Can any book test faith as much as the Bible?

[excreationist]

One thing I find interesting about the Bible is that it includes so many problematic ideas yet many intelligent people are able to justify their belief in it - and keep their faith even when there is severe cognitive dissonance (perhaps because there is the threat of hell and the promise of paradise)

So they claim it is 100% moral and historical - that God is 100% loving - though the church tradition is eternal torment for most people, it commands God's people to commit many instances of genocide (Deuteronomy 20:16-17), polygamy for many main OT characters (including 1000 wives and concubines for Solomon) [on that topic I think monogamy was a Roman thing], lots of verses that suggest a flat earth (with no verses against the flat earth), it suggests the universe is 6000 years old - e.g.

Why Does Creation Matter?

Is creation vital to the authority of Scripture and the gospel, or are we just wasting our time and being divisive—or worse, turning people away from Christ?

answersingenesis.org

“Ultimately, the controversy about the age of the earth is a controversy about the authority of Scripture. If millions of years really happened, then the Bible is false and cannot speak with authority on any issue, even the Gospel.”

Though Old Earth Creationists think the Bible doesn't necessarily support YEC:

Evolution and Creation Science, The Bible Taught It First

An article about evolution and its impact on the creation science debate, Evolution - The Bible Taught It First

www.oldearth.org

2 Timothy 3:16 says “All Scripture is God-breathed” - I believe in an intelligent force but I think most of the Bible isn't historical. I find this quote to be very relevant to my idea of "god":

GOD: Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch like a safecracker or a pickpocket.

BENDER: Or a guy who burns down the bar for the insurance money.

GOD: Yes, if you make it look like an electrical thing. When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

So I don't see it as being all-or-nothing like Fundamentalist Christians and some atheists (though I did go from being a YEC to an atheist).

Though the Bible supports all of those intrepretations.

 

[Learner]

(though I did go from being a YEC to an atheist).

Interestingly I have wondered - if there are those who are neither old-earth or new-earth believers. I 'm not talking about those who aren't sure either way - I mean about those who take to the idea that the earth is neither, too old or too new - sort of appying the Goldilocks principle analogy, if you will.

 

[excreationist]

(though I did go from being a YEC to an atheist).

Interestingly I have wondered - if there are those who are neither old-earth or new-earth believers. I 'm not talking about those who aren't sure either way - I mean about those who take to the idea that the earth is neither, too old or too new - sort of applying the Goldilocks principle analogy, if you will.

My current beliefs might qualify.... I believe I'm in a video game that only began relatively recently. I don't think the fossil record was explicitly simulated in the past but instead is virtually generated from recent times - so it seems it happened over many millions of years involving "apparent age".
That way you can start off with humans and birds and flowers, etc, and generate a virtual evolutionary history - rather than starting with amoeba and trying to guide it to humans, etc, or just repeat the simulation a huge number of times until humans, etc, evolve. Maybe the evolutionary tree is loosely based on those who are running the simulation but maybe there is extra variety in our simulation.



As far as other people go, perhaps some "gap theory" and "day age theory" proponents believe in in-between ages for the earth but I don't think specific timeframes are popular.....

 

[Learner]

(though I did go from being a YEC to an atheist).

Interestingly I have wondered - if there are those who are neither old-earth or new-earth believers. I 'm not talking about those who aren't sure either way - I mean about those who take to the idea that the earth is neither, too old or too new - sort of applying the Goldilocks principle analogy, if you will.

My current beliefs might qualify.... I believe I'm in a video game that only began relatively recently. I don't think the fossil record was explicitly simulated in the past but instead is virtually generated from recent times - so it seems it happened over many millions of years involving "apparent age".

That way you can start off with humans and birds and flowers, etc, and generate a virtual evolutionary history - rather than starting with amoeba and trying to guide it to humans, etc, or just repeat the simulation a huge number of times until humans, etc, evolve. Maybe the evolutionary tree is loosely based on those who are running the simulation but maybe there is extra variety in our simulation.

View attachment 39217

As far as other people go, perhaps some "gap theory" and "day age theory" proponents believe in in-between ages for the earth but I don't think specific timeframes are popular.....

