Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Rían]

Yes, that's a good idea, IR - I usually like to type my posts "live", even the long ones, coz it just seems to have more of a conversation-among-friends feel (which is what I like about the Moot), but I think your idea is probably better for this subject and will not tie up the thread. (the 3-hour number was to allow for mom-type interruptions that inevitably occur when trying to type detailed posts!)

The whole point is to be able to present a more coherent picture of a topic or sub-topic. Let's keep to the opening, middle and end announcements idea, tho, so a coherent multi-post discussion won't get interrupted. Obviously, let's not go nuts with a massive number of posts in a row, either - the whole idea is exchange of information and intelligent discussion among Entmoot friends.

[Rían]

Ruinel -
Here's two links about the "living fossils", both from sites that support evolution:

http://www.enature.com/fieldguide/li...ssils_home.asp
http://school.discovery.com/lessonpl...livingfossils/

I have some more, but I thought these two would be enough for now.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Ruinel -
Here's two links about the "living fossils", both from sites that support evolution:

http://www.enature.com/fieldguide/li...ssils_home.asp
http://school.discovery.com/lessonpl...livingfossils/

I have some more, but I thought these two would be enough for now.

errrr... RÃ*an, you know I have a great respect for you. However, there is no such thing as a 'living fossil'. Something has to be dead in order to become a fossil at all. If these sites are using the term 'living fossil', then they are starting out on the wrong foot.

Edit: ok, I've read them. But I still don't see how species that have not changed much over time has anything to do with creationism.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
errrr... RÃ*an, you know I have a great respect for you.

*RÃ*an wonders why - is it because of her great Tengwar writing abilities, or her continual stunning displays of logic? *

However, there is no such thing as a 'living fossil'. Something has to be dead in order to become a fossil at all. If these sites are using the term 'living fossil', then they are starting out on the wrong foot.

Oh, you silly goofball!!
Yes, sites that say that evolution is true, like those sites, very often have many mistakes in them ....
(that's why the term is in quotes, you goofy elf, you!)

Edit: ok, I've read them. But I still don't see how species that have not changed much over time has anything to do with creationism.

Hang on, I'm composing my next lengthy post ... get out your No-Doze pills!!

[Blackheart]

The term "Living fossil" is an artistic invention used by journalists who wanted a catchy term to hype up news stories about the discovery of extant species that were thought to be extinct and known only through the fossil record.

It's not so much a mistake as it is hyperbole.

The reason such species are still extant is that their "niche" or space hasn't changed at all for millions of years. Therefore they have not had to adapt.

[Lief Erikson]

Okay, I have one argument I'd like to clarify and support that I made before, as well as some new evidence to bring up, which people earlier questioned the existence of.

The argument I'd like to bring back and clarify my evidence for is the mathematical one of exponential growth.

First, before directing my attention to the arguments for science's current position on the development of hominids and the time in which that happened, I'd like to explain for any who aren't completely aware, what the mathematical arguments for exponential growth are.

Exponential growth is simply an average rate of growth. Any average higher than the average '2' is exponential growth. 2.3, 2.2, 2.1, 2.01, just about any rate of growth higher than '2' will, within a thousand years (which is many generations) have produced a very large number of people. Any rate of decline below '2' will swiftly put an end to a human population.

Humans tend to mate and give birth at a far faster rate than 2.01, or any of the other numbers I mentioned. What Cirdan mentioned earlier, about exponential growth becoming more of an even line as it gets closer to the beginning, simply mathematically makes no sense. For a species to grow, it has to have a higher growth rate than '2', and if it doesn't, it will die out soon.

This growth rate is even taking into account wars or battles between tribes. The exponential growth prior to 5,000 B.C. has not been severely affected, despite World Wars 1 and 2, and the numerous other huge wars that have taken place.

So mathematically, there is a severe problem. Now I shall get to the various reasons that have been brought up to solve this problem:

[Lief Erikson]

Crops are frequently referred to as what caused humanity to develop and grow. It is supposed to have enabled us to form communities and grow in populations, as well as to enable us to trade technology, thus enabling us to grow and thrive.

