Learn how to diferenciate between MYTH and LEGEND

[McBell]

I know that some people believe that God wrote the Bible, but they are not calling God a liar since they believe that everything in the Bible is true.

Let us assume :

1. God personally put hand to paper and wrote the Bible
2. The world wide flood happened just as the Bible tells
3. God is both all knowing and all powerful

Why is there no evidence for the world wide flood?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ridiculous. They may be foolish, but I see no evidence to indicate deliberate deception.

You might look up the infamous "wedge document" and the origins of the hilarious term "cdesign proponentsists"

Both kind of black on white demonstrate the deliberate dishonesty of these people.

 

[PureX]

Let us assume :

1. God personally put hand to paper and wrote the Bible
2. The world wide flood happened just as the Bible tells
3. God is both all knowing and all powerful

Why is there no evidence for the world wide flood?

God deliberately erased it.

Once we let 'divine magic' into the picture, anything becomes possible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God deliberately erased it.

Once we let 'divine magic' into the picture, anything becomes possible.

Not just erased it.... It would rather be: erased it AND rearranged everything to make it look as if it never happened.
Which would literally be "planting false evidence".

Sure, once you allow for magic then "anything is possible".
Nevertheless at that point, we are still dealing with a deceptive lying god.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You might look up the infamous "wedge document" and the origins of the hilarious term "cdesign proponentsists"

Both kind of black on white demonstrate the deliberate dishonesty of these people.

Okay, I did research the wedge document and cdesign propentsists. What I found was that there was a deliberate change of the word "creationism" to more palatable terms such as intelligent design. I wouldn't call this lying -- I would call it marketing.

I did not run across anything to indicate that these people at the Creation Institute don't actually believe what they say they believe.

 

[Heyo]

I wouldn't call this lying -- I would call it marketing.

Marketing is lying, it is the intention to mislead to trick you into buying a product.
With "Of Pandas and People" it was the intention to sell a religious (creationist) book as science.

I did not run across anything to indicate that these people at the Creation Institute don't actually believe what they say they believe.

I'm not sure that the people at the Discovery Institute (sic) don't believe what they are promoting but they employ some scientists who should know that it's bull****. If they didn't they shouldn't have gotten their PhDs.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Okay, I did research the wedge document and cdesign propentsists. What I found was that there was a deliberate change of the word "creationism" to more palatable terms such as intelligent design. I wouldn't call this lying -- I would call it marketing.

I did not run across anything to indicate that these people at the Creation Institute don't actually believe what they say they believe.

Teach the Controversy​

Main article: Teach the Controversy
Teach the Controversy is a campaign conducted by the Discovery Institute to promote the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design, a variant of traditional creationism, while attempting to discredit the teaching of evolution in United States public high school science courses.

The scientific community and science education organizations have replied that there is no scientific controversy regarding the validity of evolution and that the controversy is a religious and political one. A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a "false perception" that evolution is "a theory in crisis" by falsely claiming it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community. In the December 2005 ruling of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Judge John E. Jones IIIconcluded that intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".

Teach the Controversy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You don’t think manufacturing a knowingly false narrative, in order to perpetrate an illusion of non agreement within the scientific community, with the intent to confuse the laity with intention to convince like minded politicians to ordain by law the spread of their religious beliefs to be deceitful?

Whether they believe their religion or not doesn’t excuse their deceitful strategy to force there religious beliefs onto the public at large.

 

[Trailblazer]

Let us assume :

1. God personally put hand to paper and wrote the Bible
2. The world wide flood happened just as the Bible tells
3. God is both all knowing and all powerful

Why is there no evidence for the world wide flood?

If assumption 2. was true then there would be evidence of a world wide flood.
The only other possibility is that the experts who study these things are wrong.

 

[gnostic]

Okay, I did research the wedge document and cdesign propentsists. What I found was that there was a deliberate change of the word "creationism" to more palatable terms such as intelligent design. I wouldn't call this lying -- I would call it marketing.

I did not run across anything to indicate that these people at the Creation Institute don't actually believe what they say they believe.

They were deliberately hiding the fact that “Intelligent Design” is really just “creationism” in guise, so they can teach creationism in public schools and universities again, as science.

This is deliberate deception what Phillip E Johnson, Stephen C Meyer & the Discovery Institute did. It is misinformation, hence lying. Call it marketing if you want, it is still lying, for what Discovery institute did.

…”again”, because previously they were allow teach to teach religious subjects, like creation in schools and universities in the UK. Then in the late 19th century, Thomas Henry Huxley advocated changing the British education system to prevent theological subject being taught in science classes, because creationism isn’t science.

 

[McBell]

If assumption 2. was true then there would be evidence of a world wide flood.
The only other possibility is that the experts who study these things are wrong.

False dichotomy.
But since you seem uninterested in an honest discussion of it, I shall desist.

 

[Trailblazer]

False dichotomy.
But since you seem uninterested in an honest discussion of it, I shall desist.

I was trying to have an honest discussion, I just had my own ideas.

Why is what I said a false dichotomy?
Why do you think that there no evidence for the world wide flood if we assume 1-3?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I'm not sure that the people at the Discovery Institute (sic) don't believe what they are promoting but they employ some scientists who should know that it's bull****. If they didn't they shouldn't have gotten their PhDs.

Well, I agree with that. If someone has so little respect for science, they do not deserve the title of scientist.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

They were deliberately hiding the fact that “Intelligent Design” is really just “creationism” in guise,

I understand that. I call that marketing.

Again, I have seen absolutely no evidence that the people at the Creation Institute don't actually believe in creationism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God could only be a liar if God wrote Genesis. Anyone who has researched the Bible knows that God did not write Genesis.
Why do you believe that God wrote Genesis?

No, God would be a liar if the Earth ever suffered from a Flood of Noah. We pretty much agree that he would have had to have planted false evidence which is a form of lying

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not forgetting it but that is a moot point for this discussion since God did not write Genesis.

You are not thinking logically again. You are letting your own prejudices interfere with your reasoning.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, God would be a liar if the Earth ever suffered from a Flood of Noah. We pretty much agree that he would have had to have planted false evidence which is a form of lying

Sorry, I do not agree because I do not believe that God wrote the Bible. One cannot plant false evidence in a book they did not write.

 

[Trailblazer]

You are not thinking logically again. You are letting your own prejudices interfere with your reasoning.

My logic is fine.
Your whole argument assumes that God wrote Genesis, but since God did not write Genesis God ever lied and it is a moot point that God is omniscient.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, I do not agree because I do not believe that God wrote the Bible. One cannot plant false evidence in a book they did not write.

Once again, that does not matter. We are working with hypotheticals here. You are taking this too seriously and that is keeping you from reasoning properly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My logic is fine.
Your whole argument assumes that God wrote Genesis, but since God did not write Genesis God ever lied and it is a moot point that God is omniscient.

No, we have been over this sooooo many times. As have others. If it was just me you might have a legitimate claim. Right now you keep making the error of taking a hypothetical too seriously. Every time that you say 'I do not believe that God wrote the Bible" or other similar objections you are just telling everyone that you cannot reason using hypotheticals.

 

[Heyo]

No, we have been over this sooooo many times. As have others. If it was just me you might have a legitimate claim. Right now you keep making the error of taking a hypothetical too seriously. Every time that you say 'I do not believe that God wrote the Bible" or other similar objections you are just telling everyone that you cannot reason using hypotheticals.

Well, I'm on @Trailblazer's side on this one (her original refutation, not this one as it relies on her reading of Genesis, not the creationists). I don't understand your logic here. Maybe we should dissect the claim to come to a conclusion. It all started way back when you said:

Hmm , though I am rather vehement when I say that the stories of Genesis are a myth I also quite often say that they still work as morality tales or other literary tools for learning. I will point out that due to all of the evidence confirming that they are myths for them to be true it would mean that God had to go back and plant false evidence. That is a form of lying. In other words creationists are claiming that their own God is a liar.

You make a claim about creationists making a claim. Your claim would be true if creationists really made that claim. Their claim would be:
"God is a liar."
Do we have evidence of creationists saying that? No.
Can we infer that? And here comes your logical error: You say that the evidence against a flood refutes the Noah story. But you see the world from your view (as did @Trailblazer when she said she doesn't believe the Flood story is from god). For the creationists to be saying that god is a liar, they would have to accept the evidence. But they don't. In their world view there is evidence for a global flood and no credible evidence against it. Thus, no claim of lying. Or more formally:
1. God says (in the Bible) there was a global flood. 2. We have evidence that there was a global flood. C: God told the truth.
Which makes your claim false.