Hi ex, that's an intriquing concept, I say genuinely. I am certainly not an old earth creationist. A younger earth could at least solve quite a few issues; like for example: the various ideas or theories that have been topics for debates. Intriguing things like humans painting dinosaur-like creatures, discovered in caves or carvings of similar creatures found around the world. The notion being... dinosaurs were still around when man came onto the scene.

Another example I found fascinating was a surprising result from a chemical process discovered by accident (or divine intervention ) by a Dr. Mary H. Sweitzer whereby she was able to remove minerals from a Tyrannosaurus rex bones, revealing, what was left behind after the process, was: soft tissue, showing blood vessels and micro structures, whilst still retatining it's elasticity! She was attacked, poor soul, for some years by some of the science community members, who would be her collegues - accusing her of contaminating her specimens or something similar of that degree. I think IIRC, she challenged them by simply by saying "do the experiments yourselves" One or two did, I think, and they agreed with her. (Just type her name in google)

(The excuses or the new theory that developed, it seemed to me, that was coming from her sceptical collegues - giving the reasons "why" you can still get soft tissue from dinosaur bones, and that is (what they can comprehend): tissues (and DNA?) are more resilient and rugged than first thought, lasting for millions of years. Erm.. ok.)

There were also some other issues, that were topics for debates. Cambrian explosion and the fossil records reliability.

 

[excreationist]

Hi ex, that's an intriquing concept, I say genuinely. I am certainly not an old earth creationist. A younger earth could at least solve quite a few issues; like for example: the various ideas or theories that have been topics for debates. Intriguing things like humans painting dinosaur-like creatures, discovered in caves or carvings of similar creatures found around the world. The notion being... dinosaurs were still around when man came onto the scene.

The flood was calculated to have happened at about 2348 BC. YECs believe that all of the dinosaur species were saved on the ark. Then it seems they all become pretty much completely extinct.... the cave paintings, etc, of "dragons" convinced me when I was in high school... e.g.

Ancient Dinosaur Depictions | Genesis Park

www.genesispark.com

There should be more evidence though - like recent bones that were taken as souvenirs. Though I think the Bible fits YEC better than OEC - same with the flat earth.

Another example I found fascinating was a surprising result from a chemical process discovered by accident (or divine intervention ) by a Dr. Mary H. Sweitzer whereby she was able to remove minerals from a Tyrannosaurus rex bones, revealing, what was left behind after the process, was: soft tissue, showing blood vessels and micro structures, whilst still retatining it's elasticity! She was attacked, poor soul, for some years by some of the science community members, who would be her collegues - accusing her of contaminating her specimens or something similar of that degree. I think IIRC, she challenged them by simply by saying "do the experiments yourselves" One or two did, I think, and they agreed with her. (Just type her name in google)

(The excuses or the new theory that developed, it seemed to me, that was coming from her sceptical collegues - giving the reasons "why" you can still get soft tissue from dinosaur bones, and that is (what they can comprehend): tissues (and DNA?) are more resilient and rugged than first thought, lasting for millions of years. Erm.. ok.)

Here is a YEC look at evolutionist counter-arguments:

Dinosaur soft tissue

Evolutionist Mary Schweitzer trying desperately to explain dinosaur soft tissue by saying iron in blood preserved it 70+ million years.

creation.com

There were also some other issues, that were topics for debates. Cambrian explosion and the fossil records reliability.

The Cambrian explosion could be evidence for guided evolution.... not so much for YEC....

 

[Learner]

Hi ex, that's an intriquing concept, I say genuinely. I am certainly not an old earth creationist. A younger earth could at least solve quite a few issues; like for example: the various ideas or theories that have been topics for debates. Intriguing things like humans painting dinosaur-like creatures, discovered in caves or carvings of similar creatures found around the world. The notion being... dinosaurs were still around when man came onto the scene.

The flood was calculated to have happened at about 2348 BC. YECs believe that all of the dinosaur species were saved on the ark. Then it seems they all become pretty much completely extinct.... the cave paintings, etc, of "dragons" convinced me when I was in high school... e.g.

I don't think that having all the dinosaurs saved on the ark is the universal standard for YEC. I know of those,like myself, that take to the flood itself being very the reason for the dinosaurs extinction. It makes a little more logical sense imo, compared to the dinosaurs, that after being saved, should suddenly then disappear while the humans and other animals from the ark, weren't affected at all.

Ancient Dinosaur Depictions | Genesis Park

www.genesispark.com

There should be more evidence though - like recent bones that were taken as souvenirs. Though I think the Bible fits YEC better than OEC - same with the flat earth.

Like the above, you're placing the dinosaurs existence AFTER the flood. That's were we see differently, leading us both in different directions. My reference point on the time-line, is that man and dinosaurs were before the flood event. Hence in this case: there'd be NO souvenirs, or personal treasures, or even evidence of the dwellings, linking to the people of that particular time, before the flood. Those souvenirs, or dwellings if still intact and not destroyed, would be buried suddenly, like the sudden burial of dinosaur herds, that were, discovered unders great masses of sediment.

Another example I found fascinating was a surprising result from a chemical process discovered by accident (or divine intervention ) by a Dr. Mary H. Sweitzer whereby she was able to remove minerals from a Tyrannosaurus rex bones, revealing, what was left behind after the process, was: soft tissue, showing blood vessels and micro structures, whilst still retatining it's elasticity! She was attacked, poor soul, for some years by some of the science community members, who would be her collegues - accusing her of contaminating her specimens or something similar of that degree. I think IIRC, she challenged them by simply by saying "do the experiments yourselves" One or two did, I think, and they agreed with her. (Just type her name in google)

(The excuses or the new theory that developed, it seemed to me, that was coming from her sceptical collegues - giving the reasons "why" you can still get soft tissue from dinosaur bones, and that is (what they can comprehend): tissues (and DNA?) are more resilient and rugged than first thought, lasting for millions of years. Erm.. ok.)

Here is a YEC look at evolutionist counter-arguments:

Dinosaur soft tissue

Evolutionist Mary Schweitzer trying desperately to explain dinosaur soft tissue by saying iron in blood preserved it 70+ million years.

creation.com

There were also some other issues, that were topics for debates. Cambrian explosion and the fossil records reliability.

The Cambrian explosion could be evidence for guided evolution.... not so much for YEC....

Fair point of view.

 

[excreationist]

I don't think that having all the dinosaurs saved on the ark is the universal standard for YEC. I know of those,like myself, that take to the flood itself being very the reason for the dinosaurs extinction. It makes a little more logical sense imo, compared to the dinosaurs, that after being saved, should suddenly then disappear while the humans and other animals from the ark, weren't affected at all.

Like the above, you're placing the dinosaurs existence AFTER the flood. That's were we see differently, leading us both in different directions. My reference point on the time-line, is that man and dinosaurs were before the flood event. Hence in this case: there'd be NO souvenirs, or personal treasures, or even evidence of the dwellings, linking to the people of that particular time, before the flood. Those souvenirs, or dwellings if still intact and not destroyed, would be buried suddenly, like the sudden burial of dinosaur herds, that were, discovered unders great masses of sediment.

Genesis 6:19-20:
"You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive."

Otherwise it seems like the flood is a good explanation for the extinction of the dinosaurs.....

 

[Learner]

A good bit of investigation ex. You have a good point there. I vaguely remembering there were ideas, although I didn't look into it, that strange large creatures were hunted even during the middle ages Like those Legends of Dragons, behemoths and Sea monsters etc..Interestingly worth looking into. If it were the case, let's say - then they could have been hunted to extinction. Similar to animals hunted to extinction in the last hundred years. The dinosaurs would be comparitively smaller in population number, as compared to those previously existing creatures prior to the flood.

 

[excreationist]

A good bit of investigation ex. You have a good point there. I vaguely remembering there were ideas, although I didn't look into it, that strange large creatures were hunted even during the middle ages Like those Legends of Dragons, behemoths and Sea monsters etc..Interestingly worth looking into. If it were the case, let's say - then they could have been hunted to extinction. Similar to animals hunted to extinction in the last hundred years. The dinosaurs would be comparitively smaller in population number, as compared to those previously existing creatures prior to the flood.

