Two and a half hour explaination of everthing Creationism.

But the history of the bible is not altogether correct.
There was a great british television series called Testament written by John Romer. Fascinating study of history according to the bible compared to archeological findings and non-biblical contemporary sources. Lots of stuff in the bible was wrong. Lots right, but lots wrong too. Apparently they weren't that good with numbers.

 

Yet historians of that time back it up. More of evolutionists coming against the Bible. I soooo believe them LOL

 

Thought I would join in here. I usually just read these threads and feel sad for the ptif219's of the world.

I think it is because I don't understand at all (at all I say!) how somebody living in the 21st century and who has been educated to the point where they are able to operate a desktop computer - can be an ID'er or a creationist.

Let me share you a story (this is a fairly pointless story so feel free to skip to next part of thread if easily bored).

I have a friend, a university educated friend (an accountant unfortunately). I consider this person to be an urbane, articulate, well educated and mannerly person.

For the first time in our 5 year friendship, recently our conversation turned to subjects religious. I tend to avoid this subject with ... everyone really, as my opinions tend to be militant and unforgiving, and I have learnt not to vent my spleen on unsuspecting and harmless acquaintances.

But, as the good Forrest has often said, Stupid is as Stupid does - I answered the question "So do you believe in God".

Now, I know my friend is vaguely Goddish, so I go for the soft shoe approach.

"Not in the traditional sense", say I - "I believe, well, I don't believe, I KNOW that we are all merely Star Stuff reconstructed in a fairly complex way, which is magic enough for me, and when I die, I return to the universe in another form (dusty crap and then finally just energy). I am quite comforted by the thought and think it is kinda cool".

The response I got from my well educated, articulate friend knocked my freakin socks off.

"NO #^%$ WAY ! We are Gods children, we go to heaven (or the other place I assume) when we die - whats this nonsense about Star Stuff".

" I mean atoms, the tiny bits everything is made of, neutrino's even. I mean your mum ate food when she was pregnant, these nutrients grew you, well, from cells to you. When you die, the process very cleverly reverses. You go in the ground, a cow eats the grass you help produce and the whole process continues on. Until in something billion-ish years our sun explodes (probably) taking earth with it and once again we join the great and infinite universe".

"Bull(*)(*)(*)(*), I am going to have to go and look that up".

Honest to God. I have often wondered since how many people don't want to know and turn to the bearded man in the sky because - hell, I don't know why because.

 

maybe based on historical figures, but certainly most of what you "know" about them is based in myth, rather than fact.

 

they come in all forms ... but the creationists are more generally concentrated amongst the uneducated.

at least I hope so ... otherwise it reflects VERY badly on the education system!

 

Yet, I've noticed that the "more" educated among the religious rarely have any quarrels with creationist apologetics. Regardless of how good an education, a religious person will often accept claims contrary to his education as long as it's for religious purposes; for example, that eyes cannot have come about from evolution, that humans cannot have extra-specific ancestry or that fossils cannot display evolutionary morphology.

There are of course plenty of exceptions to this (Ken Miller being a fine and prominent example) but it is amazing how silent the better educated can be about the claims of the less educated. Goes to show how relative the concept of education is in this context, I guess.

 

I once encountered a doctor who subscribed to ID, but apart fromt hat, most of the educated christians I have met seem to understand/accept evolutionary theory. But then again, maybe thats just here.

but you are right - there is this kind of silence, almost an unwritten code of "don't question the beliefs of co-religionists, no matter how bizarre they are ... focus any criticism you have on the beliefs of non christians, no matter what the point of difference. "

 

Nice how you state opinions and never prove what you say

 

have you got some hard evidence that abraham was a historical figure?

 

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/08/archeology.htm

 

Care to give a neatral 3rd party for a web site?

Cuz sorry, a web stie from the Kjos Ministries simply does not cut it.

 

So you did not read it and see the scientists quoted. I guess science and archeology only matters when it fits your agenda. I can tell you have nothing when you attack the source because that means you have nothing to refute it

 

I'm glad every time I see that people are on the verge to accept that the Bible has a history. It's just too bad they rarely cross the treshhold but continue to assert that the history of the Bible is the same as the Bible depicting history.

Just like, say, the story of Noah has a history that goes back to Sumerian and Assyrian folk tales (and maybe even further back), characters like Abraham and David, gods like Ba'al and Dagan and localities like Ekron and Jericho would of course be anchored in known occurrences as well. Why? Because association is the basis of every aspect of story-telling.

It is no different than novels today that use real people, places and even real events to convey their stories. It doesn't mean that a novel depicts history but that it utilizes our associative skills as a mean to create fiction. If it didn't then it'd be nothing but gobbledygook to the reader.

 

hard evidence is conclusive evidence ... got any re abraham?

also .... see freeware's post.

by your reckoning, Robinson Crusoe should be regarded as historically correct as well.

 

So you refuse to accept the scientists views when it does not fit your agenda

 

Agenda?

When you have an arguement I will refute it.

 

I showed a link that quoted scientists and you blew it off.

 

Yes, and the site: http://www.crossroad.to/ is a ministries site. Hence, the information you are trying to present is tainted with religious bias. Come back when you have a legitimate 3rd party site.

Since you would rather accuse me of having an agenda, instead of actually producing a legitimate site, all I can assume is you know you can't find one.

As I stated before, come back when you have an argument.

 

Pettinato had an agenda of his own.

Seems the scientific consensus dismisses Pettinato's initial findings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebla

(look at the subhead religion).

 

So it is the site that matters and not the scientists quoted. I see you have no answer to what those scientists said so you attack the site and me. Typical liberal tactic

 

The scientists disagree and politics is involved. It does not prove who is right

 

As a biologist, I find it truly amazing that so many people in this country wholly discount the theory of evolution. I've tried to makes sense of why this is and as far as I can tell it is largely a result of peoples ignorance of what the theory of evolution actually entails and/or because evolution is perceived as a threat to what some people believe is religious dogma. Its really unfortunate that some people will not even entertain the idea that ancient texts and creation myths do not provide reliable scientific explanations for the physical, chemical and biological world as we know it. As troubling as this might be, its even more concerning that many, if not all, of the prominent advocates of creationism use half truths or outright lies in their concerted attempts to discredit and or convulute what the theory of evolution is actually about. Evolution is a scientific theory. As such it is not, nor will it ever be a proven absolute. However, because evolution is a theory, it is so well supported that all competing explanations have esssentilly been proven false. Why is that so hard for some people to accept.

For those who don't accept evolution, are any of you at least honest enough to admit that there is no scientific evidence presented here or in any credible scientific journal for that matter that contradicts the major tenets (i.e. common decent) of the current theory of evolution?

 

I think you have to look at a wider range of sources.

 

you assume that people are rational.

that is why you don't understand why so many people discount the theory of evolution.

 

Indeed, I feel like I would need to force myself and deny logic and rationality to follow creation myths, it simply has nothing concrete to back any of it up.

I'm not sure why individuals pretend like scientific inquiry is static, it's constantly engaging evidence, looking at new evidence and challenging old evidence, I don't see what the issue is with that. As you said in regards to evolution, it's not absolute but its the best explanation humans have.