As we have already observed in my earlier post, for groups to grow and survive, let alone thrive, exponential growth is required.

Crops do enable us to establish communities, and I believe they do indeed help in trade as well, enabling technology to spread at a faster rate. However, crops are not required for hunting development to grow, and they aren't required for tribes to expand or break into smaller groups. Exponential growth is needed to happen if these people were to survive, because of the observed mathematics.

There were huge amounts of game available to the early hominids, and we have evidence that they made use of it. Archaic Homo have been found in Thomas Quarry, El Guettar, Haua Fteah, Bîr Tarfawi/Sahara, Bodo, Broken Hill, Chambuage Mine, Elandssfontein, and Florisbad. All those places are in Africa.

These hominids have also been found Narmada, Treugol naya Cave, Bitzingsleben, and Vertesszöllös. Those places spread from Europe to the Mediterranean, and to other parts of the globe.

This is just Archaic Homo. There are a huge number of other global sites I could mention to you. Just ask for more, and I'll give them to you.


So we have clear evidence that, as exponential growth requires, humans did thrive. However, if they did thrive, the world would have been populated far more swiftly than has been observed. Indeed, let me quote from "The World Book," here.

Originally written in "The World Book
For a long time, no people lived in the Americas, though many animals roamed the land. They included huge mammoths and mastodons, herds of bison and elk, and great cats. During the Ice Age-about a million years ago-great sheets of ice were 1 to 2 miles (1.6 to 3.2 kilometers) thick. The level of the oceans became lower because so much of the earth's water mde up the ice sheets. Much land that had been under water-and today is under water-became dry. One such area lay between Siberia and Alaska, where the Bering Strait now separates Asia and North America by about 50 miles (80 kilometers).

Plants started to grow on the new land, and animals began to cross it in both directions, grazing on the vegetation. Some people of Siberia followed the animals that they hunted, and they crossed this land into the New World. These people were the ancestors of the American Indians. No one knows exactly when these people came to North America, but it was probably at least 20,000 years ago. By about 10,000 years ago, the ice sheets had melted and the land bridge became covered with water. By 6,000 B.C., people were living at the southern tip of South America.

So in 14,000 years, Indians covered both continents. My Dad told me about one site that was found, which was dated to 30,000 years, which would set the date back 10,000 years. Still a pretty fast expansion, when you take into account that hominids existed for 2 million years, but I'd make this point further.

There is actually a strong reason to move the date forward, rather than backward.

[Lief Erikson]

Evidences of later contact between Old World and New World (definitely indicate diffusion):
Hebrew coins from Roman times found in Tenessee and American Southeast.

Anubis Caves in western Oklahoma Celtic or Libyan script and Egyptian traditions.

Carthaginian coins found in Rio de Janeiro (350BC to 320BC).

Common garden green bean first used in Athens (4th c. BC) found all along Peruvian coast.

Related cultivated cottons-Pakistan 3,000 BC, Peru 2,500 BC; loom of idenitcal construction between Peru and Egypt - vertical frame matches New Kingdom and horizontal loom matches Old Kingdom. (Egypt is source of Atlantis account).

Purple dye from shell fish (Phoenician pre-1,700 BC) also used in pre-Columbian New World (Mexico to Ecuador) - both equated with wealth, fertility, and royalty (may have gone east instead of west?)

That's all I'm in the mood for quoting just now. I'm not done quoting the evidences from that paper though, in case anyone wants more.

There also is the fact that no animal bones have been found in the ice-free corridor from 22,500 BC to 10,500 BC (9,500 BC by radio carbon dating). That's a large part of the time all this movement of humans and animals was supposed to be taking place.

There is really a lot more evidence on this subject I could give.

So anyway, we have a fast expansion done by people who, through a large part of it, did not have access to crops.

We also have information that the different types of hominids did indeed exist and thrive in numerous locations of the world.

I could also quote a source which demonstrates the intelligence of the early humans as well- that's another point that seems to have been doubted by some.



But above all these evidences, exponential growth is mathematical, and is necessary for our species' survival. There is evidence that it should have taken place, and that humanity was in the perfect situation for it to happen as well.

Technology is not vital for human growth- else we would have died out when our brains were less large and our technology the smallest, rather than spreading to cover the globe, as we apparently did. Crops are not necessary for humans to spread- even though they are important to the construction of communities and the spread of technology.



Crops and technology are not vital to human exponential growth, though they are a stimulant. And exponential growth is vital to human survival. The odds against humanity having averaged a '2' for each couple are incredibly remote. Our species had to either thrive or die out. High mortality rate plainly doesn't affect this. Why would we have kept with this small number of children? And how (questioning from the mathematical standpoint, more than anything else) could we have?

[Lief Erikson]

All right, now I'm going to get back to funner territory . A while ago, people questioned my having a source book called "Ice ages," which contained in it scientific evidence of a world wide flood. I said at the time that it was dated to a long time ago, and I was completely correct. But science does acknowledge at least one world wide deluge.

Originally written in "Ice Ages"
When the Earth's atmosphere first formed, it held almost enough water to fill an entire ocean, whereas today only about 1 percent of the planet's water is held in the atmosphere. In effect, steam made up a large portion of the early atmosphere. The atmospheric pressure was several times higher than it is today. When the atmosphere cooled enough to allow water vapor to condense into rain, the water evaporated before it reached the ground because the Earth's surface was still very hot. Eventually, when the ground cooled enough to allow rain to fall on it, the evaporation of rainwater further cooled the surface. This initiated a continuous deluge that covered the entire planet in a global sea that was nearly 2 miles deep.

I personally am actually more of the opinion that this is descriptive of the Biblical second day than that it is the Flood of Noah, though. It is very similar in description to that passage, which describes the water of the ocean and the water of the sky being separated. That passage also describes what is described in this passage, that at that time there was no land, but a huge sea.

Genesis 1:6-8
And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.

In the next verse, it is written, "And God said, 'Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.'"

This description is basically exactly like the scientifically accepted version that I have just read.

I will present one theory which might interest some of you, about how the Flood happened. This theory is backed up by scientific evidence.

Originally written in "Before the Flood"
For as has been scientifically established for over a century, the world has repeatedly suffered from Ice Ages, at the last count no less than 36 of these occurring during the last three million years. And although exactly why these happen is still not yet fully understood, the last Ice Age, and the melting that stemmed from it, was quite definitely well within the time that humankind walked the earth.

Originally written in "Before the Flood"
When the ice was at its full height, it has been estimated that the total volume of its coverage of the earth's surface comprised some 70 million cubic kilomtres. That is, nearly three times the 25 million cubic kilometre volume that exists at the present day, mostly in the Arctic and Antarctica. And obvious though it may sound, when ice melts it turns to water. So glaciers became rivers which fed into the oceans. And since all the world's oceans are linked to each other, the huge influx of extra water increased the overall volume of the seas relative to the land. All around the world the sea-levels must have risen significantly, bringing with them a drowning of huge areas of what had formerly been dry land.

To put this in perspective, it has been calculated that if some uncontrolled global warming were to happen in our own time and as a result of this the last 25 million cubic kilometres of remaining ice were all to melt, the present-day world sea-level would be raised by about 65 metres (210 feet). The inevitable result of this would be that most of the world's major cities, such as London, Paris, New York, Washington, Tokyo and Sydney, would be almost entirely inundated, together with the great bulk of the low-lying areas of the continents, where most of their populations live. Only a few rare exceptions such as Mexico City, at an elevation of 2,260 metres(7,415 feet) would stand clear of the flood-waters. The scale of such catastrophe is so unimaginable that not the least of its effects would be the instant ruin of every insurance company world-wide.

[Lief Erikson]

I actually don't believe the theory I just quoted is correct, for a couple reasons. One is that it somewhat disagrees with the Flood account of the Bible, in that the water came from the sky and from underground. Also, though this is a flood that would have affected the entire world with huge flooding, it isn't necessarily worldwide, which is also somewhat annoying.

