June 4, 2008

Creationism Is Not Biblical

Here is a video from a theistic evolutionist. He makes a very good argument regarding a way to interpret the Bible (Genesis to be specific), so that Creationism can be discounted, while abiogenesis, an ancient universe, and most importantly, human evolution, can be fit into a world view that still includes God and a God inspired Bible:


I've mentioned before that I'm OK with theistic evolution because there is no denying reality involved. Reality is embraced, while God is added to it.
However, it is still a crutch to add God to the equation because there is absolutely no evidence that God exists.

Still, I think this video is a pretty good one to possibly email to reality denying friends and family, just to shake them up a bit. Questioning ones ridiculous faith, leads to at least a mild case of temporary agnosticism. And that is good thing when dealing with those need to deny reality to sleep at night.

Reality denying Young Earth Creationists cause progress to stall, and keep irrational prejudices alive and well.

25 comments:

  1. I must suggest Christians and Atheist to read this book "The End of Reason" by Dr. Ravi Zacharias. This book forces the reader's mind to do the critical thinking that is so lacking in Christianity today. It should also be considered required reading for the atheist who has never really looked at a logical argument for the existence of God, or the Christian who has never really critically analyzed his own faith. Check out more information on The End of Reason here

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jaajoe, you can get all the information you want on The End Of Reason here.
    I wouldn't spend a dime on a book like that. For one thing, there is no evidence Jesus ever existed. And talk of absolute morality is ridiculous. Christians don't have absolute morality: take abortion, marriage, adultery, the death penalty, white lies, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "there is no denying reality involved. Reality is embraced, while God is added to it."

    How can you prove that what you perceive to be reality is acually true?

    "there is absolutely no evidence that God exists."

    What type of evidence would you accept as proof of God's existence?

    ReplyDelete
  4. How can you prove that what you perceive to be reality is acually true?
    ***************************
    I'll go with scientific explanations that are consistent with the reality of my existence.

    What type of evidence would you accept as proof of God's existence?
    **************************
    An unexplainable supernatural event that has God written all over it.
    What type of evidence would you accept as proof that a Leprechaun controls the universe from the center of a star 1 million light years away from us?

    ReplyDelete
  5. What type of evidence would you accept as proof of God's existence?

    This question from Christians is so redundant and just shows that they believe without thinking. If they actually stopped to think about the question and what they are asking, and consider the fact that for anything else in their lives they require evidence, maybe they would start realizing that we are right...god doesn't exist, or at least no one in the history of god beliefs have any evidence for the existence of any of their gods. Only what is in their "hearts and minds"...in other words, human imagination.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "I'll go with scientific explanations that are consistent with the reality of my existence."

    But how can you prove that what you perceive as reality is actually true. How would you prove that your not just a brain in a jar of chemicals being given electrical impulses to perceive what you call reality?

    "n unexplainable supernatural event that has God written all over it."

    What would you consider to be an unexplained supernatural event?


    What type of evidence would you accept as proof that a Leprechaun controls the universe from the center of a star 1 million light years away from us?"

    I would have to say that the Leprechan would need to be put in the same category with the other lame caricatures of theistic belief such as the pink unicorns or Henderson's flying spagetti monster. It does nothing to call into question either the legitimacy or necessity of the inference to God's existence.

    ReplyDelete
  7. But how can you prove that what you perceive as reality is actually true. How would you prove that your not just a brain in a jar of chemicals being given electrical impulses to perceive what you call reality?
    *********************
    Things that have nothing to do with me go by obeyed scientific laws. They are tested by many who aren't me.
    If you want to get into stupidity, and state it is possible that we are all part of someone else's dream, you can say it, but I aint buying it.

    What would you consider to be an unexplained supernatural event?
    ***********************
    Something that science couldn't explain, like a Christian who is missing a limb praying for a new limb, and the limb grows back.


    I would have to say that the Leprechan would need to be put in the same category with the other lame caricatures of theistic belief such as the pink unicorns or Henderson's flying spagetti monster. It does nothing to call into question either the legitimacy or necessity of the inference to God's existence.
    ************************
    The Leprechaun the FSM and your God have all the same thing in common. There is no evidence for any of them. You are just in denial that God and the FSM have the same going for them.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If you want to get into stupidity, and state it is possible that we are all part of someone else's dream, you can say it, but I aint buying it.
    ________________________________

    My question is how can you prove what you call reality to be actually true?




