English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

What is your basis for not accepting creation?

(answers to the question, are the only thing that will be looked upon by me)

2007-04-07 04:07:26 · 18 answers · asked by Chris 3 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

Greek Mythology?

If the Bible were indeed true, then the whole basis for mythology and other religions would have appeared after the flood when the tower of babel...

Hard to explain. But once you understand it is easy.

2007-04-07 04:14:53 · update #1

Is that all you people do? Make false assumptions about something you don't even bother to look into?

Wow, you people really dissapoint me.

2007-04-07 04:16:25 · update #2

Soulful will most likely get best answer, so everyone that can give thumbs up.

2007-04-07 04:17:37 · update #3

18 answers

I have no evidence that disproves creation because I know the Creator personally. Most of the answers you received to this question are biased from the outset because they have no understanding of faith as opposed to human rationale!

God reveals Himself to those who are objective in their thinking and analysis and who are willing to put aside their own extremely limited intellect to deal with infinite intelligence.
Since finite intelligence cannot comprehend God even in the smallest degree, the infinite God must of necessity reveal Himself to man as the Creator and sustainer of the universe.

Since Evolution is merely a hypothesis, which is supposed to be an intelligent guess, and Creation comes through faith in God and His Word, there has to be disparity between them.
It takes a great deal more faith to believe in evolution than to believe creation requires a Creator. Rational thinking would require that we examine both and come up with a conclusion.
The problem with that is that God cannot be found merely by intellectual research and cannot be understood by intellect alone. That is why faith is a must for those who want to see both sides of the issue.

Once a person exercises faith in God and talks with Him and expects an answer the issue is easily resolved. Evolution is then ruled out as a fantasy and figment of Darwin's imagination, and revealed truth verifies creation as the only realistic answer to existence as we know it.

2007-04-07 06:58:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

Many of these guys ask is there evidence of God’s existence? The Bible says that there is a builder for every house but he who built all things is God. ( Hebrew 3:4) This Biblical statement can be proven by the following logical argument.

Premise 1. Outputs = Inputs + process

Premise 2. For premise 1 to come about someone has to have the resources and power to do the process. Let him be called the Great Cause.

Premise 3. For every rule there is an exception.

Premise 4. The rule on exception can not be applied to any of the components on Premise 1 because it would be non-sense.

Premise 5. The rule on exception must therefore be applied to premise 2.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Great Cause ( the one w/ resources and sufficient might) was the one who caused Premise 1. Further He was not subject to Premise 1 by reason of premise 3.

2007-04-07 11:27:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Talking snakes, a clearly mythological Tree of Knowledge, two separate Creation myths with two completely different gods (EL and YAH from Sumaria), the dependence of the myths on earlier Babylonian and Sumerian Myths that no one takes seriously.

The existence of a tablet containing a much earlier version of the first myth where EL is moving upon the face of the waters and then has sex with twins on the shore of an ocean and produces Night and Day which was the first day. Look it up, it predates the Biblical version and it is very erotic.

Those are some of my reasons for not accepting the account in the Bible.

Now as for my reasons for rejecting the modern American reconstruction called Creationism.

There was no Global flood. No evidence of it, and anyone with any sense knows that a person in Britain 1,000 years ago could not speak with any authority as to the 'whole earth' being flooded, how much less can you rely on an account by a peoples in a small patch of desert many thousands of years ago. It is ridiculous. THEIR whole world may have been flooded, but that would not require it to extend beyond a small region approximately the size of a county in Rhode Island.

What did Noah drink when the waters receded? All of the earth's freshwater sources had just been hopelessly contaminated by salt water, which is poison to man and most of the animals that were supposedly on the ark.

What did they eat? For any of the carnivorous animals to survive they would have to eat and simultaneously destroy their main food source. Darwin understood these things, the writers of the Bible apparently were not familiar with the word EXTINCTION.

Not to mention the fact that much of the propaganda produced by the Creationists relies on a lack of education among their intended audience. It is filled with simple word tricks and intentional manipulation of the naive and simple among us. It is unscrupulous and deceptive.

I could go on....and on....and on....

2007-04-07 11:41:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

If we are talking specifically about the christian god, the sheer amount of contradictions of the Genesis account with what we now know happened (see geology, paleontology, evolutionary biology). Most other belief systems have similar origin myths which is all they really are.

If were are talking _a_ god, since I neither know what sparked life nor what set off the big bang (and if there was anything before that) you could place a divine influence there. However, since there is no further evidence of that omnipotent omniscient being anywhere it would seem rather pointless to me. And I am pretty sure that if the rest of the universe can be explained by natural processes these events can be explained by natural processes as well, even if they are currently beyond our understanding (although there are some interesting models out there).

That leaves the 'god is everything, everything is god' view which I could never disprove, however, if everything is god why are certain parts of god on this planet (also god) killing each other? It makes no sense.

2007-04-07 11:24:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

The world is roughly 4.55 billions years old as measured by multiple methods.

The fossil record shows a progression of life indicating that man descended from a common ancestor with the great apes, a common ancestor with the monkeys, a common ancestor with the mammals, a common ancestor with the terrestrial vertebrates, and a common ancestor with the notochordia. This evidence is supported independently by molecular genetics.

Further, Biblical Creation is a hybrid document, recording two oral traditions. Chapter 1 uses the word God (Elohim, which is structurally plural) and chapter 2 uses the word Lord (Adonai). A patchwork reconciling two oral traditions does not trump evidence.

2007-04-07 12:33:16 · answer #5 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0 1

The idea that some being created it all as described in the bible is just preposterous. I really don't know how anyone could believe that. It sounds like a child's story. Unfortunately, it's not just children believing it. It sounds just as silly as the idea that Atlas holds the earth on his shoulders. What makes the bible more believable to you than greek mythology?

2007-04-07 11:13:04 · answer #6 · answered by glitterkittyy 7 · 1 1

There is no evidence at all for the creation story as it appears in the Bible. In fact there are two creations stories in the Bible neither of which is possible.

2007-04-07 11:37:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

The evidence and logic.
I am like a scale. You put the evidence for evolution on one side, and the evidence for creation on the other side, I will lean towards the one with the most evidence. Creation has no evidence for it, and goes against basic logic. Evolution has mountains of evidence, and is very logical. So, I go for evolution.

2007-04-07 11:14:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Okay, it's really simple. Evolution and gravity exist, and God does not. If God does not exist, then the Creation Myth is a non-starter.

Or, to go back the other way, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the Creation Myth is in any way supportable, and if that's what you base your belief in God on (not that I'm suggesting you do, please continue to look on me), then God cannot exist.

2007-04-07 11:14:12 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I like your approach.Don't lose heart.The sarcasm and flippancy from most people here just show their ignorance.Some will examine statements or answers and accept the truth[Jn14:6].I'm amazed at the low-foreheads that dominate this category.Hold fast the faith,brother.

2007-04-07 13:04:27 · answer #10 · answered by kitz 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers