Atheists: Do you think you could argue the case FOR the bible and/or creationism properly, if you tried?

Question

If you set your mind to it, could you find a feasable argument?
Alot of atheists have been raised to know about how fossils and things developed, but the cambrian explosion is near enough to the bible's version, and the big bang is arguable as an act of god surely? after all, who came up with the laws of the universe?
I think the main reason this stuff is so difficult to believe is the people who argue it seem to not have all the facts, in fact dismiss scientific findings as 'jiggerypokery' (in fact an argument I heard was if your 'science' is so correct, then why is it's theories constantly changing?') and even do the atheist cause alot of good every time they type their insane ravings in.

Answer 1

It's easy to do, the argument goes as follows: God did it.

Answer 2

Sure. It would mean ignoring evidence that injures my argument and probably assigning "with God all things are possible" to a lot of things though.

I do wish you'd stopped at the initial question though as it shows your ignorance past that point. Most atheists were not raised atheist, they came to the conclusion themselves. And most are not raised to know about fossils or the cambrian explosion, they either learn themselves or a taught it in schools.

Obviously the cambrian explosions is not closer to the Bible's view of things as, for one, it happenned some 600 million years ago and didn't follow any order specified in Genesis except in an extremely vague manner. As for the "jiggerypokery" comment, the facts change over time, new information is learnt and old mis-information is put to rest. Science knows when and where to admit that it was wrong. Remember it's evidence first, then the conclusion, not the other way around as it is in creationism.

Answer 3

Any open-minded thinking person should, with proper research, be able to argue both sides of a debate. understanding of both sides, helps one become rational in his/her decision making. In the first anthropology class, I ever took (1696 ouch), the professor stated that religion and science were not mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, he did not elaborate...they wanted us to think back then, not just follow the faculty orientation (novel concept, huh?)

Anyway my personal theory is that the development of live, the universe, natural law, etc., is far to mathematically precise to have developed from a random electrical charge accidentally finding its way into a pool of primordial ooze and mutating (or whatever) some amino acids. I think there was an intelligence or divine intelligence if you will, that shot a cosmic cue ball into the universe and started the evolutionary ball rolling. (according to a precise plan). Of course, even Minnesota Fats had some of his shots go awry, and hence, we have dead ends, missing links, etc.

That same professor I spoke of earlier also pointed out discrepancies in the fossil layer that would seem to indicate that some links in the chain were actually contemporaries. Now, almost 40 years later, I read about the "new" discovery, that some of the stages of alleged human evolution were contemporaries...gee, what took so long?

Answer 4

I could argue any case. However, if I tried to argue for the bible's veracity or creationism, I would do a bad job.

The fundamental building blocks of any argument is the presence or lack of evidence. Everything else is conjecture. The bible as god's word lacks evidence to support that. Creationism has no evidence to support it.

Atheists do not rave insanely as you suggest. I have found that certain christians are the guilty ones for raving insanely. If certain christians understand what the scientific definition of the word "theory," they would understand that theories change only when there is enough evidence to cause it to change. Compare that with dogma. Which do you think is more rational?

Answer 5

I'm not an atheist, but this seems to be a narrow-minded assessment of them. The ones I know are actually quite intelligent and not insane. I think they feel it's not common sense to simply accept an argument on "just because" explanation or that there "must be" some higher power which created everything in existence. Most feel there are a lot of things we don't know yet and simply keep an open mind. They don't think the Bible (written by men) is sufficient evidence of a higher power. Not being an atheist, this is just what I have picked up. However, I do keep an open mind and don't support organized religion.

Answer 6

Yes I could. A good argumentalist can put themsevles in another person's shoes and convince their audience that they believe something they don't.


I've actually done such a thing in highschool drama. Out teacher asks those of us who did and did not believe and made teams of two and we had to argue for what we don't believe. He said it teaches us how to be better actors.

It's really not that hard. Just insist a God did everything and pull out random Bible quotes we feel were relavant. My mom helped me with that part though.

"Alot of atheists have been raised to know about how fossils and things developed, but the cambrian explosion is near enough to the bible's version, and the big bang ..."

Not true for me. I was raised to be Catholic. My atheist dad never mentioned fossils or the Big Bang to me. The school system and movies/tv did.

As for "insane rantings" take a look at R&S and you will see there are more Christians ranting and raving on here.

I have NEVER been approached on the street, in the mall, at the bus stop, etc by an Atheist asking me "Pardon me miss, but have you found Darwin." When I was Catholic, I was NEVER screamed at my Atheists for my beliefs or told I was terrible person. That all changed when I became an agnostic. People "scolding" me and threatening me with false promise of rapture and going to hell. I was approached three times last schol year...THREE TIMES, my people saying "Pardon me miss, have you found Jesus...?"

Answer 7

I agree with you.

Darwinism and macroevolution were originally theories...that were very slowly accepted by the scientific community. During this time, they were vehemently rejected by the "common man". But over the years, these "theories" have been accepted as fact and truth by popular thought! However, nowadays, the scientific community is turning the other way...and seeing the gross errors and even "lies" of darwinian and macroevolution thought. BUT, yet again, it will take many years for this to hit popular thought.

I am currently reading "Case For a Creator" by Lee Strobel...and I find it fascinating.

If I wasn't able to argue for creationism or against evolutionism before, surely this book will help me mount a SCIENTIFIC arguement...

-
God bless!
-

Answer 8

No, creationsim is silly. No creationist can explain how fruiting trees came into existence before animals, as stated in the Bible. The fossil record shows animals were in existence before fruiting trees. There is no fossil evidence of a "talking serpent" as described in Genesis. At best, there is no evidence for those assertions in Genesis. At worse, the Bible is wrong.

Basis theory of evolution hasn't changed, but developed from the time of Darwin and Wallace..


Finally, there are religious people who accept that the Bible and Evolution are compatible.

Answer 9

There is a HUGE difference between the bible and creationism. I would have a hard time defending the bilble to any educated person because the are way too many contradictions. Also, logically the bible has numerous flaws that I will not even begin to get into.
Creationism, on the other hand, is vague at best. I could defend that all day long.

Answer 10

no i couldn't argue for the bible or creatioinism if i tried. Maybe as a fairy tale, as a bedtime story for my kids (the revelation for nightmares). But really the story of christianity and the bible is one of disempowerment, desolation, fear, fatality, discrimination, judgement etc. All the things that I will rid out of my life at any cost. Why really will i argue a case for such a religion. I do not see a harm in the greek gods but i am not even arguing for it why would i pick up the christian cause?

Answer 11

The only thing really that convinces creationists is their relative bible and/or religious teachings. If i had to use only known, universally believed scientifically/historically provable fact I am sure that the only thing i would gain over the current creationist arguments is that i would try my best to stay unbiased.