I'm not certain that Jesus wasn't a guy made up by Paul to sell books.
Seriously, the historicity of Jesus is kind of difficult to wrap your brain around.
Science vs. Creationism
- Thread starter dodo
- Start date
I'm not certain that Jesus wasn't a guy made up by Paul to sell books.
Seriously, the historicity of Jesus is kind of difficult to wrap your brain around.
HIstorical equivalent of the "uncertainty principle" here. . . . shall we call it the "SirKicky Historical Uncertainty Principle" and define a constant that incorporates specificity and usefulness? The more specific a historical item is, the less useful it will be?
How about a Principle of Human Credulity? The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.
By all means, that is more than acceptable.
DutchJazzer
Banned
wasn't that an album by The Police?
Good for you that your god gives you answers Hantlers! My god prefers that I try to figure things for myself.
I think it's called free will.
I don't know if you watched the video, but in the hour or so that I watched, Ham said at least two or three times that the reason Creationism is not taught in science books is because of atheists who are preaching their own religion. So the false dichotomy between atheism and young Earth Creationism was very much part of his exposition. Now if push comes to shove, I'm sure he would admit that there are other options... but he deliberately left them out of his arguments and positioned his own view as the only alternative to atheism.
I have no problem with people such as yourself who believe in a literal 6 day creation, a young Earth, etc. My problem is when they try to pass their views off as science. That's not science.
But what you say "you agree with the Bible", you automatically have in mind someone's specific INTERPRETATION of the Bible. For example, LDS members look to John 10:16 ("And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd") and interpret the "other sheep" to mean the Israelites who had migrated to America. Most other Christians do not. So I could say to my born again friend that I agree with the Bible because I believe that Jesus visited the Israelites in the Americas after his resurrection, but he would claim that I'm just interpreting that verse incorrectly. But there is nothing in the Bible itself that proves it one way or another.
Similarly, some of the Bible is symbolic and some is literal. I assume you agree with that. Even people who say that they believe in a literal Bible don't say that there is absolutely no symbolism in it. So when you read Genesis you must decide whether the "days" spoken of are literal days or symbolic days. But there's nothing in the Bible itself that proves it one way or another.
So when people such as yourself say things like, "when you pick and choose what you want to believe from the Bible, it undermines the authority of the Bible," my experience is that they really mean, "when you choose to interpret the Bible differently than myself, you are wrong and I am right". But the Bible itself isn't making that judgment--the individual is.
If you are shocked that a religious person doesn't hold to the Creationist viewpoint, that is proof that Ham's false dichotomy is succeeding. To counter that, I reiterate what I mentioned above--NONE of the religious scientists that I know believe in a literal 6 day creation, 6000 year old Earth, etc. Not a single one. And many of them believe that God created the heavens and the earth, believe that Jesus died for our sins, and so forth, just as much as you do.
Last edited:
Fishsticks
Banned
Wait..serious question. Growing up in the church I was always taught that any view other than creationism was blasphemy. Is that not the case anymore?
The Bible contains too many fundamental internal contradictions to do this. You always have to say some parts are not literal.
I suspect that depends not only on the church, but the particular parish/ward/etc. within that church.
colton is use a narrow definition of creationism, one often called Young Earth Creationism. There are other forms, some of which accept the things like the common ancestry of all living things. Ken Ham is a YEC.
Over at the blog Pharyngula, PZ Myers did a live-blog, and his impressions of Nye's performance were more positive than yours. It's an interesting contrast.
MVP
Well-Known Member
It is very simple. Neither part has any proof that it is right. So it is up to each individual to chose which theory to believe. I can't believe creationism as it makes less sense - (for example stating that land animals were created before sea creatures contradicts fossil records and all we know about evolution - unless we share Colton's view that God on purpose made it look that way to confuse us ).
Neither has any proof because proof doesn't apply to realms like science. One side has all of the evidence.