reigns of kings of Judah, backward from the known historical date of capturing Jerusalem and destruction of the temple in 587 or 586 BCE, and generations of Genesis, down to Adam's creation.

1 Kings 6:1 give us the clue when Solomon's 4th year (c 967 BCE), it was 480 years to Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt (1447 BCE).

While Exodus 12:40-41 give us 430 years from exodus to Abraham's covenant (Genesis 15), shortly before Ishmael was born (1877 BCE); Abraham would be about 85 then.

So Abraham would be born in 1962 BCE.

Then you can use Genesis 5 and 11, to calculate the years between Adam's creation to Abraham's birth, which come up to 1948 AM (Anno Mundi).

So 1962 BCE + 1948 years = 3910 BCE for time of Adam's creation.

And that's how you would get 6000 years, when rounding it up.

But of course, I think all Genesis and Exodus are myths, so the numbers are really meaningless, because these events (creation, flood, Tower of Babel, the 3 patriarchs, Moses and invasion of Canaan) are not historical.

Edit:

(I think the main problem with calculating the timeline between Genesis and Exodus, is how you would interpret this passage, Exodus 12:40-41.

Put it too late, like when Jacob arrived in Egypt, that would mean Jochebed, daughter of Levi and mother of Moses, would have to be at least 261 years old (if not older) when she gave birth to Moses.

Put the date to Abraham's covenant, would mean she would be at least 56 years old (if not older) when she gave birth to Moses. Genesis never tell us how old Levi was when Jochebed was born, except there is a possibility that she was born in Egypt...we just don't know when she was born.)
 
Last edited:

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Study up a bit, Faithofchristian.

Dinosaurs have not been around for billions of years.

In total, dinosaurs have flourished for about 135 millions years, starting from the beginning of the Triassic period, 231 million years ago, till the end of Cretaceous period, 66 million years ago.

The earliest Homo sapiens humans was dated around only 200,000 years ago.

As to the 6000 years, that come from calculating the reigns of kings of Judah, backward from the known historical date of capturing Jerusalem and destruction of the temple in 587 or 586 BCE, and generations of Genesis, down to Adam's creation.

1 Kings 6:1 give us the clue when Solomon's 4th year (c 967 BCE), it was 480 years to Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt (1447 BCE).

While Exodus 12:40-41 give us 430 years from exodus to Abraham's covenant (Genesis 15), shortly before Ishmael was born (1877 BCE); Abraham would be about 85 then.

So Abraham would be born in 1962 BCE.

Then you can use Genesis 5 and 11, to calculate the years between Adam's creation to Abraham's birth, which come up to 1948 AM (Anno Mundi).

So 1962 BCE + 1948 years = 3910 BCE for time of Adam's creation.

And that's how you would get 6000 years, when rounding it up.

But of course, I think all Genesis and Exodus are myths, so the numbers are really meaningless, because these events (creation, flood, Tower of Babel, the 3 patriarchs, Moses and invasion of Canaan) are not historical.

Edit:

(I think the main problem with calculating the timeline between Genesis and Exodus, is how you would interpret this passage, Exodus 12:40-41.

Put it too late, like when Jacob arrived in Egypt, that would mean Jochebed, daughter of Levi and mother of Moses, would have to be at least 261 years old (if not older) when she gave birth to Moses.

Put the date to Abraham's covenant, would mean she would be at least 56 years old (if not older) when she gave birth to Moses. Genesis never tell us how old Levi was when Jochebed was born, except there is a possibility that she was born in Egypt...we just don't know when she was born.)


I don't know what your trying to prove with all that. Since it has nothing to with the conversation that was being spoken about.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't know what your trying to prove with all that. Since it has nothing to with the conversation that was being spoken about.

Of course it does. It is relevant to your understanding of both science and what the Bible says.

People who don't believe can still read the Bible and understand what it says. They simply don't *believe* what it says.

At the very least, you have been loose with your facts. You have misunderstood the process of mountain building and how it relates to the Biblical flood story. You have mentioned carbon dating in relationship to dinosaurs. You have described dinosaurs as being around 'Millions or Billions' of years.

At the very least, this shows a lack of understanding of very basic facts and a propensity to argue based on that misunderstanding. It would probably be a good idea for you to first *research* your claims before making them.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Of course it does. It is relevant to your understanding of both science and what the Bible says.

People who don't believe can still read the Bible and understand what it says. They simply don't *believe* what it says.

At the very least, you have been loose with your facts. You have misunderstood the process of mountain building and how it relates to the Biblical flood story. You have mentioned carbon dating in relationship to dinosaurs. You have described dinosaurs as being around 'Millions or Billions' of years.