On the other hand there are stories of yetis/bigfoot.... and ape-men go against creationism.
YECs used to say the following was a plesiosaur but now they tend to think it is probably just a shark....

Zuiyo-maru carcass - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Teaching kids that Behemoth was a dinosaur:

 

[Politesse]

Can any book test faith as much as the Bible?​

My students seem to like "The Four Agreements".

 

[atrib]

(though I did go from being a YEC to an atheist).

Interestingly I have wondered - if there are those who are neither old-earth or new-earth believers. I 'm not talking about those who aren't sure either way - I mean about those who take to the idea that the earth is neither, too old or too new - sort of applying the Goldilocks principle analogy, if you will.

My current beliefs might qualify.... I believe I'm in a video game that only began relatively recently. I don't think the fossil record was explicitly simulated in the past but instead is virtually generated from recent times - so it seems it happened over many millions of years involving "apparent age".

That way you can start off with humans and birds and flowers, etc, and generate a virtual evolutionary history - rather than starting with amoeba and trying to guide it to humans, etc, or just repeat the simulation a huge number of times until humans, etc, evolve. Maybe the evolutionary tree is loosely based on those who are running the simulation but maybe there is extra variety in our simulation.

View attachment 39217

As far as other people go, perhaps some "gap theory" and "day age theory" proponents believe in in-between ages for the earth but I don't think specific timeframes are popular.....

Hi ex, that's an intriquing concept, I say genuinely. I am certainly not an old earth creationist.

You don't believe the solar system is billions of years old? Why not?

A younger earth could at least solve quite a few issues; like for example: the various ideas or theories that have been topics for debates. Intriguing things like humans painting dinosaur-like creatures, discovered in caves or carvings of similar creatures found around the world. The notion being... dinosaurs were still around when man came onto the scene.

We know dinosaurs have been extinct for tens of millions of years. We know modern humans have been around a few hundred thousand years at the most. I'm not saying that is theorized or speculated, I am saying we know these things to be facts. Therefore, humans could not possibly have seen or depicted dinosaurs in cave paintings and carvings.

Another example I found fascinating was a surprising result from a chemical process discovered by accident (or divine intervention ) by a Dr. Mary H. Sweitzer whereby she was able to remove minerals from a Tyrannosaurus rex bones, revealing, what was left behind after the process, was: soft tissue, showing blood vessels and micro structures, whilst still retatining it's elasticity! She was attacked, poor soul, for some years by some of the science community members, who would be her collegues - accusing her of contaminating her specimens or something similar of that degree. I think IIRC, she challenged them by simply by saying "do the experiments yourselves" One or two did, I think, and they agreed with her. (Just type her name in google)

"I think"? Had you actually spent a few hours reading the papers associated with the discovery you are talking about, you would have found that the discovery in no way contradicts our knowledge that dinosaurs have been extinct for about 65 million years, or that the universe is tens of billions of years old. Heck, just reading the abstracts and conclusions would have stopped you from repeating the crap you just brought up. But you didn't do that, because despite calling yourself Learner you are not actually interested in learning anything.

(The excuses or the new theory that developed, it seemed to me, that was coming from her sceptical collegues - giving the reasons "why" you can still get soft tissue from dinosaur bones, and that is (what they can comprehend): tissues (and DNA?) are more resilient and rugged than first thought, lasting for millions of years. Erm.. ok.)

Read the papers and all will be illuminated. But you know that I know you are not going to do anything like that, because you are allergic to knowledge.

There were also some other issues, that were topics for debates. Cambrian explosion and the fossil records reliability.

All stuff that you are 100 percent ignorant of. What you know about the Cambrian explosion or how fossil records are studied could fit on the head of a tiny pin, with room left over for a dozen angels. But that doesn't stop you from pontificating on the subject, because heaven forbid, you have an opinion, ignorant though you may be.

 

[atrib]

A good bit of investigation ex. You have a good point there. I vaguely remembering there were ideas, although I didn't look into it, that strange large creatures were hunted even during the middle ages Like those Legends of Dragons, behemoths and Sea monsters etc..Interestingly worth looking into. If it were the case, let's say - then they could have been hunted to extinction. Similar to animals hunted to extinction in the last hundred years. The dinosaurs would be comparitively smaller in population number, as compared to those previously existing creatures prior to the flood.

