"One Fact to Refute Creationism"

[Subduction Zone]

The only reason you say as to what you say, is because you have no knowledge or understanding about the bible.
There is no contradictions. Nor is any failed prophecies as you say.

But you are fulfilling Prophecy as you speak.

And you continue to demonstrate your abject ignorance of the Bible. I gave you an educational video to watch, why didn't you watch it? I can further support my claims but until you deal with what has been presented to you your unsupported claims are refuted.

 

[Faithofchristian]

And those claims were refuted. You ignored more modern more accurate interpretations so that you have an excuse to correct the KJV on your own. That simply makes no sense. And the Bible does not support your claims. You have to wildly reinterpret the book to have your own special version of Christianity.

The fact is the bible does supports the first earth age.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry dude, you are absolutely wrong. An omnipotent is not bounded by the laws of physics or logic like you are assuming. An omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount of time including all the fake carbon dating and fossil evidence. You cannot define omnipotence as partial omnipotence.

For a moment, consider what an omnipotent Creator God is doing or capable of doing. Do you think bringing energy into existence from nothingness is easy work? Certainly being able to create any energy at all an omnipotent GO is capable of creating energy in certain particular pattern imaginable. That is kind of the point of what it means to be God. That is, the ability to realize reality the moment you imagine it.

The video was specifically aimed at creationists as a branch of Christianity, or even Judaism or Islam. The video was not aimed at all religious beliefs. Now an omnipotent god could pull off what you suggested. The problem is that the evidence for evolution is so strong that that would mean that that god would have had to artificially create that misleading evidence. In other words that god would have to have lied on purpose to mislead people. When followers of the Abrahamic faiths are asked if their version of god lies or even can lie I have yet to see one say "Yes, God lies". They all tend to say that their version of God would not lie.

If one believes in a lying god Last Thursdayism is not a problem. But trusting that god becomes a huge one as a result.

 

[Faithofchristian]

And you continue to demonstrate your abject ignorance of the Bible. I gave you an educational video to watch, why didn't you watch it? I can further support my claims but until you deal with what has been presented to you your unsupported claims are refuted.

No rather you continue to demonstrate your lack of knowledge of understanding what the Bible does supports. On the 3 earth ages.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fact is the bible does supports the first earth age.

That does not appear to be the case. You have not supported that claim. Here is what you need to do. Find the verses, in context, that means no quote mining, that support your claim. Verses taken out of context are worthless. For example the Bible says 12 times "there is no god". Taking that phrase out of context does not prove that the Bible makes that claim. It merely shows that the Bible can be abused.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No rather you continue to demonstrate your lack of knowledge of understanding what the Bible does supports. On the 3 earth ages.

Please, when you continually show your ignorance of the Bible you should not make claims against others that you cannot support. I supported my claims, you have not.

 

[Faithofchristian]

The video was specifically aimed at creationists as a branch of Christianity, or even Judaism or Islam. The video was not aimed at all religious beliefs. Now an omnipotent god could pull off what you suggested. The problem is that the evidence for evolution is so strong that that would mean that that god would have had to artificially create that misleading evidence. In other words that god would have to have lied on purpose to mislead people. When followers of the Abrahamic faiths are asked if their version of god lies or even can lie I have yet to see one say "Yes, God lies". They all tend to say that their version of God would not lie.

If one believes in a lying god Last Thursdayism is not a problem. But trusting that god becomes a huge one as a result.

The Problem that evolution has, they can not get pass, the fact that there was a earth age before this earth age came to be.

As the young earth creationists has also, they can not get pass Genesis, to see that there was a earth age before this earth age came to be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Problem that evolution has, they can not get pass, the fact that there was a earth age before this earth age came to be.

As the young earth creationists has also, they can not get pass Genesis, to see that there was a earth age before this earth age came to be.

You need to be able to support this claim with reliable evidence. A failed reinterpretation of a book of myths is not evidence.

 

[Faithofchristian]

That does not appear to be the case. You have not supported that claim. Here is what you need to do. Find the verses, in context, that means no quote mining, that support your claim. Verses taken out of context are worthless. For example the Bible says 12 times "there is no god". Taking that phrase out of context does not prove that the Bible makes that claim. It merely shows that the Bible can be abused.

Even if I gave you the Verses you would still be right where your at now, in refuting them.
Let's give it a try.
If you read 2 Peter 3 5-6, this is parallel to Genesis 1 Verse's 2 thru 10.

Note that in Genesis 1:2 now why do suppose the earth was without form and void ?
Why would an all powerful God create the earth without form and void ?
Which makes no sense at all, for an all powerful God to create the earth without form and void.
Much less to create the earth and then cover it with water. And then come back and have the earth to rise up out of the water.
Why not create the earth and then put the water around the land as it is now. Rather than create the earth and cover it with water and then come back and have the earth rise up out of the water.

 

[Skwim]

The very fact that someone would ask for "one fact" to refute creationism is indicative of intellectual laziness.

Just to be clear here, "fact" was never mentioned in the moderator's question. He didn't "ask for "one fact" to refute creationism," a presumption that there might be such a single fact, He said:

"Do you think there could be one sentence that could convince the creationist to seriously doubt their theory?" ​

And in response Dawkins said

"Not sure about a sentence. I think the single most convincing fact observation [Dawkins corrects himself here] one could point to would be the pattern of resemblances . . . .

.​

.

 

[Prestor John]

Do you realize that in no time of man's history that there were only two human beings?

What led you to this conclusion?

How do you explain Adam and Eve in light of that?

Well, all of Mankind are of God's species, so technically it is true that Adam and Eve were not the only two human beings, because God and many of His children were involved in the Creation and other events on this planet.

I don't think they contributed to humanity's genetic timeline though.

I would still claim that I have yet to see any evidence that refutes my beliefs concerning the Creation and Adam and Eve being our first parents.

 

[Prestor John]

You tend to use bogus sources, that is why you did not find anything that showed them to be false. And no, the Bible cannot "prove" anything by itself. In fact if you want to use that as a resource the burden of proof is upon you to show that it is reliable. With its countless self contradictions, bad morals, incredibly wrong science, and of course failed prophesies I don't see how anyone could use it as a resource.

And when I am debating creationists of course we jump to the mythical book of Genesis. You on the other hand are cherry picking verses out of context to support a rather strange belief. You will not get support from either those that accept reality or creationists.

Although I agree that quoting the Bible does not prove anything, could you provide examples of the contradiction, bad morals, wrong science and failed prophecies?

I'm not about to claim that the Bible is perfect, because it is not, but I know that many of these things you mentioned may be due to misconceptions and false interpretations.

 

[Prestor John]

That's right, Adam and Eve never lived with the dinosaurs,

The dinosaurs were here long before Adam and Eve ever came to be.

The question is, What caused God to destroy that world of the dinosaurs. Something happened that caused God to destroy that first earth age of the dinosaurs, The Prophets of the old testament wrote about it, As did disciples Peter and Paul wrote about it.

I don't know about what the Bible claims, but it is my belief that the Creation of the Earth took a long time and took infinite skill.

Part of preparing this planet for HIs children involved cultivating trace elements and organic matter for us to subsist upon.

This is why I believe God introduced various life forms, gave them time to live and grow and spread, all the while adding their organic matter as an ingredient to the Earth.

God would then either remove these lifeforms or destroy them and then introduce more complex lifeforms.

He followed this process until the Earth was prepared for Adam and Eve.

 

[Skwim]

Sorry dude, you are absolutely wrong. An omnipotent is not bounded by the laws of physics or logic like you are assuming. An omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount of time including all the fake carbon dating and fossil evidence. You cannot define omnipotence as partial omnipotence.

I assumed no such thing. The issue has nothing to do with the character of what is believed, but one's position toward it. AND, my belief that "to admit the possibility that creationism might be wrong is to open a chink in the armor of one's faith. And fearing such a possibility the creationist's best defense is to stick ones fingers in one's ears."

Sheesh!

