I’ve talked to a lot of creationists over the years and not one of them has given me much in terms of proof of creationism, or even that the Bible should be taken literally in any respect. The best retort I’ve heard is probably:
When Jesus turned water into wine, no amount of scientific analysis of that wine will ever tell you that it was once water. Our best understanding of wine tells us that it has to come from grapes being fermented. We can even go so far as to tell you what kind of grapes the wine was made from, and probably many other details of the wine, but no amount of science will tell you that a carpenter from Nazareth 2000 years ago dipped his fingers into it and presto… wine.
Ok. Fantastic. I can actually swallow that, and the assumption of faith that Jesus did the act. However, it only covers probably 1 out of 100 problems I have with the creation myth, and 1 out of 1000 things I find wrong with the bible itself. Lots of examples have been thrown out in the oldest person thread, but I thought that we should have a new thread started to discuss the discrepancies and retorts thereof of Biblical issues starting at the beginning.
I’ll concede that God created the Universe based on the wine-water analogy. Now, can you further the analogy as to Adam and Eve, Eden, and beyond?
Not to defend creationism (which defense you will not likely find on this board), but I must admit that this is the first time I’ve ever heard the water-to-wine miracle — as far afield as any non sequitur that one could possibly conceive — brought into the argument. Where and when did you hear this “best retort”?
That is a pretty stupid statement.
If you can believe in creation, then transformation is logical
If you believe in transformation that still does not make creation logical.
Why do you take them at their word that Jesus did the act? Why is it any more believable than if I claimed that I transmuted water into wine? If they could reproduce the feat, then it would at least be plausible, but even then it does nothing to prove that God created the universe.
I haven’t seen that particular one either, but I believe the argument presented there is part of the same collection as the one that dismisses any evidence for an old Earth/universe, on the basis that it could have been created in an already-mature state.
Someone making the analogy of divine creation and Jesus turning water into wine sounds like someone basically making the Omphalos argument–God made the world out of nothing (on October 23, 4004 B.C. or whenever it was), but the world was created with trees that had growth rings, Adam and Eve had bellybuttons (hence the name; omphalos being the Greek word for navel), the rocks lying on the ground would appear old (as opposed to all being rapidly-cooling chunks of lava), and in fact the entire Universe could have been created with absolutely every appearance of being billions of years old, from the radioisotope ratios in the rocks to the light from distant galaxies having been created already in transit, and even including separately created plants and animals that have every appearance of having evolved from other forms of life and of being related to each other in an evolutionary tree of life.
Why a universe-creator would do such a thing is another question; note also that this isn’t really “scientific” creationism of the “moon dust proves the Universe is only 6,000 years old and the Grand Canyon was created during the Flood” sort–it’s more of a philosophical claim. As such, it is immune from scientific (empirical) falsification, but subject to more metaphysical or purely logical counter-arguments: For example, the “Last Thursdayism” reductio ad absurdam line (“If God made everything six or ten thousand years ago, but made it all look to be 13 billion years old, how can we know he didn’t make everything last Thursday, including newspapers from last Wednesday and billions of people with detailed memories of their nonexistent pre-Thursday lives?”)
It seems to me that the Omphalos argument is very akin to solipsism. Whatever arguments you use to refute solipsism to your own personal satisfication would likely apply to Omphalos creationism as well.
Firstly, it’s very often used by people who will in almost the same breath claim that there is solid scientific evidence for a young universe. You can’t have it both ways.
Secondly, if the old universe, the tree of common descent, etc, is an elaborate and perfect fiction, permeating the entire set of physical evidence, then scientists are not being at all dishonest in studying and describing that evidence.
Whenever I see a thread like this I like to include the link that follows. Since I’m from Kansas, and we had that dustup a few years back with an idiotic Board of Education, I keep it bookmarked.
True. I don’t think there are actually very many consistent Omphalos creationists out there; rather, elements of the argument are used by “scientific” (young Earth) creationists to try to hand-wave away why we can see stars more than six or ten thousand light-years away. As noted, this is really worse than the true full-bore Omphalos argument; however daft such an argument may be, at least it’s internally consistent.
It’s not up to man to prove creationism, it’s up to man to prove what ever theory he is pushing, such as the big bang or evolution. It comes as man schools man, over generations and creates man made studies that devolop over long periods of time and require some men to study for years. This is NOT the way of God, but the way of man.
God’s way is very simple that the people wise in the ways of the world have trouble seeing it. It is a way that anyone can do, which if you think about it, it would have to be. It is belief in God and faith that He is willing to reveal Himself to us. It’s the willingness to put aside all the man made stuff and start over with a clean slate, to learn the ways of God, to learn as a infant learns. And not try to conform God to what we think the world is, but conform our view of the world to what God reveals.
Certainly you can, if it is assumed there are exceptions. That is, everything about the universe is made to appear as though it is older than it is, except for this particular thing, or in this particular way. Though of course then you need a reason not just for why make it appear old, but why make it appear old except in certain cases. Which is tricky, but doable.
Fair enough. I suppose it could be done that way - sloppy wording on my part, though. What I really meant is that you can’t reasonably argue the utter non-existence of old-earth evidence, then switch to the omphalos argument when compelling examples of such evidence are presented.
It’s up to any man who wants to assert it as fact.
Faith is a dependant variable. It can’t be chosen. It’s not an act of volition. One has to be convinced. Therefore God has the burden to prove himself. It’s ridiculous to demand belief without proof.
What does the OP mean by a Creationist? Are we talking about believing in one of the creation myths in one of the various religious tracts? Or that there was an entity behind the Big Bang? Or somewhere in between?
Well, I suppose you could if you were truly convinced by that evidence. But you couldn’t hold up both of them at the same time, I think you’re saying - you can’t argue on both fronts simuntaneously whilst honestly claiming them both to be true. Which does make sense.
The problem with switching arguments in that case is that you’ll be effectively arguing against yourself. If you switch to an argument that nullifies your original one, it shows not only that you really didn’t believe the original one, but that you’re not arguing, just throwing out whatever you hope works. If it was possible to you sway you with logic against your position, then either the fact that you feel the need to switch to the second argument, or the second argument itself, should sway you. If you aren’t swayed by your own argument, why are you arguing?
Because the goal is to convince the other person of the “revealed truth”. Many of these poeple don’t even believe in logic; they have no concern if their arguments make sense or are consistent or honest, only that they convince.