Creationism Evidence

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=Darwin’s Finch]
You left out a few impotant details.

Genesis 1:11-12: plants are created
Genesis 1:14-17: light is created
Genesis 1:20-21: sea creatures (including whales) and birds are created
Genesis 1:24-25: land creatures are created

The only things that sequence got right is that light did come before animals, and that many sea creatures showed up before land creatures (but not whales by a long shot; heck, whales are younger than birds).

And then, there’s this:

Genesis 2:7: God creates Man
Genesis 2:9: God creates plants
Genseis 2:19: God creates land animals and birds
Genesis 2:22: God creates Woman

There’s pretty much nothing about that sequence that agrees with our current understanding, and it doesn’t even agree with the sequence in Genesis 1!
[/QUOTE]
I’ve heard this argument quite a lot, but I don’t think it’s a very sound or strong one. Gen 1:11-12 is about the creation of plants, yes, but Gen 2:8-9 is about the planting of a garden - it’s not necessarily the same event. It’s the same with the animals; Gen 1:24-25 is about them being created, Gen 2:19 is about the animals being brought into the presence of Adam for him to name them.

Gen 2:19 says

Now, I’m not trying to argue that genesis represents any kind of accurate scientific description of how things came to be at all, I just think the ‘two different creation accounts’ argument is at best rather weak, and possibly entirely false.

42

[QUOTE=Cegstar]
Why does are (sic) planet have a practically perfect gravity?
[/QUOTE]
Ah, this can only be answered by Mormonism and eternal progression. The first few dozen planets God created had gravity which was completely screwed up. The worst case was when when His contractors got it backwards and the plants, animals and man were pushed off. Then there was the debacle where gravity was concentrated at the poles and everyone froze. Finally, it’s practically perfect.

Earth, a planet with a practically perfect gravity. [sup]TM[/sup]

43

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
I’ve heard this argument quite a lot, but I don’t think it’s a very sound or strong one. Gen 1:11-12 is about the creation of plants, yes, but Gen 2:8-9 is about the planting of a garden - it’s not necessarily the same event. It’s the same with the animals; Gen 1:24-25 is about them being created, Gen 2:19 is about the animals being brought into the presence of Adam for him to name them.

Gen 2:19 says

Now, I’m not trying to argue that genesis represents any kind of accurate scientific description of how things came to be at all, I just think the ‘two different creation accounts’ argument is at best rather weak, and possibly entirely false.
[/QUOTE]

Ultimately, it depends on what the definition and/or intent of “of the field” is/was. One might argue that it represents only cultivated plants (and domesticated animals), in which case the formation in Gen 2 might be a fanciful presentation of the growth of agriculture or something. However, there is still a problem with that:

“Every beast of the field” might be dismissed as meaning only domesticated beasts were created at this time, but “every fowl of the air” follows the same “of the” sentence construction, and is quite a bit more general. “Every fowl of the air” seems synonymous to “all birds” to me. And if the author were being general in the case of birds, I don’t think it’s an unwarranted assumption that the author was likewise being general in the case of plants and beasts.

Granted, it’s a translation, and it’s usualy the case that something gets lost in translation, but as relatively few Christians and/or Creatonists have likely read Genesis in Hebrew, if they can base their interpetation of creation on the English version, then it’s equally valid to use that version to counter it.

There’s also the interpretive glitch between the version of 2:19 you presented ("Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground ") vs the one shown in the quote above (“And out of the ground the LORD God formed”). Each of these versions supports a different temporal interpretation to the events described. Note, also, that both translations refer to “all the birds of the air”.

44

Okay, you guys did a great job of explaining lots. Much appreciated. :slight_smile:

I have a question for you. When did the first recorded civilization come into being. Was it really that long ago?
Besides I don’t understand how someone can use “carbon dating” to find out when a being made a sharp rock… that rock has always been around… besides a rock is not a living thing… correct me if i am wrong but doesnt carbon dating only work if something was living and then died? i’ve been wondering about this lately… care to enlighten me?
One more thing. Could you please explain how something comes out of nothing?

45

[QUOTE=Cegstar]
Okay, you guys did a great job of explaining lots. Much appreciated. :slight_smile:

I have a question for you. When did the first recorded civilization come into being. Was it really that long ago?
Besides I don’t understand how someone can use “carbon dating” to find out when a being made a sharp rock.. that rock has always been around.. besides a rock is not a living thing.. correct me if i am wrong but doesnt carbon dating only work if something was living and then died? i’ve been wondering about this lately… care to enlighten me?
One more thing. Could you please explain how something comes out of nothing?
[/QUOTE]

Here’s a question for you-Are you going to do anything more on this message board than post ill-thought out questions to which you eventually respond,“Gee, thanks for responding, and here’s another ill-thought out question!”
Why don’t we just stick with the original question. Do you agree or disagree with what has been stated in this thread that you started? Why or why not?

46

[Quote=Cegstar]
One more thing. Could you please explain how something comes out of nothing?
[/Quote]

Well, not to be a smart ass, but something more or less had to come out of nothing, as at some point, if one goes back far enough, that’s pretty much all there was.

47

Hey Mangetout. Yeah, it’s a valid and nontrivial argument, albeit only insofar as inerrancy is concerned. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time at the moment to flesh it out, but the most important thing to notice is that Genesis 2:4 et seq. stands alone as a creation account. (Recall that the chapter, verse and paragraph separations were added much later.) Also, that no rain had yet fallen on the earth when man is created, implying (if not outright requiring) that this a universal act of creation, not a local Eden event.

