Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-11-2015, 05:26 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(16-11-2015 05:23 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(16-11-2015 02:24 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I'm impressed by the degree of self-awareness it shows. Deism is necessarily completely unfalsifiable.

Whereas conventional theism is likewise unfalsifiable, but it takes a hell of a lot more reality denial. Deists don't have to deny anything - it's just a god of the gaps by definition.
Agreed.

And it is still belief without evidence. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2015, 05:40 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
I just wanted to say that a lot of people have been asking me for evidence. I would argue that evidence is subjective. What would be convincing to some many be ridiculous to others depending on their level of skepticism. I believe that to some extremes absolutely no exidence can prove anything to the most hardcore skeptics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2015, 05:42 PM (This post was last modified: 16-11-2015 05:53 PM by Full Circle.)
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(16-11-2015 05:22 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  I just want to make sure I understand. You are basically saying that even if a miracle was to happen right in front of your eyes you would assume that it is not a miracle from God but rather something that happened naturally that we do not understand yet?

I for one would answer yes.

I think it is logical and fair to say that if an unexplained event (let’s call the incident an unexplained event as opposed to a miracle for now) happened right in front of our eyes the immediate reaction will be heavily influenced by who observed it.

If you are prone to skepticism as I am I’d be looking behind the curtain and up the sleeves for natural answers that would explain what I had seen.

God believers (like my parents) would quickly attribute miracle properties to the unexplained incident, and most of the times not look very hard at all for a nautalistic explanation because they want it to be a miracle, they want God to be involved.

We need to have a common definition of what a miracle is for us to even discuss such things. My definition includes the suspension of physical laws and NOT simply a highly improbable occurrence, which is how most people I have encountered define it.

Below is something I wrote during the time I kept an ungoing diary of sorts that may shed additional light on how I as an atheist regard such things.

I’m watching television and a weather reporter is sounding off how it was miraculous that no one died when a tornado touched down destroying several homes in Michigan. This reminded me of one of Mark Twain’s observation after a man lost his leg in war and claimed it was a miracle that his life was spared. Why wouldn’t God simply have the bullet miss him altogether instead of just deflecting it enough to cause amputation? I mean if God is going to go through all the trouble of interfering why not spare the man totally? The same applies to the recent tornados in Michigan. Or when my wife fell from a scaffold and broke her wrist. People say, “thank God it was only her wrist and not anything more serious”. Are they really saying that divine intervention was too slow to react and save her entirely from falling and the best God could do was cause her to only shatter her wrist? I mean what kind of intervention is that from an all-powerful omniscient being? Pretty half-assed is how I see it. Or are they saying she deserved a broken wrist and nothing more?

The laws of probability are so little understood by the masses that anything perceived to be remotely infrequent is immediately attributed to the hand of God. Many of the events that do happen we have no statistical information on but just because we have no empirical data doesn’t mean it is miraculous. If we did an experiment where we had one thousand people fall from a five foot scaffold in just the same way my wife did how many would have: a) minor bruises b) a broken wrist c) severe head trauma or d) death? Well no one in his or her right mind would conduct such an experiment so we don’t have a statistical base to gauge just how fortunate or unfortunate she was but to say “Thank God she only broke her wrist” implies that he is a sadistic SOB when he could have stopped it.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
16-11-2015, 05:46 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(16-11-2015 05:40 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  I believe that to some extremes absolutely no exidence can prove anything to the most hardcore skeptics.

I think you are wrong. Again it all comes back to what is accepted as evidence. Show me irrefutable evidence (as properly defined) and I will change my mind.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2015, 07:30 PM (This post was last modified: 16-11-2015 07:34 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(16-11-2015 05:22 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(15-11-2015 11:24 PM)morondog Wrote:  Jason let's say you see an honest to gods miracle. Someone prays and someone else's arm is regrown right in front of your eyes. (Not that that will ever happen). There are a million explanations for the said sequence of events that don't involve assuming an invisible Creator-deity who personally supervises people's lives. Number one on my list would be that is was some kind of trick - that a magician or some other professional charlatan had set it up.