At the very least, this shows a lack of understanding of very basic facts and a propensity to argue based on that misunderstanding. It would probably be a good idea for you to first *research* your claims before making them.


Your to funny, if to what you say, is right, that a person who does not believe can still read the Bible and understand what it says.
Ok According to the bible, how many floods of water came upon the earth.

Remember you said, that even if a person do not believe can still read the Bible and understand what it says, So According to the bible how many floods of water were there to come upon the earth?

You stated it now prove what you say.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Your to funny, if to what you say, is right, that a person who does not believe can still read the Bible and understand what it says.
Ok According to the bible, how many floods of water came upon the earth.

Remember you said, that even if a person do not believe can still read the Bible and understand what it says, So According to the bible how many floods of water were there to come upon the earth?

You stated it now prove what you say.

Well, there was the flood of Noah. That is the one most commonly referred to. God claims that will be the last flood.

You can push it and claim that the 'darkness on the face of the deep' was another flood and dry land appeared after that. That doesn't particularly work because God is supposed to have separated the 'waters' into those above and those below the firmament. Also, since it was 'in the beginning', it fails to be a flood that 'comes upon' the Earth as opposed to the Earth rising out of the waters.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Well, there was the flood of Noah. That is the one most commonly referred to. God claims that will be the last flood.

You can push it and claim that the 'darkness on the face of the deep' was another flood and dry land appeared after that. That doesn't particularly work because God is supposed to have separated the 'waters' into those above and those below the firmament. Also, since it was 'in the beginning', it fails to be a flood that 'comes upon' the Earth as opposed to the Earth rising out of the waters.

But you haven't explain as to where that water came to be upon the earth or why it's there. Something happened that caused the water there to cover the earth.

Now Notice in Genesis 1:2 that the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Now Notice in Verse 9 and God said let the waters be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear and it was so.
Therefore water was covering the whole earth, for the dry land to appear out of the water.
Now Notice in Verse 10 - And called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters Seas.

Therefore God gathered all the water and called them seas.Therefore the earth was covered over by water.

Notice this was way before the flood of Noah's, for Noah was not born yet, nor was Adam and Eve came to be yet or anything else.
Now the question is? What caused or what happened for the water to cover the earth.

And do not say God made the earth and then covered it with water, and then make the dry land appear, Why not do that in the first place, instead of covering the earth with water, then turn around and have the dry land appear.
Look when God made the earth it was dry land to begin with, so why not just put the water in it's rightful place as it is now, than go to that trouble of covering the earth with water, then have the dry appear. When the earth was already dry land to begin with?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
But you haven't explain as to where that water came to be upon the earth or why it's there. Something happened that caused the water there to cover the earth.

And you didn't ask about that.

Now Notice in Genesis 1:2 that the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Now Notice in Verse 9 and God said let the waters be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear and it was so.
Therefore water was covering the whole earth, for the dry land to appear out of the water.
Now Notice in Verse 10 - And called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters Seas.

Therefore God gathered all the water and called them seas.Therefore the earth was covered over by water.

Remember that in many ancient societies (and even ancient philosophies) water was the basic form of matter. They would have seen the Earth as being formed out of the water.

Notice this was way before the flood of Noah's, for Noah was not born yet, nor was Adam and Eve came to be yet or anything else.
Now the question is? What caused or what happened for the water to cover the earth.

And do not say God made the earth and then covered it with water, and then make the dry land appear, Why not do that in the first place, instead of covering the earth with water, then turn around and have the dry land appear.

If the Earth was formed *from* the water, or under the water, this objection goes away.

Look when God made the earth it was dry land to begin with, so why not just put the water in it's rightful place as it is now, than go to that trouble of covering the earth with water, then have the dry appear. When the earth was already dry land to begin with?

You will have to ask the writers of this story.

And that is the point. This is a *story*. It is NOT history. To ask for reasonable consistency is to ask for more than a story of this type can deliver.

So, my basic question for all of this is: so what? Why should I care what the Bible says about any of this?

Is there *any* evidence that the Biblical story as understood by you or anyone else is even remotely consistent with the facts?

And the answer is: NO.

There was no global flood. And there certainly were not two. Which means you are attempting to reconcile fiction with the actual historical facts. it won't work.
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
bold empty claim


Another bold empty claim snowballing off the previous bold empty claim


for you perhaps.
For those of us who are not so intellectually dishonest, not so much.

