Why Creationists don't realize the biblical Creation is just jewish mythology?

[mordant]

... there is no archeological evidence that any of the events described in Old Testament happened.

I wouldn't go quite so far as that. Certainly there is vast evidence that special creation didn't happen; there is zero evidence for Moses or the Exodus, etc. It is fair to say that there is zero archeological and often zero historical evidence for most of the events and persons in the Bible. Real historical characters are mentioned, but that is no more meaningful than that historical characters are mentioned in any work of fiction as a backdrop for alleged events.

Still, there was a nation of Israel and a temple and various tribes and some of the ancient kings of Israel are believed to have actually existed by independent secular scholars, most notably David, although he was probably king only of Judah, not the whole of Israel. The main problem with the Bible is all the fabulist mythos-building going on, such that it's almost irrelevant that there's some legitimate historical backdrop. It's like taking the real people in your own family and ascribing fantastical deeds to them. It's not like anyone will actually get to know your family in any meaningful sense, just because they actually existed and you used their names in your account.

[comet]

it doesn't mean a hill beans when looking at the magic. I don't care if they found every city, geological record, and king in the bible. A man did not die and rise for our sins as they teach.

Its that simple.

the god thingie is different. The god thing is probably in between "deny everything" and "my-god-only".

[Belacqua]

If the third Reich didn’t collapse so soon in the pyre of its own crimes it would also likely bequeath to posterity awe inspiring monumental edifices and prodigious quantities of public art. 

Most human endeavors that entrain large number of people and demand devotion will inevitable enlist some people of ability and creativity that can make lemonade out of lemons so that things will be created in its name that, when the endeavor itself has run its course, will remain and be considered of lasting value.   

But the subtle point here is the lasting value is only there because the opportunity cost it incurred is sunk and can’t be unpaid.   If the opportunity cost is considered in the assessment whether any value would remain is a totally different question.

If humans can make things of lasting value out of material so unpromising as domineering wish-thinking and crude superstition, one shudder to think what could have been made but were not made because those with creativity were constrained to make do with lemons because of the self-importance and ambitions of the purveyors of rotten lemons.

You've changed the argument now. Before you said that "fundamentalism" (in whatever definition you were using) couldn't create things of lasting value.

Now you've changed to say that it can create things of lasting value even though it's bad. 

This second position seems more defensible to me.

[Anomalocaris]

If the third Reich didn’t collapse so soon in the pyre of its own crimes it would also likely bequeath to posterity awe inspiring monumental edifices and prodigious quantities of public art. 

Most human endeavors that entrain large number of people and demand devotion will inevitable enlist some people of ability and creativity that can make lemonade out of lemons so that things will be created in its name that, when the endeavor itself has run its course, will remain and be considered of lasting value.   

But the subtle point here is the lasting value is only there because the opportunity cost it incurred is sunk and can’t be unpaid.   If the opportunity cost is considered in the assessment whether any value would remain is a totally different question.

If humans can make things of lasting value out of material so unpromising as domineering wish-thinking and crude superstition, one shudder to think what could have been made but were not made because those with creativity were constrained to make do with lemons because of the self-importance and ambitions of the purveyors of rotten lemons.

You've changed the argument now. Before you said that "fundamentalism" (in whatever definition you were using) couldn't create things of lasting value.

Now you've changed to say that it can create things of lasting value even though it's bad. 

This second position seems more defensible to me.

No. I have not changed my argument.


Any one can create value by incurring costs far in excess of the value it creates.   That is called net value destruction regardless of the nominal value of what it leaves behind.   Value destruction by nature is easy to do,  which is why the unscrupulously greedy always resorts to it when they find they can claim credit for the small results but dodge responsibility for the footing the big bill.    

 Value creation occurs only when what is produced to leave behind cost less to produce in total than its own value.  That is far harder to do.  To ensure results for others justify cost to others is what good stewardship means.

Fundamentalism is a value destroying proposition of a very high order.   The fact that what it leaves behind looks impressive by itself does not change the fact that these values are trinkets next to the incalculable cost to humanity of sustaining the fundamentalism.    Fundamentalism exists to serve its creed, if it were less dishonest, and the fundamentalists, if it were more typically dishonst.  It is not there to serve those upon whom it hoisted itself.   Hence it gives no real thought to stewardship of most of those whom it involved.   It but seeks magnify the glory of its creed by exaggerating and claiming credit for everything it can whether it was responsible for it or not, while passing as much of the costs to others as it can.

[Belacqua]

No. I have not changed my argument.

First you said that "fundamentalism" -- which you still haven't defined -- can't leave things of lasting value.
Then you said it can, but the cost is too high. 
These are different points.

[Anomalocaris]

No. I have not changed my argument.

First you said that "fundamentalism" -- which you still haven't defined -- can't leave things of lasting value.
Then you said it can, but the cost is too high. 
These are different points.

I am sure you think my avarice in robbing you of a million dollars would be fundamentally different from my generosity in robbing you of a million and one dollars and then giving you back that one dollar, especially if I were to include in the act of giving you back that one dollar an admonition to remember my generosity.

[Amarok]

First you said that "fundamentalism" -- which you still haven't defined -- can't leave things of lasting value.
Then you said it can, but the cost is too high. 
These are different points

Wow dishonest 

Any one can create value by incurring costs far in excess of the value it creates.   That is called net value destruction regardless of the nominal value of what it leaves behind.   Value destruction by nature is easy to do,  which is why the unscrupulously greedy always resorts to it when they find they can claim credit for the small results but dodge responsibility for the footing the big bill.    

 Value creation occurs only when what is produced to leave behind cost less to produce in total than its own value.  That is far harder to do.  To ensure results for others justify cost to others is what good stewardship means.

Fundamentalism is a value destroying proposition of a very high order.   The fact that what it leaves behind looks impressive by itself does not change the fact that these values are trinkets next to the incalculable cost to humanity of sustaining the fundamentalism.    Fundamentalism exists to serve its creed, if it were less dishonest, and the fundamentalists, if it were more typically dishonst.  It is not there to serve those upon whom it hoisted itself.   Hence it gives no real thought to stewardship of most of those whom it involved.   It but seeks magnify the glory of its creed by exaggerating and claiming credit for everything it can whether it was responsible for it or not, while passing as much of the costs to others as it can.

Explained

[Belacqua]

First you said that "fundamentalism" -- which you still haven't defined -- can't leave things of lasting value.
Then you said it can, but the cost is too high. 
These are different points.

I am sure you think my avarice in robbing you of a million dollars would be fundamentally different from my generosity in robbing you of a million and one dollars and then giving you back that one dollar, especially if I were include in the act of giving you back that one dollar an admonition to remember my generosity.

These little Gish Gallops make it hard to talk to you. 

It appears now that you're going with the "not worth it" argument rather than the "can't do it" argument.

[Anomalocaris]

I am sure you think my avarice in robbing you of a million dollars would be fundamentally different from my generosity in robbing you of a million and one dollars and then giving you back that one dollar, especially if I were include in the act of giving you back that one dollar an admonition to remember my generosity.

These little Gish Gallops make it hard to talk to you. 

It appears now that you're going with the "not worth it" argument rather than the "can't do it" argument.

I told you anyone can create a small value by incurring a large cost.

It is always the balance that matters in whether actual value is created or destroyed.

Are you quibbling on that point?

I will give you back one dollar if you sign over your total worth to me.   Be grateful I created a value of one dollar for you.

[Belacqua]

These little Gish Gallops make it hard to talk to you. 

It appears now that you're going with the "not worth it" argument rather than the "can't do it" argument.

I told you anyone can create a small value by incurring a large cost.

OK, so that means that "fundamentalists" can create things of lasting value. Although perhaps only "small" value. 

So I think we've settled on the argument you're making. 

Now we'd have to find a way to calculate the costs vs. the benefits. Did the people of France benefit from Chartres Cathedral? How can we quantify this? Granted, maybe they should have spent the money in other ways. If they hadn't built the cathedral, where would the money and effort have gone? I don't think we can just assume that it would have gone to the kind of research you approve of. 

If the people of the time felt that it was a good thing to do, are we justified in saying they shouldn't have spent their time and their money that way? There are all kinds of unquantifiable benefits that are hard for us to understand. Particularly if we start from the premise that religious objects are always a waste of time, whether the people who made them thought so or not, it will be difficult to calculate cost/benefit numbers.