Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-11-2015, 02:16 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(24-11-2015 02:03 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  According to science daily, the fossils are 2-3 million years old. The Himalayas are thought to be 55-75 million years old. Now scientists are saying the Himalayas are 450-500 million years old. How did a 3 million year old creature end up on the top of Mount Everest? 3 million and 500 million is quite a time shift don't you think?

There wasn't a point when the mountains were suddenly there fully formed.
During the time when they were first being formed maybe they were still underwater for most of it. There could be an overlap between the time the creatures lived before the mountains actually broke the surface of the ocean.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2015, 02:21 PM
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 about a book that is so unclear that it requires people to invent meanings just to make some sort of sense of it?

Wouldn't those interpretations be nothing but people's opinions? Consider

Give it up, the book is nonsense. 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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
24-11-2015, 02:23 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(24-11-2015 09:33 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(24-11-2015 09:24 AM)morondog Wrote:  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?
One of my favorite shows is ancient aliens. I find the ancient astronaut theories to be interesting.

They are certainly less strained than what is said in the Bible. 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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
24-11-2015, 02:24 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
Hey Chas! How are you doing big guy!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2015, 02:25 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(24-11-2015 11:04 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Okay, but you have to admit that it is probably the most logical explanation to explain a lot of things in the bible. Even if you don't believe in God, if you believe that the existence of advanced extraterrestrial life is plausible, it would explain a lot.

Normal human myth-making, greed, and power-seeking is by far the most reasonable explanation.

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
24-11-2015, 02:26 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(24-11-2015 02:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-11-2015 11:04 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Okay, but you have to admit that it is probably the most logical explanation to explain a lot of things in the bible. Even if you don't believe in God, if you believe that the existence of advanced extraterrestrial life is plausible, it would explain a lot.

Normal human myth-making, greed, and power-seeking is by far the most reasonable explanation.
However some myths have hints of truth to them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2015, 02:27 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(24-11-2015 01:17 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(24-11-2015 12:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Are you talking about a world wide flood?

...because that never happened. It would be impossible.
I don't know if it would be the entire world. However if there was a catastrophic flood on a large enough scale would it be plausible to assume the writer believed the entire world was flooded.

That is certainly possible, but there is no evidence of such a flood int that place and time.

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
24-11-2015, 02:28 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(24-11-2015 02:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-11-2015 01:17 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  I don't know if it would be the entire world. However if there was a catastrophic flood on a large enough scale would it be plausible to assume the writer believed the entire world was flooded.

The fact that the bible mentions nephilim after the flood would lead someone to conclude that the whole story is bullshit. Drinking Beverage
Keep reading Chas. You will catch up. Lol
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2015, 02:29 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(24-11-2015 02:28 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(24-11-2015 02:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  The fact that the bible mentions nephilim after the flood would lead someone to conclude that the whole story is bullshit. Drinking Beverage
Keep reading Chas. You will catch up. Lol

Start thinking logically, maybe you will catch up. 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
24-11-2015, 02:31 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(24-11-2015 02:03 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  According to science daily, the fossils are 2-3 million years old. The Himalayas are thought to be 55-75 million years old. Now scientists are saying the Himalayas are 450-500 million years old. How did a 3 million year old creature end up on the top of Mount Everest? 3 million and 500 million is quite a time shift don't you think?

Oh, come on. Facepalm CITATIONS ARE REQUIRED.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: