Believing in creationism is a sin

[Esquilax]

Stumped I see, the argument I gave is fine, I gave reference from scriptures, then asked for your response. You had none so you made up some idea that I'm not rational. God is the standard of what is right and wrong according to scripture, apparently you're unable to understand this, making it a stumbling block for you.

Stumped? No, but if your idea of incest isn't based on what it literally is, but instead on whether god has given it his thumbs up or not... well, you aren't really arguing anything. God doesn't like murder, there's a commandment against it, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible for me to commit murder. Just because god was okay with incest at a certain point doesn't magically make it less incestuous. It just means that god was at one time okay with incest.

Yes I do have an omniscient God, that is not the case for the people of the past or today. Your statement lacks an kind of understanding.

Oh, so you're saying that the god that spoke to Moses isn't the same god that christians worship today? Or that god gained his omniscience sometime after the time of Moses, potentially making the commandments less than perfect? Is that what you're saying, or is it you that has the lack of understanding here?

The marriage of brothers and sister came from the time of Adam and Eve. The marriages after the flood could have been with cousins, but I would not be surprised if brothers and sisters married after the flood since God did later give a law against it.

Last time I checked, cousins were still family members. And given the gene pool of like eight people, eventually it would have happened.

Since you refuse to look at my argument as something you will not consider then why are we doing this. Of coarse there in nothing in scripture about genes, there's no reason for genes to be mentioned. Adam and Eve along with the rest of creation was called very good by God, He would not have done this unless it was perfect. Perfect creation encompasses perfect genes.

That's quite a leap, though. And one you haven't supported with anything other than assumptions. And it's a moot point anyway; since you attribute the eventual breakdown of these so called perfect genes to sin, then sin must have rendered them at least a little imperfect. This is just a logical necessity, since the imperfection would have to have come from somewhere, and there would be no additional source since the only genes being propagated are from two people. Hence, at the time when Adam and Eve were being fruitful, their genes could not have been perfect in order to allow for this degradation you claim occurred to happen. Your argument is self refuting.

Oh, and you still haven't defined what would constitute perfect genes.

We actually do not know how long they were in the Garden of Eden before they sinned. We could assume it was for a time from scripture, want get into that at this time. By your statement Adam and Eve were perfect for a time, so during that time their genes would be perfect. I have no idea whether or not their genes were corrupted at the time they sinned, I do know the genes of man became corrupted after sin came into the world, all of creation was corrupted.
You have not given any scriptures to back up your argument.

This would only matter if Eve had conceived while in the garden with perfect genes. Given that god sort of bestowed horrible, painful childbirth on Eve after they were cast out, and there's no mention of anyone else ever being there, it's a moot point.

Oh, and you wanna talk about not giving scriptural reference? All you gave is a weak inference to back up yours!

[ideologue08]

I'm a Creationist full disclosure. If a person believes that God can cause a burning bush to speak, part the red sea, turn a staff into a snake, resurrect the dead etc.etc. If a person believes that God can cause all of these miracles which all violate the theories of Physics Biology and Chemistry, then there is no real inconsistency with believing that God can create Adam and Eve and produce humanity as a miracle. Atheists harp on about Adam and Eve, but they seem to ignore the countless miracles in Abraham traditions, it all depends upon belief in God's miracles and power.

I have no problem believing that every single living thing that is non-human (e.g all non-human animals) came from one ancestor. But for humans there is an exception, they are an exception to the evolutionary process, that's my understanding of the theology I believe in (Islam).

[Esquilax]

I'm a Creationist full disclosure. If a person believes that God can cause a burning bush to speak, part the red sea, turn a staff into a snake, resurrect the dead etc.etc. If a person believes that God can cause all of these miracles which all violate the theories of Physics Biology and Chemistry, then there is no real inconsistency with believing that God can create Adam and Eve and produce humanity as a miracle. Atheists harp on about Adam and Eve, but they seem to ignore the countless miracles in Abraham traditions, it all depends upon belief in God's miracles and power.

And that's the problem. Sure, there's nothing internally inconsistent about a god that's omnipotent and can do all those things, but since everything we've experienced about reality tells us that such miracles do not happen, and there has been no compelling evidence to suggest that such a being actually exists, there's a fundamental incongruity between the stories of god and the reality that he's supposed to inhabit.

The problem is that this isn't enough for atheists but it is enough for theists, so you've got one side expecting logical evidence based on what we can actually prove, and another side who's perfectly willing to fall back on the idea that the things they can't prove are the result of magic, and then expect that that's enough. It's not, and if you fall back on the idea of miracles you've taken the conversation outside of the bounds of rationality, where real debate simply cannot exist. It's impossible to speak in anything but hypotheticals, there.