In my understanding, the mainstream explanation for why Genesis has two creation accounts is that there were two oral traditions at the time the book was written down and, since it was basically poetic, there was no harm in setting down both.

48

Read Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time.

49

[QUOTE=Cegstar]
Besides I don’t understand how someone can use “carbon dating” to find out when a being made a sharp rock.. that rock has always been around.. besides a rock is not a living thing.. correct me if i am wrong but doesnt carbon dating only work if something was living and then died? i’ve been wondering about this lately… care to enlighten me?
[/QUOTE]

You date the layers of organic material above and/or below where you find the sharp rock.

If you’re serious about this subject, please do us all a favor. Spend a few days looking at the info at talkorigins and then come back with questions. There’s lots of good info in there and it’s specifically designed to address the creationist arguments.

There are a lot of smart people on this site, and if you’re willing to invest some time eductating yourself first, they’ll be glad to help you. Otherwise, you’re going to get a more grief than help.

50

[QUOTE=Cegstar]
One more thing. Could you please explain how something comes out of nothing?
[/QUOTE]
There are many theories. Some postulate normal processes based on natural laws, some of which we have discovered, some we are still learning about. These theories are subject to revision based on new discoveries and all attempt to arrive at the truth through logic and our increasing knowledge of how everything works.

Another theory says it was done by a supernatural being that we can’t find, touch, see, detect, prove exists, and has powers that we can’t define, understand, control, or harness.

It’s your choice.

Oh, almost forgot – 3000 years ago, only theory #2 was under serious discussion.

51

[QUOTE=Cegstar]
Could you please explain how something comes out of nothing?
[/QUOTE]
Where did your God come from?

52

[QUOTE=Cegstar]
Could you please explain how something comes out of nothing?
[/QUOTE]
As a former magician, I can answer that:

It’s hidden in his left hand, you just can’t see it.

53

[QUOTE=PBear42]
Hey Mangetout. Yeah, it’s a valid and nontrivial argument, albeit only insofar as inerrancy is concerned. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time at the moment to flesh it out, but the most important thing to notice is that Genesis 2:4 et seq. stands alone as a creation account. (Recall that the chapter, verse and paragraph separations were added much later.) Also, that no rain had yet fallen on the earth when man is created, implying (if not outright requiring) that this a universal act of creation, not a local Eden event.

In my understanding, the mainstream explanation for why Genesis has two creation accounts is that there were two oral traditions at the time the book was written down and, since it was basically poetic, there was no harm in setting down both.
[/QUOTE]

That’s fair enough - they are actually quite different styles of story. If it is accepted that these were transcriptions of oral traditions, it becomes less of an issue that there are differences. Of course as you say, it also becomes impossible to argue strict literal inerrancy in this case.

54

Y’know, these threads are a bit of a shame on the SMDB.

A perfectly normal, random guest like Cegstar pops in, asks a quick question and suddenly all the usual suspects pile on with logic and reason and facts then refer him to a reliable source of information. Give the guy a break, is a little blind faith too much to ask for?

55

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Here’s a question for you-Are you going to do anything more on this message board than post ill-thought out questions to which you eventually respond,“Gee, thanks for responding, and here’s another ill-thought out question!”
[/QUOTE]
This technique is called The Gish Gallop, although it’s more of a slow trot in this case.

56

[QUOTE=Musicat]
There are many theories. Some postulate normal processes based on natural laws, some of which we have discovered, some we are still learning about. These theories are subject to revision based on new discoveries and all attempt to arrive at the truth through logic and our increasing knowledge of how everything works.

Another theory says it was done by a supernatural being that we can’t find, touch, see, detect, prove exists, and has powers that we can’t define, understand, control, or harness.

It’s your choice.

Oh, almost forgot – 3000 years ago, only theory #2 was under serious discussion.
[/QUOTE]
Just because it’s worth pointing out, those aren’t the only two options. I don’t think the idea that “if evolution is debunked it means the Christian God and Jesus exist” should be helped, even in an indirect way like this. I know you probably didn’t mean this Musicat, i’m just using your post to highlight it since a creationist could have read it that way. No offense meant.

57

[QUOTE=Cegstar]

why do we have such a variety of food, fruit, veg, trees?
[/QUOTE]

You chuckle-fucks calls this variety? In my last existence, I had more varieties of food for brunch than I’ve ever seen here. That God knew how to run a universe I tells ya. Kids and their fruit and trees over here…

58

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Just because it’s worth pointing out, those aren’t the only two options. I don’t think the idea that “if evolution is debunked it means the Christian God and Jesus exist” should be helped, even in an indirect way like this. I know you probably didn’t mean this Musicat, i’m just using your post to highlight it since a creationist could have read it that way. No offense meant.
[/QUOTE]
I couldn’t agree more. But notice I didn’t say “the Christian God”, I said a “supernatural being”, which covers most religions and pseudo-religions as well.

59

Oh, I know, and I see that. It’s just that when an ardent believer looks at that, they’re going to think “Ah, he’s talking about *my * god”, which in this case appears to be the Christian one (no offense meant if it isn’t, Cegstar!) rather than just a general “a supernatural being could also have done this”.

It did rule out pantheism, though.

60

[QUOTE=T_SQUARE]
You chuckle-fucks calls this variety?
[/QUOTE]
This Moderator calls name-calling in Great Debates a bad thing, even when it is intended facetiously.

[ /Moderating ]