|kids websites are way easier to understand than the adult creation websites...I am not particularly science brained|
Good googelly moogelly
Have you thoroughly studied the mathematical and astronomical evidence in order to say that big bang is "just a guess"?
And as a pp mentioned, dinosaurs would not be compatible with a young earth unless you completely dismiss carbon and radiometric dating, to which then you are completely dismissing all the mathematics, physics and chemistry behind these dating methods.
|Creationists say that they take the words in the bible literally and at face value. I ask then, do they take Matthew 5:29-30 and Matthew 18:9-10 literally?|
|I was taught the importance of Bible stories to Christians ought not to be an illogical belief that everything it tells us happened literally, but that they each had a moral something to get out of them. Because which Bible is really the true one? The Orthodox? King James? The original Greek or Hebrew? They all tell it differently, but I think the moral stays the same. What about in Genesis, which creation story is real? The one where Adam and Even are created at the same time or the one where Eve comes later? I remember Jesus seemed to speak in parables a lot. Did those things really happen, or were they meant to be used to help people have a higher understanding? You can get caught up in being determined to believe in every sentence is fact and miss the whole point.|
So if one takes part of a text literally, one must therefore take the entire text literally? That's ridiculous. Any text must be read using commonsense principles of interpretation. If a text is obviously intended to be taken as literal history, it should be read as such; if as allegorical poetry, it should be read as such; if parable, metaphor, simile, hyperbole, satire or irony, it should be read as such. And of course, many or all of these features frequently coexist in a single text. If you are reading a biography of Audrey Hepburn, which is clearly meant to be taken as historical narrative, and you come across the phrase 'she skyrocketed to fame', do you assume that because the majority of the text is literal, this means she actually achieved fame by skyrocketing? Of course not. You realise that a literary device has been employed. The inability of people to employ this very simple rule of common sense with the Bible perpetually amazes me.
|22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
|The exact same thing can be said for people who take Genesis at face value, never mind that most of the creation story, the great flood, etc, was already found in other cultures' literature long before the bible was written. But I guess they don't count. Darn heathens.|
The uncanny similarity of the Flood myths worldwide, indeed, is one I have never heard satisfactorily explained away.
I personally think there are questions to be answered that evolutionists don't have a good answer for like Why are there paintings on cave walls of men walking with dinosaurs? Do you think they were fantisizing about dinosaurs or something?
|ummm...because floods happen all the time? Isn't that pretty obvious? There was a huge tsunami recently...I'm thinking that got written down. There is no evidence for a worldwide flood. NONE.|
Just found the website, No Answers in Genesis:
And yes, there are standards to dating methods. Scientists don't assign dates on a lark. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating
As for the two Creation stories in Genesis, they were written at two different times in two different traditions. However, the first presents the first man and woman being created at the same time in God's image. The second has Eve being created after Adam, but with Adam's rib. There is an important theological distinction that is being made here that shows the difference between the two traditions about the status of women and men.
And who do Adam and Eve's descendents procreate with? Did Adam and Eve have daughters that their son(s) married?
Just as no one saw the Big Bang (sigh), no one saw the Earth being created in 6 days with God resting on the 7th. However, much research has given us plenty of evidence that the Big Bang is a far more likely scenario than Genesis.
|Smokering, all your "anthropological evidence" shows is that floods happen. Big deal. As far as Noah's flood - there is NO geological evidence to support this, never mind the impossibility of it happening. (After all, how could all these people tell their flood tales if they'd been wiped out?)|
|You keep ignoring scientific data and focusing on stories and philosophy. You can't say "science is unreliable, so I'm not going to believe any of it that conflicts with my worldview". Well, you could. But it doesn't help your position any. Do you even realize how much evidence we have for common ancestry? It's not simply that we can see the similarities between animals. More and more species are having their whole genomes sequenced - we can see the whole history of evolution in their DNA, much like a paternity test. The DNA evidence would stand on its own, even without all the fossils. You would do well to learn some molecular biology.|
|And here's another question. With all of the stories out there from various cultures throughout time, why is it that THIS story is the one put ahead of all others? What proof is there that Genesis is the one that is "inspired by God" and no others, other than what is believed to be the case? What not Native American stories? Egyptian stories? Babylonian stories (many of which influenced Biblical stories, not the other way around)? If you want to cite other stories as proof that the Flood happened or Creation happened in 6 days, why aren't they divinely inspired also? Or are they?|