In this theory the water comes from ice on the ground. The Biblical description doesn't fully tally, though it does in some aspects.

Many of the evidences supporting this theory are sound, though. Such as the evidence of major extinctions at the time period that it states, and the abrupt changes between salt water and fresh water at about 5,000 to 6,000 BC, not to mention the human bodies and dwellings that based upon their theory, they predicted would turn up under the Black Sea, and the bodies and buildings of a civilization did turn up.


So that is a theory that can be accepted and used. The book "Before the Flood," is written by Ian Wilson.

The second reason I disagree with that theory I'll keep to myself, at the moment. However, scientifically it does pretty well hold water, from my perspective (no pun intended). I don't intend to defend it very strongly. If anyone wants to learn more about it and the numerous supportive scientific evidences, you should read the book.


One other thing I wanted to say before closing down for the night. Science has completely validated through evolution the Biblical passage stating that man was created from dust.

I would like to point out further though, that verse 24 of Genesis 1 seems also to be in support of evolution by environment.

"And God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds'"

It's interesting that it's written this way. Unlike many other passages that describe how from dust God created, this goes further and describes that the land itself produced the creatures in the forms they ended up being.

Like the supercontinent passage, as Cirdan pointed out, it is possible to take in other ways (with some difficulty). But taken literally, it shows that environment had a hand to play in the shaping of the various kinds of creatures.


Ah yes. One further thing I'd like to mention. Not something I'm demanding that anyone take as a proof, but Eve's coming from Adam is not impossible, scientifically speaking. He had the XY chromosome, which meant that he would logically be the one who started the race, for Y is unique to the male sex. Certain species of animals, when in dire situations in terms of finding mates, have been known to change their gender in order to give birth.

This isn't certainly the way it happened, but I'm pointing out another aspect of the Creation story that seemed impossible except by a miracle, but which is demonstrated to be possible, by science.

I personally am certain that God made Eve out of Adam's rib. Whether he crafted her through science or through a simple miracle I don't know, but it is interesting to consider the possibilities, as more of the Genesis story is made possible and even accepted by science.

[Lief Erikson]

Please remember, in your analysis of the Bible, that earlier on, almost none of it was accepted. Now, much more of it is becoming so. Most of the Old Testament and virtually all of the New Testament are strongly attested to the accuracy of, historically speaking. If the Bible had been molded to science two or three centuries ago, if it had allowed itself to change, as one of you suggested it needs to be able to to keep up to date, then it would long ago have been obsolete. It would be scientifically proven by modern discoveries to be wrong. However, because it was held to, much of it is proved right. Only some of the farthest back events, the Creation story and the earlier aspects of man's development, are strongly contested. Many of the events of the Creation story are accepted or at least possible, scientifically speaking. I actually can't think of any that is impossible, and shown to be impossible by science. They are currently believed to be untrue, because much of the physical evidence points that way (though there is a huge amount of Creationist scientific evidence as well- just check out http://evolution-facts.org/1evich06b.htm), but much I strongly believe is possible.

The second day is largely accepted. Various points of the Creation story which would, a century ago, have seemed impossible now are possible. The break-up of the continents was predicted. The Flood there is evidence for, though not yet a convincing case. The long ages of men I brought up a theory for, based upon the nature of radio carbon and the evidence for its having shifted. I'm not sure where that is anymore . . . somewhere in the old pages.

So I don't think the Creation story should by any means be dismissed out of hand. You can continue to disbelieve it, but remember that science is still moving, and much more of the Bible is now accepted or considered very possible than was in previous centuries. Also remember the huge growth of acceptance of the Old and New Testaments, before casting a verdict.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson



Crops and technology are not vital to human exponential growth, though they are a stimulant. And exponential growth is vital to human survival. The odds against humanity having averaged a '2' for each couple are incredibly remote. Our species had to either thrive or die out. High mortality rate plainly doesn't affect this. Why would we have kept with this small number of children? And how (questioning from the mathematical standpoint, more than anything else) could we have?

Lief Erikson, meet Dr. Malthus.