    Something that science couldn't explain, like a Christian who is missing a limb praying for a new limb, and the limb grows back.
    __________________________________

    How do you know this has never happened?



    You are just in denial that God and the FSM have the same going for them.
    ___________________________

    There are several contrasts between belief in God and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    Belief in God

    (1) Prevalent among all peoples of all times. Atheism is very rare; even atheists admit this.

    (2) There are many sophisticated philosophical arguments for God’s existence.

    (3) The Christian God is a coherent explanation of why something exists rather than nothing, why logic is prescriptive and universal, why morality is objective, and why religion is ubiquitous.

    (4) Belief in God is rationally satisfying.

    Belief in Flying Spaghetti Monster

    (1) Believed by no one. Even the so-called advocates of the FSM do not really believe that it exists.

    (2) There are no technical philosophical arguments for the FSM. Actually, there are no technical arguments of any kind for the FSM.

    (3) Even those who sarcastically espouse that the FSM exists don’t really believe that the FSM exists, nor do they think that the FSM is a coherent explanation for finite contingent being, logic, morality, beauty, etc.

    (4) No one really believes in the FSM, but even if they did, it would not be rationally satisfying.

    ReplyDelete
  9. My question is how can you prove what you call reality to be actually true?
    *****************
    You take one apple and add another apple to it, and you have two apples.

    How do you know this has never happened?
    ************************
    It would have made the news in a big way. Especially today, and don't try to con me and say that amputees don't pray for their limbs to grow back.
    I have no proof that there was a man who had legs growing out of his head, and he got around by standing on his head either.

    Belief in God

    (1) Prevalent among all peoples of all times. Atheism is very rare; even atheists admit this.
    **************************
    People believe in life after death or that if they dance rain will come. It doesn't make it true.

    (2) There are many sophisticated philosophical arguments for God’s existence.
    ***********************
    None that are buyable.

    (3) The Christian God is a coherent explanation of why something exists rather than nothing, why logic is prescriptive and universal, why morality is objective, and why religion is ubiquitous.
    **************************
    Someone writing as if they were speaking for a Christian God is a coherent explanation for many of things you are talking about. A Christian God and his laws are just man made observations while throwing in some fear to get the laws followed.

    (4) Belief in God is rationally satisfying.
    ***********************
    It isn't for me. And it is really irrational since there is no evidence for any of the 3500 Gods created by man to exist.

    Belief in Flying Spaghetti Monster

    (1) Believed by no one. Even the so-called advocates of the FSM do not really believe that it exists.
    ********************
    Same evidence for your God as there is for the FSM.

    (2) There are no technical philosophical arguments for the FSM. Actually, there are no technical arguments of any kind for the FSM.
    ***************************
    Again, the same philosophical arguments you dismiss for the FSM, I dismiss for yours or anyones God.

    (3) Even those who sarcastically espouse that the FSM exists don’t really believe that the FSM exists, nor do they think that the FSM is a coherent explanation for finite contingent being, logic, morality, beauty, etc.
    ***************************
    Your God is not an explanation either.

    (4) No one really believes in the FSM, but even if they did, it would not be rationally satisfying.
    *********************
    Again, belief in your God is not rationally satisfying. Your God is a crutch. Nothing more, nothing less.

    As far as absolute morality goes, two Christians can barely agree on the death penalty, gay marriage, divorce, abortion, white lies, etc.

    They may agree on three of the above completely, but not all 5 of my examples.

    There is no such thing as absolute morality, and national laws are the best way to show how objective morality really is.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You take one apple and add another apple to it, and you have two apples.
    _______________________________

    How can you prove that the apples your adding are real and not an illusion? Again how can you prove the reality you perceive is true?



    It would have made the news in a big way. Especially today, and don't try to con me and say that amputees don't pray for their limbs to grow back.
    ________________________________

    Unless you have exhaustive knowledge of all amputees in history there is no possibility you can claim to know this and be taken seriously.