But even if there was no trick, all that you know is that you say the magic words and the miracle occurs, it's like flicking a light switch. We know (or at least strongly suspect) that it's electricity based on our historical experiences and because we see the standard light fittings, but if we just had a switch and when we flicked the switch we saw light we'd have no way to conclude *how* the light was activated.
I just want to make sure I understand. You are basically saying that even if a miracle was to happen right in front of your eyes you would assume that it is not a miracle from God but rather something that happened naturally that we do not understand yet?

If that is the case that would explain why, according to the bible, (emphasis on according to the bible because I know many here think it isn't accurate) so many people who witnessed the miracles of Jesus and the prophets still did not believe. Including the apostle Thomas (aka doubting Thomas) who was the biggest skeptic.

It isn't that many here don't think it is accurate, it is the inconvenient fact that it has been proven false in so many ways it is little more than an amusing fairy tale told to those gullible enough to still think it is true.

Name one witness to jesus's miracles.....one.....one who wrote that down in the time frame that it occurred....a corroboration would be even sweeter.......but I would be amazed if you could provide one...single...witness of jesus's miracles....just one.

No, the story of it being written down by someone who wasn't even alive when jesus was nailed to a piece of wood doesn't count. here, to save you and me some time on me playing "stump the chump" with rhetorical questions that I know the obvious answer too, I will go ahead and give you an assist...

No one who ever wrote of jesus, actually knew him. When you learn this, and validate this, it throws the whole Christianity belief basis out the window, thus discrediting it. Lets look at this real quick..

The epistles were written after the mythical jesus's death;

1) paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13, he actually wrote 8. See the bottom where I get into Paul a bit more.

2) James - Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account.

3) Peter - Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery. The unknown authors of the epistles of Peter wrote long after the life of the traditional Peter. Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an author claiming himself to know what Peter said (hearsay), or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church. Encyclopedias usually describe a tradition that Saint Peter wrote them. However, whenever you see the word "tradition" it refers to a belief passed down within a society. In other words: hearsay. This is the definition of Pseudepigrapha; a book written in a biblical style and ascribed to an author who did not write it.

4) Jude - Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude wrote in fluent high quality Greek..more forgery.

Then there are the non-christian sources as follows;

1) Josephus Flavius, (37–100 CE) the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Josephus, a prolific and comprehensive Jewish historian, who would frequently write a few pages on the execution of common Jewish thieves, has not one authentic line that mentions Yeshua. “He” does mention “Christ” on two occasions, yet both have been convincingly exposed as interpolations.

2) Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

3) Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

4) Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

5) Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

6) Thallus/africanus, In the ninth century a Byzantine writer named George Syncellus quoted a third-century Christian historian named Sextus Julius Africanus, who quoted an unknown writer named Thallus on the darkness at the crucifixion: 'Thallus in the third book of his history calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, but in my opinion he is wrong.' All of the works of Africanus are lost, so there is no way to confirm the quote or to examine its context. We have no idea who Thallus was, or when he wrote. Third century would have put him being born long after jesus's alleged death, thus hearsay.

7) Phlegon of Tralles was a Greek writer and freedman of the emperor Hadrian, who lived in the 2nd century AD. case closed, more hearsay, born after the alleged jesus's death.

Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

So when we consider that during times of miraculous events, no one AT THE TIME thought they were significant enough to even write down, it kind of of makes a thinking person contemplate the validity of a story told and written down based on myth and hearsay 60-150 years later..For example;

Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

Mark 15:33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

Luke 23:44-48 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

Unfortunately, there is not one shred of evidence that this happened...zero, all of the royal scribes, historians, philosophers, and literate people who wrote down and recorded EVERYTHING of any significance, failed to note the whole earth going dark mid-day for three hours...an eclipse lasts about 7.5 mins max, so it wasn’t that....nothing, .....zero. Never happened.

Another example:

Matthew 27:51-53
King James Version (KJV)
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Again…no one thought a zombie invasion was worthy of writing down…seems rather odd.

When you research authorship of each book of the bible, you find out they were not written by whom you think, which makes them suspect for any level of validity. Let’s look at the gospels a bit more…

Writings of the Gospels: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE) (Albl 283). I have shown before in various venues the issues with the Gospels, the fact that we don’t know who wrote the gospels, the community effort that put them together, and the fact that they don’t agree with one another, all of which make them a suspect source of empirical evidence. When one posits a super natural, extraordinary story, one requires extraordinary evidence....sadly it doesn't exist, except philosophically.