From "An Essay on the Principle of Population"

Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will shew the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second.

By that law of our nature which makes food necessary to the life of man, the effects of these two unequal powers must be kept equal.

This implies a strong and constantly operating check on population from the difficulty of subsistence. This difficulty must fall somewhere and must necessarily be severely felt by a large portion of mankind.

Through the animal and vegetable kingdoms, nature has scattered the seeds of life abroad with the most profuse and liberal hand. She has been comparatively sparing in the room and the nourishment necessary to rear them. The germs of existence contained in this spot of earth, with ample food, and ample room to expand in, would fill millions of worlds in the course of a few thousand years. Necessity, that imperious all pervading law of nature, restrains them within the prescribed bounds. The race of plants and the race of animals shrink under this great restrictive law. And the race of man cannot, by any efforts of reason, escape from it.

[Ruinel]

Leif, you claim that more of the bible is being accepted? You are mistaken, actually. More of it is being disproven. The only evidence for Creationism is what Creationists create. Creationism is widely believed to be false among scientists. Perhaps the wide group of people you are referring to belong to your church, and that is fine... but be more specific as to what group of people believe Creationism to be truth.

EDIT: one observation on my part... Christians are so eager to present their theory of Creation as truth that they are willing to falsify information in order to promote that theory. I find that disturbing.

*picks up stick and pokes at dead horse*
errrrr... I think we can stop beating it now.

[GrayMouser]

Lief, you quote two sources.

"Ice Age" -could you give the author?- which states that (presumably) billions of years ago the Earth's atmosphere cooled down enough for liquid water to precipitate;

and "Before the Flood" which says that there were Ice Ages over the last three million years, and that the ending of the last of these caused widespread but limited coastal flooding.

And you're using these to support a Biblical Young Earth and Noah's Flood??

[Lief Erikson]

"Ice Ages, Past and Future," is written by Jon Erickson, ironically enough .

Originally posted by GrayMouser
"Ice Age" -could you give the author?- which states that (presumably) billions of years ago the Earth's atmosphere cooled down enough for liquid water to precipitate;

and "Before the Flood" which says that there were Ice Ages over the last three million years, and that the ending of the last of these caused widespread but limited coastal flooding.

You misunderstand me. I have not been arguing for a young Earth. I wrote in my post, I think, that I have some difficulties with the account given in "Before the Flood," partly because it doesn't involve a world drowning deluge, and also partly because of other technicalities about the nature of the Flood that are not a part of the "Ice Ages" description.

However, I am offering the theory for people to think about anyway. Simply because I can't post my Dad's theory, which I think is much better.

"Ice Ages," I gave as a validation for my statement earlier on that I did have such a resource book which said there was a scientifically accepted world deluge. Several people disagreed with me on that point, so I promised to get the source and then return. Some weeks later, I have finally done so .

The account in "Ice Ages," I see as a strong validation for the Biblical second day. As I pointed out in my earlier post, the similarity between the Biblical second day and the scientific account of the creation of the atmosphere is virtually exactly the same.

Seven Days

I personally don't really believe that the days are meant to be taken literally. There are Scriptures which describe God's time as different from ours. Jesus said that he would return soon. A couple thousand years later, we're still waiting. The fourth day was the day the sun and moon were created, and it is written that then the day and night were separated. They were not different from each other, in the past. That implies that the days God uses to separate time very likely are very different from the days that are described there. Then there is the fact that the sun and moon weren't even created until the fourth day, when the night and day were separated. The visibility of the sun and moon was provided partly for our benefit, that we might separate time.

So there is strong reason to believe, merely from the Bible, that a different form of time was described.



So a young Earth I am not arguing for. The Biblical Flood I provided that theory to offer one possibility that is scientifically accepted. The method of dating though I don't completely approve of either. Radio carbon dating was a frequent method by which they achieved their 5,000-6,000 BC dates for this widespread flooding, but radio carbon dating has severe problems with it. I can provide plenty of evidence of innaccuracy of radio carbon dates, except within recent centuries, where the possibility of contamination of the dated subjects is significantly smaller.

