Creation vs. Evolution

[User Name]

Ah, yes. It is not cognitive dissonance itself that is the problem, but how you feel with it.

When a person is presented with information which contradicts his beliefs, he experiences internal inconsistency along with its accompanying mental and emotional stress. He is now faced with a hard choice: Either he must change his beliefs in such a way so as to accommodate the new information (which is not an easy task in the case of religious conviction), or he must restore his own internal sense of consistency by ignoring, misperceiving, rejecting or refuting the new information.

 

[seehigh]

Seehigh asked Cross Reference:

To which CR deflected the question about evolution to a question about origins:

Seehigh, this is a bit late, but I recommend you simply note that there are good Christians who believe that God created the first bacteria at the same time as other life forms. Some of these good Christians see evolution as a mechanism put in place by God, and they study the details of how evolution allows the bacteria to evolve resistance to antibiotics.

I'm know there are many Christians who, although religious, follows logic and reason in the rest of their lives, and don't take the Bible literally.

Cross-reference is not one of those.

 

[seehigh]

Whether you consider me or others friend or foe, I'd like to take a moment to extend my best wishes and hope you all have a blessed Lord's Day.

Isn't it wonderful how the Western world has adopted all the different words for the different days of the week?

You know like Sunday for the Sol, the Roman god of the Sun, Monday to honor the moon, Tuesday for the Nordic goddess Tiw, Wednesday the Germanic god Wodin, of course everybody know Thursday is known for the Viking god Thor, and Friday for Thor's lover, Freya, and finally, Saturday for the Roman God Saturn.

So which one of those is the Lord's day you want to celebrate?

 

[Daniel1611]

The Bible is presented as being literally true. If you're a Christian that says it isn't, then why not just abandon the Bible? I mean if you believe in the secular fairytales like evolution.

 

[gcthomas]

The Bible is presented as being literally true. If you're a Christian that says it isn't, then why not just abandon the Bible? I mean if you believe in the secular fairytales like evolution.

Christians are not required to consider the Bible literally true but that it communicates truth. You seem to be unilaterally decreeing that you can't be a follower of Jesus unless you follow him just like you do.

 

[Daniel1611]

Christians are not required to consider the Bible literally true but that it communicates truth. You seem to be unilaterally decreeing that you can't be a follower of Jesus unless you follow him just like you do.

I think it is a work in eisegesis to say that the Bible is not literally true. It is presented as being a true document. It doesn't suggest that it is metaphoric. Although it does incorporate symbolism, it is presented as historically true overall. If you reject it's claims to historicity , why believe any of it?

 

[gcthomas]

I think it is a work in eisegesis to say that the Bible is not literally true. It is presented as being a true document. It doesn't suggest that it is metaphoric. Although it does incorporate symbolism, it is presented as historically true overall. If you reject it's claims to historicity , why believe any of it?

For exactly the reasons I gave. You have chosen to interpret the biblical texts as all being written in the same literalist style, but the Bible does not claim that it should be interpreted literally, so you are free to choose. Just because you have picked one interpretation as being obviously true doesn't mean that all other Christians are bound to your interpretation.

 

[Daniel1611]

For exactly the reasons I gave. You have chosen to interpret the biblical texts as all being written in the same literalist style, but the Bible does not claim that it should be interpreted literally, so you are free to choose. Just because you have picked one interpretation as being obviously true doesn't mean that all other Christians are bound to your interpretation.

Why believe that any ancient document is historical fact? All of the old historians, maybe they were just writing metaphors.

 

[seehigh]

Why believe that any ancient document is historical fact? All of the old historians, maybe they were just writing metaphors.

Because many can be backed up by independent or concurrent resorces.

There is virtually nothing in the Bible that is backed up by any other documents or archaeological evidence, other than perhaps some main places for some towns or cities. And then only by accident.

 

[Daniel1611]

Because many can be backed up by independent or concurrent resorces.

There is virtually nothing in the Bible that is backed up by any other documents or archaeological evidence, other than perhaps some main places for some towns or cities. And then only by accident.

The concurrent resources might be metaphors too.

 

[seehigh]

The concurrent resources might be metaphors too.

No, they are verifiable independently. The Bible isn't.

 

[Daniel1611]

No, they are verifiable independently. The Bible isn't.

That isn't true across the board. The best example is Socrates. The only evidence he existed are the writings of a couple of his students. Maybe Socrates is just a metaphor made up by Plato.

 

[gcthomas]

That isn't true across the board. The best example is Socrates. The only evidence he existed are the writings of a couple of his students. Maybe Socrates is just a metaphor made up by Plato.

Perhaps he was just made up, but then again, no one is basing an entire religion on him that depends on a reliable and precise record despite him never writing anything down for us.