    People believe in life after death or that if they dance rain will come. It doesn't make it true.
    ________________________________

    I am not advocating the "appeal to the people" fallacy (argumentum ad populum). The argument is not that belief in God is true BECAUSE so many people believe that God exists. Rather, it is simply an irrefutable fact that many brilliant minds have pondered the God question and come to the conclusion that He does, in fact, exist. This fact, while it doesn’t prove that God exists, should prompt us to deal with the question of God’s existence with seriousness and intellectual honesty.


    None that are buyable.
    _____________________________

    Even if you don't find the arguments "buyable" does not mean they are not true.


    Someone writing as if they were speaking for a Christian God is a coherent explanation for many of things you are talking about. A Christian God and his laws are just man made observations while throwing in some fear to get the laws followed.
    _______________________________

    What proof do you have that His laws are just man made and that fear was used to get them followed?


    And it is really irrational since there is no evidence for any of the 3500 Gods created by man to exist.
    _________________________________

    Belief in God is rational and supported by good reasons. You simply beg the question when you say that there are no good reasons for belief in God.


    Same evidence for your God as there is for the FSM.
    __________________________________

    Belief in God is rational and supported by good reasons, and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is irrational and not supported by any good reasons. That people could think that belief in God is anything like the groundless belief in a fantasy monster shows how utterly ignorant they are of the works of Anselm, Aquinas, Leibniz, Paley, Sorley, and a host of others, past and present.



    As far as absolute morality goes, two Christians can barely agree on the death penalty, gay marriage, divorce, abortion, white lies, etc.

    They may agree on three of the above completely, but not all 5 of my examples.

    There is no such thing as absolute morality, and national laws are the best way to show how objective morality really is.
    __________________________________

    Just because someone doesn't agree doesn't mean objective moral values do not exist. They could simply be mistaken on a given issue.

    ReplyDelete
  11. How can you prove that the apples your adding are real and not an illusion? Again how can you prove the reality you perceive is true?
    *******************
    Because I don't even have to do it. A four year child can do it, and the result will be the same no matter who does it.

    Unless you have exhaustive knowledge of all amputees in history there is no possibility you can claim to know this and be taken seriously.
    *************************
    That is just a childish head in the sand answer.

    I am not advocating the "appeal to the people" fallacy (argumentum ad populum). The argument is not that belief in God is true BECAUSE so many people believe that God exists. Rather, it is simply an irrefutable fact that many brilliant minds have pondered the God question and come to the conclusion that He does, in fact, exist. This fact, while it doesn’t prove that God exists, should prompt us to deal with the question of God’s existence with seriousness and intellectual honesty.
    *****************************
    And some of the most brilliant minds today have concluded there is no evidence for Gods existence. More today than yesterday because the gaps have shrunk or have been taken away thanks to scientific discovery.
    We have evolved the susceptibility to believe in the supernatural. Our ancestors couldn't explain lightning, so it was easier for them to cope and live to procreation to invent supernatural causes and results. It might even be a default position in humans today to accept supernatural explanations. Again, that doesn't mean they are true, because I know of no supernatural event that has ever been recorded (outside fairy tale bibles) that can be verified.

    Even if you don't find the arguments "buyable" does not mean they are not true.
    ************************
    Philosophy not backed with fact or empirical evidence is just BS.

    What proof do you have that His laws are just man made and that fear was used to get them followed?
    ****************************
    The fact that Muslim rules are different from Jewish rules and are different from Christian rules. Paul most probably invented Jesus in a dream as there is no contemporary evidence of Jesus' historical existence, and there should be tons.
    Again, how can you prove that Mohammed's rules aren't God's rules, or that the rules of Scientology aren't God's rules?
    Again, there is no evidence whatsoever for any of the Gods other than they were invented by man.

    Belief in God is rational and supported by good reasons. You simply beg the question when you say that there are no good reasons for belief in God.
    *************************
    There really is no good reason to believe in God. None. The world makes perfect sense without one.

    Belief in God is rational and supported by good reasons, and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is irrational and not supported by any good reasons. That people could think that belief in God is anything like the groundless belief in a fantasy monster shows how utterly ignorant they are of the works of Anselm, Aquinas, Leibniz, Paley, Sorley, and a host of others, past and present.
    ******************************
    The FSM shows how ignorant and stupid it is to believe in God. Nothing more, nothing less. What you say about the FSM is true of your God or any God.

    Just because someone doesn't agree doesn't mean objective moral values do not exist. They could simply be mistaken on a given issue.
    *****************************
    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  12. Because I don't even have to do it. A four year child can do it, and the result will be the same no matter who does it.
    _______________________________

    But my question is how can you prove what you perceive as reality to be actually true? How can you prove that a world outside your mind exists?


    That is just a childish head in the sand answer.
    __________________________________

    How so?



    And some of the most brilliant minds today have concluded there is no evidence for Gods existence. More today than yesterday because the gaps have shrunk or have been taken away thanks to scientific discovery.
    ________________________________

    Who are these brilliant minds? Atheist philosphers have been trying for centuries to disprove God. So far no one has come up with a convincing argument.



    We have evolved the susceptibility to believe in the supernatural. Our ancestors couldn't explain lightning, so it was easier for them to cope and live to procreation to invent supernatural causes and results.
    ________________________________

    What proof can you offer that it was easier for our ancestors to cope and live by inventing supernatural causes?



    Philosophy not backed with fact or empirical evidence is just BS.
    _________________________________

    Do you have any empirical evidence to justify this assertion?


    Again, there is no evidence whatsoever for any of the Gods other than they were invented by man.
    _________________________________

    Still you beg the question. There are many solid arguments for God's existence. These arguments show that it is more probable than not that God exists.


    The FSM shows how ignorant and stupid it is to believe in God. Nothing more, nothing less. What you say about the FSM is true of your God or any God.
    ______________________________

    Hardly. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  13. Atheists do not try to disprove God. You can't disprove God just like I can't disprove Leprechauns in the middle of the Sun.

    John, you are a silly childish man. I'm done wasting energy on you. My guess is that you KNOW evolution is false and Jesus is real. Keep deluding yourself. I'll leave this "debate" now. Let my readers laugh at whoever they want to as far as our exchange goes.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Atheists do not try to disprove God.
    ________________________________

    Not true.


    John, you are a silly childish man.
    __________________________________

    This is purely ad hominem. LOL

    BEAJ,
    I'm sorry you find me childish because I do like you. I think your humorous and fun to read. I just disagree with your scientism and fallacious reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  15. John, one more time: You can't disprove God. Every atheist knows this.
    You can disprove certain Gods though:
    Ones that you give certain characteristics to.
    I can't disprove Jesus' existence, but the absence of contemporary evidence makes him a doubtful historical figure.
    An atheist is simply a person who sees no evidence for the existence of God. And again, the world makes perfect sense to most atheists, without a God.

    I'll poke fun at the idea of God to show how farcical it is to believe in one of the 3500 Gods invented by man, but that isn't me trying to disprove his/her/its existence.

    ReplyDelete
  16. And John, the reason I'm calling you silly is that the way I'm reading your answers/questions, you have a need to deny reality in order to have your God fit in.
    That is just really sad in my books.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You can't disprove God. Every atheist knows this.
    _________________________________

    You can't disprove or prove God in any mathmatical sense. But that is really not an issue since most things can't be proven in this way. But the arguments for the God of the Bible do show it is more proable than not that God exists.



    An atheist is simply a person who sees no evidence for the existence of God.
    _________________________________

    You can't shirk your epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions. The assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. It is the agnostic who makes no knowledge claim at all with respect to God’s existence. He confesses that he doesn’t know whether there is a God or whether there is no God. Such a re-definition of the word “atheist” trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.

    One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we’re really interested in.

    ReplyDelete
  18. There are no convincing arguments for God. The world makes perfect sense without God. You keep saying there are convincing arguments. Sorry, there aren't any.

    And I'm not changing the definition of an atheist, you are. An atheist is simply anyone who answers the question "Do you believe in God?" with a NO.

