Re: Genesis 1:1-3

Home Forums Re: Genesis 1:1-3

r m

Kim, I believe you only truly examine the creationist literature because you seem to regurgitate the mistakes that have been handed down through them for years; a misunderstanding of evolution, a misunderstanding of 2LT, a misunderstanding of Mechanical Conservation of Energy, etc. etc.

Since you have read Darwin, why don’t you tell me what he said directly after the quote you offered? Or, did you get that quote from creationist literature? The quotes you have from Gould, Socrates and Confucius, do they come from Gould, Plato (or any of the other authors who penned dialogues with Socrates) and Confucius, or do they come from Apologists? Let’s do a little experiment:

“I think Christianity has some wonderful things to offer. However, I do not think it is plausible, or that there is any evidence, to think or support any conclusion in agreement with a literal translation of the Bible including ressurections, etc.”

– Ryan

If one were so inclined, they could easily misquote this by omitting everything past the first sentence, which would completely alter the meaning and intent of the statement:

“I think Christianity has some wonderful things to offer.”

– Ryan

So, once again, please tell me what Darwin said directly after the quote you have offered. A lot of things seem absurd until we explain them.

Another quote you may be interested in dealing with absurdity from the early church father Tertullian regarding the concept of Christianity as a whole:

“Credo quia absurdum est.”

“I believe it because it is absurd.”

Kierkegaard thought Christianity absurd, too.

There is plenty of scientific factual support. Look into it!

What sources? Are they creationists who have given themselves their own degrees (like ICR)? Are they creationists who don’t have any advanced degree in science? Name them, please.

But, let me ask you this: has anyone ever seen an atom? How can you be sure that an atom works exactly as science says when no one has ever been able to “see” one? Yet, we all go on the scientific assumption that an atom is precisely how science supposes. Science is FULL of conjecture, yet I pose evidence and it is not good enough for you. Stop putting your faith in blind supposition.

No. No one has seen an atom because they’re constantly moving (see Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). However, their motion is known and therefore their workings can be predicted with an extremely high degree of accuracy (how do you think nucleur technology works?). Calling science ‘blind faith’ is a dishonest attempt at bringing science down to the level of religion, a level that it doesn’t belong at; science is testable and reproducible, religion is not, faith is not.

The evidence that this earth was created FAR OUTWEIGHS the alternative.

I have not seen anything from a reputable source. I checked up on some of the sources you presented and none of them could even remotely be considered authorities in science (one had a bachelor’s degree in physics). Creationism has been deemed not scientific in any way, shape or form by the Supreme Court and most of their proponents have given themselves worthless ‘degrees’. Why should I place any efficacy whatsoever in such sources when the contradict reputable sources who have advanced doctoral degrees from real schools and offer testable, reproducible results and evidence to support their theories? Show me how this idea of a ‘firmament’ is testable?

I cannot debate with you if you are not willing to lay down the guns and start taking a serious look. I have! It’s your turn.

I have. I am familiar with virtually every one of the creationist misunderstandings, and I have tried to explain the errors to you.

Let’s back up to your notion that science and evolution are blind faith without supporting evidence. What, exactly, would be the point or benefit in me believing it if there was no evidence to support it? The same question posed against religion and creationism is easily answered: you think you will get some reward for thinking the way you do. So who has the motive to believe without evidence, indeed, regardless of the evidence? I completely see the point in you doing it, but I’m having a little difficulty identifying why you think I would do it?

screen tagSupport1