You're quite the cynicist. What makes you so sure I'm wrong about any of my claims? You don't even know me, how can you be so sure?
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
You're quite the cynicist. What makes you so sure I'm wrong about any of my claims? You don't even know me, how can you be so sure?
When did I say or even imply that your bold empty claims were anything other than bold empty claims?

YOU are the one assuming that they are wrong, not me.
I am merely pointing out that they are bold empty claims.
Why?
Cause you presented them as facts.
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
When did I say or even imply that your bold empty claims were anything other than bold empty claims?

YOU are the one assuming that they are wrong, not me.
I am merely pointing out that they are bold empty claims.
Why?
Cause you presented them as facts.

They are facts. You don't believe them but that doesn't mean they aren't truth.

You're saying that they are bold empty claims implies you think they're just something I'm lying about.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
They are facts.
No, they are not.
They are nothing more than your beliefs.

You don't believe them but that doesn't mean they aren't truth.
Your believing them as fact does not make them fact.

You're saying that they are bold empty claims implies you think they're just something I'm lying about.
My saying they are bold empty claims is because they are bold empty claims.
your belief they are facts does not make them facts.
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
No, they are not.
They are nothing more than your beliefs.


Your believing them as fact does not make them fact.


My saying they are bold empty claims is because they are bold empty claims.
your belief they are facts does not make them facts.

Okay, fair enough. Good day to you.
 

RESOLUTION

Active Member
*yawn*
still waiting for you to actually address what I am inquiring about.
EXCUSES...You were asked to address first evasion shows lack of knowledge on your part. Don't have to reread the thread to know you and I and everyone else knows you are the one who is making up excuses.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I don't know what your trying to prove with all that. Since it has nothing to with the conversation that was being spoken about.

I am just showing how it is possible to calculate the timeline of the bible, to get the 6000 years old, from reading Old Testament, and cal ting backward from a known historical date (eg Fall of Jerusalem in 587 or 586 BCE).

I am not saying timeline is accurate, but there are sources where time can be calculated.

This is of course based on the translations of the Hebrew Masoretic Text, which is what most English-speaking in the west (KJV, NRSV, NASB, NIV, etc).

If I was from Greek Orthodox Church, then the timeline would be pushed further in time, using the Greek Septuagint manuscripts. And if I was a Samaritan, the Samaritan Torah would give me a shorter timeframe for creation.

All I am saying, that about 6000 years didn't come from nowhere.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
I am just showing how it is possible to calculate the timeline of the bible, to get the 6000 years old, from reading Old Testament, and cal ting backward from a known historical date (eg Fall of Jerusalem in 587 or 586 BCE)

I am not saying timeline is accurate, but there are sources where time can be calculated.

This is of course based on the translations of the Hebrew Masoretic Text, which is what most English-speaking in the west (KJV, NRSV, NASB, NIV, etc).

If I was from Greek Orthodox Church, then the timeline would be pushed further in time, using the Greek Septuagint manuscripts. And if I was a Samaritan, the Samaritan Torah would give me a shorter timeframe for creation.

All I am saying, that about 6000 years didn't come from nowhere.

Well first of all, seeing you have no clue as to where the NIV, NASB, NRSV, came from, those books came from the Roman Catholic Church, because the KJV gave people to be able to read the scriptures in their own language. So the Roman Catholic Church to counter this, the Roman Catholic Church came up with their own Bible's, which is the NIV,NRSV, NASB, versions of the bible.to which the Roman Catholic Church put their own interpretations into those books.
Which the KJV did not do, king James took well known Scholars that all knew Greek and Hebrew Languages, it took them 7 yrs or more to complete the old and new testaments.
Which we have the 1611 KJV, which is the top selling book of all times.

Also for the 6000 yrs, that all came by people taking Genesis 1:1 out of it's context and applying it to the creation week. Which it does not fit into.
 

12jtartar

Active Member
Premium Member
I've been (in various ways) interacting with creationists for over 20 years now. Part of doing that included reading up on the history of creationism and the people who advocate it, so I consider myself to be pretty well versed in creationism and the arguments its adherents put forth. But in looking over the threads here and the discussions therein, something stands out to me......while the creationists who show up and argue for creationism may change over time, the actual arguments they make don't. IOW, the cast changes, but script remains the same.

I've seen many of my fellow science defenders express frustration and/or boredom with how this all goes, where a set of creationists will show up, make a set of arguments, we counter them, and those creationists eventually leave only to be replaced by a new set of creationists who make the same arguments all over again.

Just today I see Guy T. argue that if something isn't experimentally reproduced, it's not science. I've been seeing that sort of ignorant argument from various creationists for years.