However, like RÃ*an, I do have some difficulties with the current scientific stance on evolution, because of how swiftly environment changes. As Cirdan pointed out in an earlier post, sudden environmental changes do cause major extinctions among those species that don't migrate. Environmental changes are one of the theories at present circulating to explain the destruction of the dinosaurs. This doesn't make any sense though, unless you find innaccuracy in fossil dating and state that the dinosaurs only lived for a few thousand years, instead of several million.

Sheeana has claimed that my source doesn't provide any of the speedy changes that I have said it does, so I guess sometime I'll have to review it and provide her with quotes. That's something I still have to do.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Leif, you claim that more of the bible is being accepted? You are mistaken, actually. More of it is being disproven. The only evidence for Creationism is what Creationists create. Creationism is widely believed to be false among scientists. Perhaps the wide group of people you are referring to belong to your church, and that is fine... but be more specific as to what group of people believe Creationism to be truth.

Here you have to differentiate in your terms. Most of the Old Testament and virtually all of the New is accepted as historically valid. I can provide you with a huge list of corroborating sources. The Creation story is currently not accepted by many scientists, though many Christian scientists believe in it. There is likewise a difference between Creationism and the Creation story. Many scientists have no problem with Creationism, just with the Christian story of Creation. So most of the Bible is historically proved valid, simply aspects of the Creation story are disagreed with.

However, as I submitted earlier, much more of it seems possible than seemed so earlier. I believe there actually is evidence for evolution in the Bible, in the passage I gave in my earlier post, and there is certainly evidence for the supercontinent Pangea, and for the second day's description of events being accurate. These facts are important.

Originally posted by Ruinel
EDIT: one observation on my part... Christians are so eager to present their theory of Creation as truth that they are willing to falsify information in order to promote that theory. I find that disturbing.

*picks up stick and pokes at dead horse*
errrrr... I think we can stop beating it now.

Unfortunately, I know that is true in some cases. There is a whole chapter in "Before the Flood," on faked on innaccurate information given by Christians.

However, I would like it if I knew you weren't generalizing when you say that. The way you state it, it sounds as if you're throwing all of us, including myself, Gwaimir, RÃ*an, and the Entmoot Christians, all into the same boat with a minority that do do that kind of thing.

[Lief Erikson]

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will shew the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second.

By that law of our nature which makes food necessary to the life of man, the effects of these two unequal powers must be kept equal.

This implies a strong and constantly operating check on population from the difficulty of subsistence. This difficulty must fall somewhere and must necessarily be severely felt by a large portion of mankind.

Through the animal and vegetable kingdoms, nature has scattered the seeds of life abroad with the most profuse and liberal hand. She has been comparatively sparing in the room and the nourishment necessary to rear them. The germs of existence contained in this spot of earth, with ample food, and ample room to expand in, would fill millions of worlds in the course of a few thousand years. Necessity, that imperious all pervading law of nature, restrains them within the prescribed bounds. The race of plants and the race of animals shrink under this great restrictive law. And the race of man cannot, by any efforts of reason, escape from it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I realize that species are limited by their food supply. However, there were a huge amount of animals in the time period we're talking about.

When one species comes into an environment that is better adapted to the environment than other species, generally there are extinctions that show up, and the species spreads until it is unable to spread any further. Rabbits being introduced to Australia was a disaster to the native animal populations. Many species were thrust to the verge of extinction because of the elimination of their food resources, while the rabbits multiplied, multiplied, and continued to multiply. Animals were people's food during that era, and they were abundant. Man was around the top of the food chain, so far as I can see, just as rabbits in Australia were.

[HOBBIT]

You guys do take from sources that do that often.

Most of the Old Testament and virtually all of the New is accepted as historically valid.

Being more accepted by whom? I don't know much about the new testament, but I do know that the old testament is based loosely on fact.

I say that because it reads much more like a myth than a history book. Not all of it is completely historically accurate, just close.

I have read many articles and seen many shows on how many of the things (events, ppl, places, etc) actually did really exist.