Humans have hunted dinosaurs to extinction? Also, there was no Biblical global flood. That is a fact supported by a huge body of evidence, from geologic records to genetic studies.

Why do I get the desire to repeatedly bang my head against a wall when I read some of your posts?

 

[Learner]

A good bit of investigation ex. You have a good point there. I vaguely remembering there were ideas, although I didn't look into it, that strange large creatures were hunted even during the middle ages Like those Legends of Dragons, behemoths and Sea monsters etc..Interestingly worth looking into. If it were the case, let's say - then they could have been hunted to extinction. Similar to animals hunted to extinction in the last hundred years. The dinosaurs would be comparitively smaller in population number, as compared to those previously existing creatures prior to the flood.

On the other hand there are stories of yetis/bigfoot.... and ape-men go against creationism.
YECs used to say the following was a plesiosaur but now they tend to think it is probably just a shark....

There have been globally, stories of Giants too. Nephilim didn't die out completely in the flood it seems, according to the existence of the Anakim as described in Numbers 13.

Numbers 13: 32 -33).
32 And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, “The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size.

33 We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”

Interesting construction in Baalbek which happens to be in the Canaan.

There are other places like those discovered in Russia. Of course according to the biblical story the Nepihilim, prior to the flood, were roaming the earth. Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
https://atlanteangardens.blogspot.com/2014/04/massive-megalithic-stone-ruins.html

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hi ex, that's an intriquing concept, I say genuinely. I am certainly not an old earth creationist. A younger earth could at least solve quite a few issues; like for example: the various ideas or theories that have been topics for debates. Intriguing things like humans painting dinosaur-like creatures, discovered in caves or carvings of similar creatures found around the world. The notion being... dinosaurs were still around when man came onto the scene.

The flood was calculated to have happened at about 2348 BC. YECs believe that all of the dinosaur species were saved on the ark. Then it seems they all become pretty much completely extinct.... the cave paintings, etc, of "dragons" convinced me when I was in high school... e.g.

I don't think that having all the dinosaurs saved on the ark is the universal standard for YEC. I know of those,like myself, that take to the flood itself being very the reason for the dinosaurs extinction. It makes a little more logical sense imo, compared to the dinosaurs, that after being saved, should suddenly then disappear while the humans and other animals from the ark, weren't affected at all.

Ancient Dinosaur Depictions | Genesis Park

www.genesispark.com

There should be more evidence though - like recent bones that were taken as souvenirs. Though I think the Bible fits YEC better than OEC - same with the flat earth.

Like the above, you're placing the dinosaurs existence AFTER the flood. That's were we see differently, leading us both in different directions. My reference point on the time-line, is that man and dinosaurs were before the flood event. Hence in this case: there'd be NO souvenirs, or personal treasures, or even evidence of the dwellings, linking to the people of that particular time, before the flood. Those souvenirs, or dwellings if still intact and not destroyed, would be buried suddenly, like the sudden burial of dinosaur herds, that were, discovered unders great masses of sediment.

My favorite arguments for the global flood are the ones where they gloss over how the geologic record doesn't include a global wide flood. We have records showing substantial flood events occurring in places at different times (Pacific NW, China), but nothing for a single event, and certainly nothing of the substance suggested in the narrative of The Flood. The narrative doesn't even suggest that the Earth was transformed in this event at all! Yet, pro-flooders say our entire sedimentary rock columns were created at this time.

After the flood, life goes back to normal, sans the whole pure Noah getting drunk off his ass, and there is not even the slightest hint that Noah's family has to deal with a Brave New World, with no plants or trees, and they have start harvesting from scratch. Noah had to rescue animals to protect them, not plants.

 

[skepticalbip]

Hi ex, that's an intriquing concept, I say genuinely. I am certainly not an old earth creationist. A younger earth could at least solve quite a few issues; like for example: the various ideas or theories that have been topics for debates. Intriguing things like humans painting dinosaur-like creatures, discovered in caves or carvings of similar creatures found around the world. The notion being... dinosaurs were still around when man came onto the scene.