I see Deeje saying there are no transitional fossils and making claims about "kinds". Again, I'm sure most of us science defenders have heard that from creationists countless times.

The creationist argument that evolutionary theory is facing "imminent demise" is ridiculed as "the longest running falsehood in creationism", because it can be traced back to 1825! Yet creationists still repeat it today (e.g., the "Dissent from Darwin" list).

For the creationists, I have to ask a couple of things. First, do you even realize that these tired old arguments and talking points have had absolutely zero impact on science? Creationists have been making claims about transitional fossils for over a century, and what impact have they had on paleontology? None. So what exactly do you think will change by repeating them yet again?

Finally.....do you have any new arguments? As noted above, none of your old arguments have impacted science in any way at all, so do you keep repeating them simply because you have nothing else?

Jose Fly,
Since I am not a scientist, I am not going to argue with you about science. If you are truly interested in learning whether creation or evolution is correct, I suggest that you go on You Tube and consider what David Pack has to offer about the two. He presents many facts from science, and it seems, that many scientists are now leaving the Theory of Evolution, because of the study of DNA. It seems that the information contained in the cells of one person would fill enough books to fill the Grand Canyon 18 times. Not only is that remarkable, but the information is capable of being read by scientists. Even they say this is impossible for evolution, that a Superior mind had these things written, and that if Darwin was alive today, he would be the first to admit that evolution is not a scientific fact, not even a logical theory. Many scientists are saying that it now takes much more faith to believe in evolution, when there is absolutely no proof, than Creation, which has a Bible, full of proof, and True Science on Creation's side of the argument.
 

12jtartar

Active Member
Premium Member
And it's the undecided who the converted are afraid will be convinced by science. Hence the attempts by the converted to denigrate the findings of science where evolution is concerned. But alas, as Jose Fly points out, their attempted denigrations have zero impact on the findings of science.


If you actually understood science you'd know that their claims seldom come without "proof." And this is because most of them are couched in terms that allow for revision and disproof. So, any "proof" would not extend any further than the limits of the claim, which often take the stated or unstated qualifying form of: "It appears," As far as known," or "According to our research." It's only the foolish and uneducated who presume that science purposely leads people to think it's infallible. And, of course, creationists sometimes claim just this in their effort to mislead the ignorant: pretending (lying) that science has all the answers and then mock them for it. The straw-man argument is a well honed weapon in the creationist's arsenal, and they delight in using it.


You need new arguments because all the others have failed. You can't make a convincing case for creationism on its own grounds so you seek to make it on the grounds of science. It presumes that by showing science to be wrong creationism wins by default. Besides not being the case at all, creationists have NOT shown science to be wrong when it comes to evolution.


Gotta say, attempting to make an argument based on one's ignorance is amusing, but not at all unusual, and quite in keeping with creationist conceit. And while it may convince those ignorant of the facts, statements like these sometimes make those of us who know better want to bury our heads in disbelief and disgust.


Well they're certainly meant to impact the truths of science in the minds of fence sitting Christians.


.
Skim,
I don't know if you have considered a point that would make me a little more open to Creation. It seems to me that you are calling the Almighty a lier, because He said that He Created the heavens and the earth, and all the things in it, Genesis 1:1, Isaiah 45:18, Acts 17:24-28, Revelation 4:11. It is not very wise to put your great knowledge before the Omnescient God, Job 40:2,8, 36:4, Isaiah 55:8,9, 1Corinthians 3:19,20, Romans 1:18-20.
You seem to be a very brave person!!!
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Jose Fly,
Since I am not a scientist, I am not going to argue with you about science. If you are truly interested in learning whether creation or evolution is correct, I suggest that you go on You Tube and consider what David Pack has to offer about the two. He presents many facts from science, and it seems, that many scientists are now leaving the Theory of Evolution, because of the study of DNA. It seems that the information contained in the cells of one person would fill enough books to fill the Grand Canyon 18 times. Not only is that remarkable, but the information is capable of being read by scientists. Even they say this is impossible for evolution, that a Superior mind had these things written, and that if Darwin was alive today, he would be the first to admit that evolution is not a scientific fact, not even a logical theory. Many scientists are saying that it now takes much more faith to believe in evolution, when there is absolutely no proof, than Creation, which has a Bible, full of proof, and True Science on Creation's side of the argument.
I am a scientist and the video is propagating blatant lies. 99% of all scientists consider evolution to be very well established and DNA is one of the most important sources of evidence of evolution. I can discuss the science if you are interested.
 
Top