For example, I remember reading an article on how there was evidence on how the hebrew people acutally escaped from Egypt and other things.

I've also seen many programs on the History and Discovery channel on just how historically accurate the bible is. What I got from those is basically that they were just loosely based in fact - some places were off, some people didn't exist, some people's roles in the bible were not the same as in real life, the dates in the bible were off by many years and credited to the wrong kings, stuff like that.

I'm just saying, yes, it is found to be loosely based in fact, just don't read it in for the History. You can't read something in it and assume it happened just because some other things have been proven to have happened.

How is this different from other myths? They are all based on fact. Oddyssy, Illiad, other Greek and Roman mythology. They include names of real ppl, real places. Are Cyclops real? Are greek gods real?

What about Julius Caesar? Based on a lot of facts. Are the dialogue and all events completely historically accurate? No.

What does the historical accuracy, or lack thereof, of the bible have anything to do with proving creation?

"this event happened so the creation story must be true to"

doesn't really work, imo.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
...However, I would like it if I knew you weren't generalizing when you say that. The way you state it, it sounds as if you're throwing all of us, including myself, Gwaimir, RÃ*an, and the Entmoot Christians, all into the same boat with a minority that do do that kind of thing.

Have any of you created information? If you have, then you may lump yourself in with those that have faked the information. If you have not, then you are removed from those that, IMO, lie to further their cause.

It is not Hindus that falsify evidence for the Christian Creation Theory, it is Christians.

(Since HOBBIT addressed the other question, I'll let you answer him.)

[Lief Erikson]

HOBBIT, there is one thing you have to realize first. Documents that detail history, as the Old and New Testament writers do, tend to be relied upon as accurate unless their is strong evidence against their accuracy. Show me strong historical reason to believe the Bible is not true, if you don't believe it is.

The Old Testament writers wrote with history plainly in mind. Note that in the Old Testament books, they frequently referenced other important books of the period, like the "writings of the prophets," and the "Annals of the Kings of Israel," and the "Annals of the Kings of Judah."

The events that they write about are ones about kings that they reference in other historical works. Would they outright lie about historical figures? Would they make up that King David, arguably one of the greatest of Israel's kings, committed adultery with Bathsheba?

What specific mythological type events do you have in mind? Jonah and the whale? Daniel and the Lions? Shadrak, Meeshak and Abendego?

If God exists, these stories lose a great deal of the likelihood that they are myth. So it is only based upon the assumption that God isn't real that these events are myth, which means you're basing the fact that the Bible is myth upon your own belief that God doesn't exist.


The New Testament is even more strongly backed up than the Old Testament, which is why I'm discussing with you the Old Testament instead.

Originally posted by HOBBIT
"this event happened so the creation story must be true to"

doesn't really work, imo.

Accuracy in parts of an account that can be proven tend to increase the likelihood of fact in other areas. It is the case for lawyers in court cases as well.

Originally written in "The Case for Christ"
In an extraordinary-and for prosecutors, fortuitous-coincidence, each member of MacDonald's family had a different blood type. By analyzing where bloodstains were found, investigators were able to reconstruct the sequence of events that deadly evening-and it directly contradicted MacDonald's version of what happened.

Scientific study of tiny blue pajama threads, which were found scattered in various locations, also refuted his alibi. And microscopic analysis demonstrated that holes in his pajamas could not have been made, as he claimed, by an ice pick in his pajamas wielded by the home invaders. In short, it was FBI technicians in white lab coats who were really behind MacDonald's conviction.

Scientific evidence can also make important contributions to the question of whether the New Testament accounts of jesus are accurate. While serology and toxicology aren't able to shed any light on the issue, another category of scientific proof-the discipline of archaeology-has great bearing on the reliability of the gospels.

For example, if I can prove to you beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus rose from the dead, then this increases the likelihood of the accuracy of the Creation story by quite a lot. If I prove to you God exists, and that the Bible is accurate in its portrayal of him (aside from the Creation story), then it follows that one can believe that he created as he is stated to have in the Creation story. Evidence for the accuracy of one part of a story increase the likelihood of accuracy in others.