    In order to be an atheist you need to have an idea of the definition of God, so cats and babies don't qualify. Though it is a default position to have no idea about a God. God is a man made concept and he/she/it has to be learned, just like the tooth fairy and Leprechauns.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Wow! That was disastrously bad!!
    His distinction between asah and bara is totally false. It's like he got it off some random website. Dare I say that if he wants to make a decent case, then whoever the author is, he needs to a) learn to spell and b)take a Hebrew course.
    Your author creates a false dilemma by trying to show that God's supernatural creative actions are somehow different from any natural ones. This is simply not the case. Scripture makes no distinction between the two. The fact of the matter is that asah and bara are used interchangeably in Scripture. For example, bara appears in Gen 1:1, 21,27, 2: 3,4, 5:1,2 as well as in Psalms 89:47, 104:30, 148:5 and Isaiah 40:26 and 54:16 to refer to a variety of things God supernaturally made. Such things include the blacksmith and the destroyer, trees, rivers, stars, humans, sea creatures and so on. There are probably even more verses, if I really wanted to go hunting. The word asah appears in Gen. 1:7, 16, 25, 31, 2:3,4 3:1, 7, 21, 5:1, 6:6, 7:4, 9:6 as well as Ps. 104:24, 121:2, Is. 41:20, 43:7, and 45:18. Created items include the earth, humans, sea creatures, heaven and earth, loincloths, beasts, everything and so on.
    In other words, just about everything referred to by the word bara.
    Also, if God merely "declared" the earth to be created in six days but then allowed the process to continue in the future, not only would the notion of a declaration be present (it's not) but there would be a grammar shift. There isn't one.
    Furthermore, your author neglected two major points.
    The first is that when God finishes a job on a given day, He ends that day by declaring His creation as being "good." He doesn't mean a half-hearted "good;" He means a perfect "good." Evolution implies that whatever is evolving is not yet good or perfect. It must grow and improve.
    Secondly, evolution requires death. Evolution is predicated on the need for survival. Species X isn't quite making it in the world; it's dying too quickly, it must adapt.
    Major problem here.
    According to Scripture, specifically Romans 5:12, death entered the world through the fall, that is the sin of Adam. This is after Creation already occurred, not during.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ruth, I'm not going to question your version of interpretation of the bible. And I'm not sure how right you are and how wrong he is when it comes to Hebrew translation.
    But as far as evolution goes, evolution occurs because ecosystems are not stagnant. It has nothing to do with perfection.
    Man is still evolving (changing) btw.

    I don't know how you will spin that one:)

    ReplyDelete
  21. "I'm not sure how right you are and how wrong he is when it comes to Hebrew translation"

    He is 100% wrong.
    I know, an assertion like that is probably not very helpful to you. What can I say? Go take Biblical Hebrew. It's really the only solution I can think of.
    If you want to argue for evolution, you are better off ignoring people like this. He definitely does not help your argument in any way at all. His spelling ability (or lack thereof) ought to have been a hint as to his competency.
    As an aside, Christians who try and argue for theistic evolution generally have not thought about the impact of the argument on our doctrines of sin. There are huge theological implications for saying death was a part of the creation process as opposed to something introduced via Adam's sin (see Romans 5). If Christians lose their understanding of sin, then they also lose their understanding of what salvation actually is, and our whole religion falls apart.
    Theistic evolution, for Christians, is not a logically tenable position. If someone wants to believe God created the world through evolution, they will have to pick another religion.

    As to arguing evolution with you, I am not going to bother. I know you believe in it. You know I don't All we'll do is beat each other over the head with the same arguments we have both heard probably a million times by now. I am only here to point out the grotesque flaws in that video.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Fair enough Ruth.
    But let me correct you on one thing.
    I don't believe in evolution. I accept evolution and the overwhelming evidence supporting it.
    Saying I believe in evolution is like saying that I believe the moon orbits the earth.

    ReplyDelete
  23. As to arguing evolution with you, I am not going to bother. I know you believe in it.

    Evolution is not a "belief". Religion is a belief based on zero evidence, only what one chooses to believe and any way one chooses to believe what one chooses to believe. Get it? Creationism is THEOLOGY. Evolution is science. Two different things.

    Evolution is a proven, testable, and verifiable SCIENTIFIC THEORY. Now when we say "theory" in scientific terms read this:

    "in science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity."

    Now, if you are going to debate creationism and evolution, then you must hold it to the same standards as science:

    What are ID’s scientific predictions?

    What are its unifying principles?

    What experiments have been done to support your ID theory? WITHOUT THE MYTHOLOGY BOOK.

    (Your bible or ancient texts are YOUR theology/mythology books, not scientific resource.)

    ReplyDelete
  24. "For the scientist, "theory" is "fact""

    Says the arts major to the computer scientist.

    ReplyDelete