Matthew: generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source. Note the part where I said...disciple matthew honored...and anonymous writer.

I find it interesting that the writer of matthew refers to "matthew" in the third person. Matthew claims jesus was born in "the days of herod the king." Yet Herod died in 4 BCE. Luke reports that jesus was born "when Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governor of Syria." Cyrenius became governor of Syria in 6 CE...that is a discrepancy of 9 years. Luke says Jesus was born during a roman census, and it is true there was a census in 6 CE. This would have been when jesus was 9 years old according to matthew. There is no evidence of an earlier census during the reign of Augustine. Which is true?

Matthew also reports that Herod slaughtered all first born in the land in order to execute jesus. No historian, contemporary or later, ever mentions this alleged genocide, an event that should have caught someones attention....like the many miraculous stories of jesus, no one at the time thought they were cool enough to record...odd don't you think?

Mark: Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative. Mark is the oldest of the synoptic gospels, of which the authors of matthew, and luke based their stories. All scholars agree that the last 12 verses of Mark, are highly dubious and are considered interpolations. The earliest ancient documents of mark end right after the women find the empty tomb. This means that in the first biography, on which the others based their reports, there is no post-resurrection appearance or ascension of jesus.

Luke: Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). However, many modern scholars reject this view. The most probable date for Luke-Acts is around 80-100 CE, the anonymous author using as his sources the Gospel of Mark, a sayings collection called Q, and some unique Lukan material called the L source.

The author is not named in either volume. According to a Church tradition dating from the 2nd century, he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of the letters attributed to Paul himself; this view is still sometimes advanced, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters." (An example can be seen by comparing Acts' accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1-31, 22:6-21, and 26:9-23) with Paul's own statement that he remained unknown to Christians in Judea after that event (Galatians 1:17-24).)

He admired Paul, but his theology was significantly different from Paul's on key points and he does not (in Acts) represent Paul's views accurately. In summary, the Gospel of Luke was written by an anonymous author. The Gospel wasn't written and does not claim to be written by direct witnesses to the reported events.

He was educated, a man of means, probably urban, and someone who respected manual work, although not a worker himself; this is significant, because more high-brow writers of the time looked down on the artisans and small business-people who made up the early church of Paul and were presumably Luke's audience.

Most experts date the composition of Luke-Acts to around 80-90 CE, although some suggest 90-110. The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward. There is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the Marcionite controversy (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who produced his own version of Christian scripture based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles) that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.

John: The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John.

paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13, he actually wrote 7: (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon). 2 of them (Ephesians, Colossians) scholars are divided on their authenticity, and of course 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus are pseudepigrapha. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations - Bible interpolation, or Bible redaction, is the art of adding stuff to the Bible). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

There’s no indication from Scripture that Paul and Jesus ever met before the Damascus Road incident. And Acts 9:4-7 doesn’t specify whether the Lord’s encounter with Paul was physical or not. It only says Paul saw a bright light and heard a voice. (hallucination/lie)The men with him heard a loud sound but didn’t see anything. In subsequent re-tellings of the encounter Paul never indicated that He had actually seen Jesus at that time.


.....next point? Outside of psuedepigrapha, parables, cute allegorical stories, fiction, fantasy and outright forgery, there really isnt much left of the bible to consider..knowledge is power jason...embrace it on your journey to truth.

Various works cited or used:

Mueller, J.J., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2011. Print.

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University press, Inc., 2011. Print.

Moule, C. F. D., The birth of the New Testament. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Print

Lieu, Samuel N. C., and Montserrat, Dominic, Constantine: History, Historiography, and Legend. London: Routledge, 2002. Print.

O'Collins, Gerald, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

Carrier, Richard, On the historicity of jesus: why we might have reason for doubt. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Phoenix press, 2014. Print.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
16-11-2015, 07:47 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(16-11-2015 05:40 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  I just wanted to say that a lot of people have been asking me for evidence. I would argue that evidence is subjective. What would be convincing to some many be ridiculous to others depending on their level of skepticism. I believe that to some extremes absolutely no exidence can prove anything to the most hardcore skeptics.