[ideologue08]

I'm a Creationist full disclosure. If a person believes that God can cause a burning bush to speak, part the red sea, turn a staff into a snake, resurrect the dead etc.etc. If a person believes that God can cause all of these miracles which all violate the theories of Physics Biology and Chemistry, then there is no real inconsistency with believing that God can create Adam and Eve and produce humanity as a miracle. Atheists harp on about Adam and Eve, but they seem to ignore the countless miracles in Abraham traditions, it all depends upon belief in God's miracles and power.

And that's the problem. Sure, there's nothing internally inconsistent about a god that's omnipotent and can do all those things, but since everything we've experienced about reality tells us that such miracles do not happen, and there has been no compelling evidence to suggest that such a being actually exists, there's a fundamental incongruity between the stories of god and the reality that he's supposed to inhabit.

The problem is that this isn't enough for atheists but it is enough for theists, so you've got one side expecting logical evidence based on what we can actually prove, and another side who's perfectly willing to fall back on the idea that the things they can't prove are the result of magic, and then expect that that's enough. It's not, and if you fall back on the idea of miracles you've taken the conversation outside of the bounds of rationality, where real debate simply cannot exist. It's impossible to speak in anything but hypotheticals, there.

Not really. Real debates can and do happen. You cannot just have a debate about Creationism, if you want to challenge Creationism than you are calling into question the entire religion and so you must enter into a debate about the truthfulness of the actual religion. For example, I believe God created Adam and Eve. Why do I believe this? Because I believe in the Qur'an. But why do I believe that? Now we're talking. The whole discussion hinges upon the validity of the holy texts as a source do you not agree?

I've had countless fruitful debates with Atheists about Islam, the fact that I believed in miracles doesn't get in the way of the debate concerning the validity of the religion.

[Esquilax]

Not really. Real debates can and do happen. You cannot just have a debate about Creationism, if you want to challenge Creationism than you are calling into question the entire religion and so you must enter into a debate about the truthfulness of the actual religion. For example, I believe God created Adam and Eve. Why do I believe this? Because I believe in the Qur'an. But why do I believe that? Now we're talking. The whole discussion hinges upon the validity of the holy texts as a source do you not agree?

I've had countless fruitful debates with Atheists about Islam, the fact that I believed in miracles doesn't get in the way of the debate concerning the validity of the religion.

Oh, I know one can have debates, and good ones, about these things. I've had a few here. The problem, as far as I see it, is that there's always this lurking escape clause for theists when things get too heated, that god can perform miracles, or that he's beyond us humans. And that takes the debate into the realm of fan fiction. It's unfortunate, though of course, I know not all theists go there. I just get kind of disappointed when they do.

[Tonus]

If a person believes that God can cause a burning bush to speak, part the red sea, turn a staff into a snake, resurrect the dead etc.etc. If a person believes that God can cause all of these miracles which all violate the theories of Physics Biology and Chemistry, then there is no real inconsistency with believing that God can create Adam and Eve and produce humanity as a miracle.

That's kind of obvious. If you believe that there is an all-powerful being who can ignore physics and do whatever he wants, then you can believe that anything that he is claimed to have done is possible.

[KichigaiNeko]

Burning bush?


Worst trip EVER! bummer

[Joel]

If your God performs such miracles - completely defying physics and all natural laws we know to be true - interacting with our physical world, then I'm sure you'll have no problem providing the evidence left behind... Unless he cleared his tracks after himself.

Such a sly God.

[jstrodel]

If your God performs such miracles - completely defying physics and all natural laws we know to be true - interacting with our physical world, then I'm sure you'll have no problem providing the evidence left behind... Unless he cleared his tracks after himself.

Such a sly God.

What laws of physics? What laws are observable in physics that are universal and have not changed in hundreds of years? Can you name a single one? Newer models replace older models.

There are no laws of physics. Physics is a way to study nature. You misunderstand the way that science works. Science proposes explanation for phenomenon, it does not discover laws in nature.

The patterns that exist in nature are real, and science does yield understanding of them. But they are contradictory, there is no unified understand of physics. And the patterns have changed over time.

Miracles are real, they do not conflict with science. There is no scientific study that exists anywhere in any place that can disprove miracles.

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

Miracles are real, they do not conflict with science. There is no scientific study that exists anywhere in any place that can disprove miracles.

Actually, some people spend their whole lives disproving miracles. Often, science is not even needed, just an understanding of the hoax.