The flood was calculated to have happened at about 2348 BC. YECs believe that all of the dinosaur species were saved on the ark. Then it seems they all become pretty much completely extinct.... the cave paintings, etc, of "dragons" convinced me when I was in high school... e.g.

I don't think that having all the dinosaurs saved on the ark is the universal standard for YEC. I know of those,like myself, that take to the flood itself being very the reason for the dinosaurs extinction. It makes a little more logical sense imo, compared to the dinosaurs, that after being saved, should suddenly then disappear while the humans and other animals from the ark, weren't affected at all.

Ancient Dinosaur Depictions | Genesis Park

www.genesispark.com

There should be more evidence though - like recent bones that were taken as souvenirs. Though I think the Bible fits YEC better than OEC - same with the flat earth.

Like the above, you're placing the dinosaurs existence AFTER the flood. That's were we see differently, leading us both in different directions. My reference point on the time-line, is that man and dinosaurs were before the flood event. Hence in this case: there'd be NO souvenirs, or personal treasures, or even evidence of the dwellings, linking to the people of that particular time, before the flood. Those souvenirs, or dwellings if still intact and not destroyed, would be buried suddenly, like the sudden burial of dinosaur herds, that were, discovered unders great masses of sediment.

My favorite arguments for the global flood are the ones where they gloss over how the geologic record doesn't include a global wide flood. We have records showing substantial flood events occurring in places at different times (Pacific NW, China), but nothing for a single event, and certainly nothing of the substance suggested in the narrative of The Flood. The narrative doesn't even suggest that the Earth was transformed in this event at all! Yet, pro-flooders say our entire sedimentary rock columns were created at this time.

After the flood, life goes back to normal, sans the whole pure Noah getting drunk off his ass, and there is not even the slightest hint that Noah's family has to deal with a Brave New World, with no plants or trees, and they have start harvesting from scratch. Noah had to rescue animals to protect them, not plants.

But then you are trying to argue by reasoning while the religious are arguing by faith. Their argument of "thus it written, thus it is" seems much like someone arguing something is true because they read it on the internet and it couldn't be written on the internet if it wasn't true.

 

[excreationist]

There have been globally, stories of Giants too. Nephilim didn't die out completely in the flood it seems, according to the existence of the Anakim as described in Numbers 13.

The Ark Encounter museum also portrays those giants as part of real history:

Creationist Ken Ham Thinks Dinosaurs Had Gladiator-Style Fights With Giants

Wha???

www.huffpost.com

This is another example of what the Bible says taking precedent over what science says.....

The question is are there any bones of these giants from a reputable source?

 

[atrib]

The question is are there any bones of these giants from a reputable source?

No.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There have been globally, stories of Giants too. Nephilim didn't die out completely in the flood it seems, according to the existence of the Anakim as described in Numbers 13.

The Ark Encounter museum also portrays those giants as part of real history:

Creationist Ken Ham Thinks Dinosaurs Had Gladiator-Style Fights With Giants

Wha???

www.huffpost.com

This is another example of what the Bible says taking precedent over what science says.....

The question is are there any bones of these giants from a reputable source?

Man, the Last Supper was more violent that I recall it being. Also, what in the heck is going on with the people in the center?! I thought this was a family joint.

 

[SIB]

I guess I was never a believer so I think of it as like I do when my kids thought I was the most evil parent in the world because I told them no ice cream. I loved them as much as a human could love something. I just couldn't do what I want. If something knows that much more than us, then so be it. It did what it could.

Now, for me, based on what we see, its not omni powered. It may be more powerful than us but it nots all powerful. Otherwise a brain wipe every two weeks would do the job. I kind of think if it was as powerful and loving as they claim the cartoon "Oswald" would fit the bill for our lives.

The bible, to me, was the universe's answer to the question from the first humans "What am I?" It also seems to be better than any test I know in determining how a person sees the world. Just ask them to describe the gods in the bible. More often than not, that is how they see the world.

 

[Elixir]

“Can any book test faith as much as the Bible?”​

Any of the Harry Potter series would definitely qualify. And LOTR, don’t forget LOTR.