 

[everready]

Chariot Wheels in the Red Sea

Chariot Wheels in the Red Sea

Because many can be backed up by independent or concurrent resorces.

There is virtually nothing in the Bible that is backed up by any other documents or archaeological evidence, other than perhaps some main places for some towns or cities. And then only by accident.

Like finding Chariot Wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea?

THE CHARIOT WHEELS

We will begin with the chariot wheels that Ron and the boys found in the Gulf of Aqaba. In 1978, on their first dive at the site, they found these chariot remains. Like Noah’s Ark, these were not in perfect condition and required careful examination to see exactly what they were. They were covered in coral, which made it difficult to see them clearly, but it appears that the coral was the agent the Lord used to preserve them.

They found numerous wheels- some were still on their axles, and some were off. They found chariot cabs without the wheels, also: EXO 14:24 …in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians, 25 And took off their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily:…

So far, this coincided with the Biblical account. They found several 6-spoked wheels, as well as an 8-spoked wheel. And finally, in 1988, Ron found the 4-spoked gold chariot wheel, which looks almost perfect. The reason this one was so well preserved is that coral does not grow on gold. The wood inside the gold “veneer” was deteriorated, which made it very fragile and for that reason, he has not attempted to retrieve it from the water.

http://wyattmuseum.com/chariot-wheels-in-the-red-sea/2011-669


everready

 

[seehigh]

Like finding Chariot Wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea?

THE CHARIOT WHEELS

We will begin with the chariot wheels that Ron and the boys found in the Gulf of Aqaba. In 1978, on their first dive at the site, they found these chariot remains. Like Noah’s Ark, these were not in perfect condition and required careful examination to see exactly what they were. They were covered in coral, which made it difficult to see them clearly, but it appears that the coral was the agent the Lord used to preserve them.

They found numerous wheels- some were still on their axles, and some were off. They found chariot cabs without the wheels, also: EXO 14:24 …in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians, 25 And took off their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily:…

So far, this coincided with the Biblical account. They found several 6-spoked wheels, as well as an 8-spoked wheel. And finally, in 1988, Ron found the 4-spoked gold chariot wheel, which looks almost perfect. The reason this one was so well preserved is that coral does not grow on gold. The wood inside the gold “veneer” was deteriorated, which made it very fragile and for that reason, he has not attempted to retrieve it from the water.

http://wyattmuseum.com/chariot-wheels-in-the-red-sea/2011-669


everready

Really?

This has been so thoroughly debunked that even Answers in Genesis says its a fraud.

 

[everready]

Really?

This has been so thoroughly debunked that even Answers in Genesis says its a fraud.

They've found Noah's Ark as well, if you look hard enough you can find everything found that backs scripture has been debunked.

everready

 

[Cons&Spires]

Really?

This has been so thoroughly debunked that even Answers in Genesis says its a fraud.

AiG has been very irresponsible with their belief. I don't believe in evolution and yet I see them as more of a burden than a prospect.

Don't get me wrong, though, they have made remarkable points which secure the foundation of Creationism and I applaud them for it, but they otherwise tend to just throw things out there without critical thought, which in turn puts them wide open for a beating.
That is why the list of refuted arguments are so long on their list of things to not argue.

 

[seehigh]

AiG has been very irresponsible with their belief. I don't believe in evolution and yet I see them as more of a burden than a prospect.

Don't get me wrong, though, they have made remarkable points which secure the foundation of Creationism and I applaud them for it, but they otherwise tend to just throw things out there without critical thought, which in turn puts them wide open for a beating.
That is why the list of refuted arguments are so long on their list of things to not argue.

Ron Wyatt claims have not been vetted or accepted by ANY credible, independent real archeological community.

Has he?

 

[gcthomas]

They've found Noah's Ark as well, if you look hard enough you can find everything found that backs scripture has been debunked.

everready

If you look hard enough and believe hard enough, you can convince yourself you found anything you like.

Doesn't mean it's real though.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Because many can be backed up by independent or concurrent resources.

There is virtually nothing in the Bible that is backed up by any other documents or archaeological evidence, other than perhaps some main places for some towns or cities. And then only by accident.

Dear seehigh,

So you don't believe in God? Where in the world do you think someone else created our body? It all isn't coincidence. Our circulatory system could wrap around the earth twice. Our brain is 3-1,000 terabytes. Nerve impulses travel at the speed of 170 mph. Do you think we just evolved? That is a shame. Only someone Special could have done it. God.

Thanks for posting anyways. You are a good man and don't let anyone tell you different.

Michael

:angrymob: :angel: :cloud9: :rapture:

​