*LOGIC ALERT* Creationists and the Bible, *LOGIC ALERT* Question about Creationism?

Question

Just something I was thinking about, regarding the Creationist view of the Origin of the Species,

some say it was God and base it on the Bible. Is this any different then saying it was Zeus based on the Illiad? Or some other creator based on another person's religion?
Some Pastafarians believe it was a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

So, these are all stories you see, that say (insert name of creator) made the human being.

With Evolution, there is this body of evidence. Science uncovers new facts and based on those facts changes its theories and updates its understanding.

We are right to apply the Presumption of Atheism to all religions, and put all scientific theories under scientific scrutiny.

My question is, when someone says (insert religious book here) says (insert name of creator person here) - if it flies in the face of scientific facts; does that mean the person is living in a mentally divergent universe, or inauthentic life?

Answer 1

In my opinion, yes. But who am I to judge what it takes for them to be happy and not be crippled by their fear of death or what lies beyond. They can have it. I don't need, or want it.

Answer 2

I have never understood why science and religion have always been so idealistically opposed.

There are many different religions and most share a common creation story or at least have a story that is similar. How did this story get started? Did the first human have the capability to write? And how did the knowledge of what happed before man existed come to be written down? Stories of creation and the beginning of man seem to come from a common thread, with each variation evolving along its own lines. They are stories plain and simple and stories that have presumably changed quite a bit from what they started out as.

With that in mind, it is easy to read any creation story in such a way that is conforms to the scientific data we have to day.

To insist on a literal interpretation of a story that has gone through so many changes in spite of so much scientific evidence to the contrary is indeed living and inauthentic life.

Answer 3

jim♥darwin,
You know, there is evidence that God exists. What Atheists keep doing is calling out for proof. Two different things. God's evidence is in the stars, in nature, in the Bible, in Biblical prophecy, and it is consistenly overlooked, and mostly because there isn't a scientific approach to it. Hell, most Atheists I have conversed with do not apply scientific principles to Evolution either, for that matter. They call evidence 'proof' every day. And to top that off, they deny the necessity for faith to complete the jump from evidence to purported truth.

I have no problem for people to believe in what they want to. But to deny that faith is the basis of their conviction is what makes me doubt their ability to think coherently.

Your statement:
"We are right to apply the Presumption of Atheism to all religions, and put all scientific theories under scientific scrutiny."
Are you willing to apply it to your own "Faith?" Another "Religion" because it takes something deemed as evidence, and leaping to a conclusion based upon the evidence, to support the claim of existence?

Not too many will!

Answer 4

it fairly is the most rambling little bit of crap that I ever heard. because you won't be able to see it, it would not exist??? i'm an Atheist and that is not even close to to how i imagine. Are we fairly that misunderstood? look in case you want to declare something is actual, it really is as a lot as you to educate it. i do not position self belief in an invisible guy that made the entire universe in 7 days and placed his maximum major introduction (again i do not purchase this section both) on an insignificant speck because I easily have see honestly no info keep a 2000 three hundred and sixty 5 days previous e book written by employing unknown non secular zealots. This has about an same element of info as Charles Manson has that he's god. in reality i recognize Charles Manson is a actual historic discern, so i imagine i'd be in the direction of being a relations member. in case you imagine that extra skill to you. yet you want to go back up with a touch extra info than that for me. Wind might want to be measured = info = something is there. not demanding. we may be able to recreate lightning a minimum of in a smaller scale so i imagine I were given a really sturdy take care of on that too. tell me a thanks to degree god. that could want to be a sturdy initiate. Prayers do not artwork, there are quite some study. turn a coin one thousand circumstances and pray fairly demanding for heads. Hell, get the entire Billy Graham crew and each and every of the Catholics prepare to desire. this is going to nonetheless be interior some flips of 500 each and every way. i might want to imagine you would possibly want to a minimum of make seven-hundred or so. Heavens up correct. Says that repeatedly. we may be able to be sure really some distance out with Hubble (and really some distance again in time as a effect) and it hasn't shown up. How some distance up? and on the grounds that the international is round which version of up. That covers quite some floor. in spite of the undeniable fact that it ain't the position it develop into meant to be.

Answer 5

I have to vote for mentally divergent universe :)
I like how you stated we need to "apply presumption of Atheism to all religions, and put all scientific theories under scientific scrutiny"
Doing so doesn't give one more weight than the other, it simply allows us to form an educated opinion...not a blind one.

Answer 6

truth is all that matters. seek truth, not away to authenticate a scientific method to turn a frog into a prince. Maybe evolution science didn't make man from a frog, and several scientist don't search as if another option is possibly credible. Anyway forensic science such as the age of the oldest deserts, corral reefs, trees water falls. point to an Earth of about 6500 years old. sorry, you are wrong and God is right

Answer 7

It's a question of your belief system. You choose to put it in man, others choose to put it in the Bible. If you were able to look at the earth through your prism from a Biblical perspective you would see compatability between scientific observations and the Creation account of Genesis.

Answer 8

Not at all, because scientific "fact" still falls short...what was the origin of life in the first place? A pool of chemicals magically combine, get struck by lightning and become something resembling life? It survives and then diverges into the vast variety of animal and plant life we know today?

Evolution is an incomplete theory, as is the literal interpretation of the Bible.

Answer 9

Poor question.
Bad assumptions.
Evolution has facts but lacks the evidence to support itself in theory.
Read this page. I do not like putting in links but it gives some good answers.
You see it is in how Science explains itself.
Using...
Probably
Could have
Might be
Seems to show.
These verbs bring up their own questions.
Read it if you care about "other" theories or not if you believe your own.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/biology/bio039.htm

Answer 10

You don't seem to realize that faith in a spiritual being doesn't need justification in scientific (non-spiritual) facts or theories.

Answer 11

they have surrounded themselves with people who have chosen blind faith and circular reasoning and only let in others who seem to possess such insular thinking coupled with no reason or logic and who will attempt to make copies with evangelism to use the numbers to justify the truth by using size of herd mentality, regardless if it's going off the deep end

(from paradox 3, dark bible.com) "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Genesis 1:27)

"And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man." (Genesis 2:21-22)

In the first account, God created a man and female, simultaneously in God's image. In the second account Adam got created from the dust (Genesis 2:7), and then later, a woman came from one of Adam's ribs. Again, this shows another difference between the two Genesis story accounts.