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even if I gave you the Verses you would still be right where your at now, in refuting them.
Let's give it a try.
If you read 2 Peter 3 5-6, this is parallel to Genesis 1 Verse's 2 thru 10.

Note that in Genesis 1:2 now why do suppose the earth was without form and void ?
Why would an all powerful God create the earth without form and void ?
Which makes no sense at all, for an all powerful God to create the earth without form and void.
Much less to create the earth and then cover it with water. And then come back and have the earth to rise up out of the water.
Why not create the earth and then put the water around the land as it is now. Rather than create the earth and cover it with water and then come back and have the earth rise up out of the water.

The verse in Peter appears to about the Noah's Ark myth. It also describes a flat Earth. There are quite a few flat Earth verses in the Bible and no spherical Earth verses. At any rate your claim fails because we know that at no point was the entire Earth under water.

 

[Enoch07]

Correct, you only did what the article was designed to do, lure the gullible into spreading hatred based on bs.

It is a liberal rag after all. It's nice to see you guys admit your news sources are "fake news"!

 

[Subduction Zone]

What led you to this conclusion?

Genetics for one thing. Life is the product of evolution. Populations evolve, not individuals. Think of it as language. At no time did a Latin speaking mother give birth to a Spanish speaking baby. The language evolved and there is no line of demarcation between Spanish and Latin.

Well, all of Mankind are of God's species, so technically it is true that Adam and Eve were not the only two human beings, because God and many of His children were involved in the Creation and other events on this planet.

Once again, there never were only two.

I don't think they contributed to humanity's genetic timeline though.

I would still claim that I have yet to see any evidence that refutes my beliefs concerning the Creation and Adam and Eve being our first parents.

They would not have been the only ones. You have to reinterpret the Bible rather extremely to account for that fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Although I agree that quoting the Bible does not prove anything, could you provide examples of the contradiction, bad morals, wrong science and failed prophecies?

I'm not about to claim that the Bible is perfect, because it is not, but I know that many of these things you mentioned may be due to misconceptions and false interpretations.

Is slavery bad? Is it immoral to own another person?

The wrong science we have already covered.

An example of a failed prophecy that also has an honesty test in it is the Tyre prophecy.

 

[Enoch07]

I have been impressed with the Genesis creation story. Of all creation stories from many cultures, I think that the Genesis creation story requires the fewest alterations to be updated to reflect today's science. Without adding length to the description, much could be achieved (in terms of cosmology and order of events) by changing the order of creation a little bit. It walks out the process of creation much like a linear progression or evolution. If the author(s) of that era did not have the scientific language we have today, that is to their credit that this story is so "down to earth" and compatible with common sense today.

I see it as fitting in perfectly as is. People just get hung up on Adam and Eve was the first 2 humans that brought about all of mankind, when this is not true.

 

[Faithofchristian]

The verse in Peter appears to about the Noah's Ark myth. It also describes a flat Earth. There are quite a few flat Earth verses in the Bible and no spherical Earth verses. At any rate your claim fails because we know that at no point was the entire Earth under water.

If you notice in 2 Peter 3:5-6, this can not possible be the flood of Noah's.

In the flood of Noah's, there were 8 people saved with animals,
But here in 2 Peter 3:6 Note the word
( Perished ) this means that nothing survived, everything perished.to be no more.
Note that in Genesis 1:2, that the earth was without form and void. This is in parallel to the book of Jeremiah 4:23-25--"I beheld the earth, and , lo, it was without form, and void: and the heavens , and they had no light.

Note that Verse 25 is in parallel to
2 Peter 3:6 that everything perished.
That there was no man to be found. Perished

Verse 25--"I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled"

Note there was no man, unlike the flood of Noah's there were 8 people survived. But here in Jeremiah there was no man and all the birds of the heavens were fled,
So this to can not be the flood of Noah's, there were birds with Noah, but here in Jeremiah all the birds fled, that is to be found.

So this points back to the first earth that all perished.nothing left over, except the bones that are left from that first earth age.
Such as the dinosaurs bones and many other bones.