I don't think you are talking about objective evidence, because that is not subjective.

If it is subjective, it is opinion, not evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
16-11-2015, 11:54 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(16-11-2015 05:40 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  I just wanted to say that a lot of people have been asking me for evidence. I would argue that evidence is subjective. What would be convincing to some many be ridiculous to others depending on their level of skepticism. I believe that to some extremes absolutely no exidence can prove anything to the most hardcore skeptics.

It's *reasonable* evidence I'm looking for.

You guys say God can turn into a pillar of fire? Where's the evidence? A book from who knows where which says so? Disappointing. You can't point me to an actual talking pillar of fire. If you could, I'd believe that there was an actual talking pillar of fire right there. (Provided I could also prove to myself that I wasn't hallucinating). Whether or not the said pillar was a universe-creating being with some kind of inferiority complex necessitating worship is another question.

You guys say God can save people from death? Where's the evidence? Ah, a whole bunch of people saved from cancer who were getting modern medical treatment! Truly a miracle. A baby who survived a car crash. Hold on. What about all the people who die in senseless ways? Ah. Mysterious super secret plan by the big man. Very hush hush you know. Dodgy

You say God answers prayers? What about *my* prayers that went unanswered? Oh, sometimes God doesn't answer them *right then* or *in the way that we expect* because he knows what's best for us *spiritually*.

*Everything* that is about religion or God is like this. A claim followed up by bullshit dancing around providing ad-hoc explanations for everything that doesn't match the claim. There's nothing that is remotely convincing.

Contrast this with science and technology. It's a *known fact* that you can get energy from nuclear reactions. We can generate power from it. There's no dispute. There's no "it only works if you believe and ignore all these inconvenient counter-examples" about it. It's the same with *everything else* in science. Sure, cutting edge research isn't always undisputed, but everything that is accepted as scientific fact has been checked and rechecked and if you want to check it yourself you can *and it checks out*.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like morondog's post
24-11-2015, 09:03 AM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
I just had a thought. What if a lot of the things described in the bible such as "a talking pillar of fire and a talking burning bush" were not literal? What if they were something else that the people of that time never understood? What if "a pillar of fire" was something that actually just resembled a pillar of fire?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2015, 09:13 AM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(24-11-2015 09:03 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  I just had a thought. What if a lot of the things described in the bible such as "a talking pillar of fire and a talking burning bush" were not literal? What if they were something else that the people of that time never understood? What if "a pillar of fire" was something that actually just resembled a pillar of fire?

We’ve had this discussion before when dissecting the Bible. What is literal, what is metaphorical, what is historical, what is a parable...

In the end you have to consider the sources, bronze age humans attempting to make sense of their world and dominate their fellow man. I can’t recall who said this a the moment but I paraphrase here, “The Bible was written by people who shat in their own water supply.”

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
24-11-2015, 09:24 AM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(24-11-2015 09:03 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  I just had a thought. What if a lot of the things described in the bible such as "a talking pillar of fire and a talking burning bush" were not literal? What if they were something else that the people of that time never understood? What if "a pillar of fire" was something that actually just resembled a pillar of fire?

What if God as described in the Bible is actually a garbled account of a visit from a technologically advanced species?

It could well be that if something did indeed happen then people recorded it couched in terms of their experience - that they didn't have the words to properly describe what they saw.

What if a 'pillar of fire' describes a rocket exhaust? What if, to overawe the natives, the putative advanced species dropped a loudspeaker in a bush and doused it with petrol. Actually it probably would not be hard to reproduce these things even with basic technology probably *available to humans at the time*.

Egyptian temples were full of tricks like doors that opened without apparent human agency and stuff like that. Ol' Moses might have supposed it was God but been tricked.

So yeah, it could well be that the words aren't meant to be taken literally.

My next question is, if you accept that we've established that the account itself might be unreliable, how now can one turn around and say that though the writers of the bible got the burning bush wrong, they interpreted the God stuff right? Is it not more likely that that *too* was subject to their biases in interpretation and in recording?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: