The Creationist Myth - 500,000-Year-Old Stone Tools, Butchered Elephant Bones Found in Israel

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: undo

I'm really thinking hard science. I understand there is a lot of speculation and opinion. But hard science is repeatable and published with peer review.

well in the case of throwing away "contamination" artifacts, the reason given was because they don't receive enough funding or have enough manpower to date every "out of place" artifact they find in a pre-dated dig. the assumption is made that we would not find an iron bolt in a stone age dig site, so it's described as contamination and not entered into the record or doesn't receive any further investigation.

a reply to: nenothtu

So what exactly was wrong in the OP again?

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: nenothtu

So what exactly was wrong in the OP again?

you can be a creationist and not be christian. there's also muslims, jews, ancient alien theorists and hindus, as well. have you ever read the mahabharata? even the ancient egyptians believed in creation.

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: Xtrozero

Does Buckethead possibly prove the existence of a god?

Well he is a God...what do you think?

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: nenothtu

So what exactly was wrong in the OP again?

you can be a creationist and not be christian. there's also muslims, jews, ancient alien theorists and hindus, as well. have you ever read the mahabharata? even the ancient egyptians believed in creation.

But the thread was specifically about creationist views interpreted from the Bible. I'm aware of what the general definition of creationism is.

EDIT: I will admit the Gallup poll did not differentiate which religion those Americans held. I can see the confusion and overlooked it while putting the thread together.

originally posted by: eisegesis

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: nenothtu

So what exactly was wrong in the OP again?

you can be a creationist and not be christian. there's also muslims, jews, ancient alien theorists and hindus, as well. have you ever read the mahabharata? even the ancient egyptians believed in creation.

But the thread was specifically about creationist views interpreted from the Bible. I'm aware of what the general definition of creationism is.

well oddly enough, i found out that the sumerian version of creation is the same thing as the biblical version and the egyptian version. i also find hints in norse histories, that sound as if it is also the same thing. really, you can trace this all over the world except ancient china: around 3000 bc, all their ancient histories were destroyed.

originally posted by: eisegesis

The less young earth creationists on ATS the better. With every "bait" thread we make, if done correctly to which I will leave that open to interpretation, we have the ability to educate when that evidence is hard to dismiss. The very reason I or some come here. And I am not known for being politically correct, hand holding or to sprinkle sugar all over my thoughts.

With that said, I respect your opinion. They are always respectable.

There are a few problems here...

1. Not too many people believe in the 6000 year earth....
2. All of your "proof" doesn't discount intelligent design since your "proof" is all about "how" and not really the "why".
3. Faith is the belief in something with zero proof...the more evidence one needs the less faith they have, so your post really will not fix anything other than to have an anti-creationism love fest.
4. Last Thursdayism...

There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being last Thursday, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began Thursday, or 6000 years ago.....

So what is the proof again?.....hehe

This was the first thing I did before I began typing the thread. Sorry, I was given the wrong impression...

a reply to: undo

Well they most likely are both literal and figurative actually. Some people and places and even events might actually be literal while most are probably a mixture and some being completely just myth. It's not improbable to think that many of the stories being told might be of real people and places and maybe even the events that surround them, many of those very stories would have been embellished. Even then, the simple fact that most weren't written down till much much later might change as they were passed down through the generations as stories.

Then you have the stories which are told that are really just rewrites of older myths that were changed and retold in a new way. As different groups of people were conquered and assimilated many of the traditions would be mixed in to the new one. Usually the Gods would change name and the tales updated but would really be an older tradition just reconfigured.

Then there are the obvious facts of reality that other than within the Bible Stories we have no Talking Snakes, Miracles, Gods Descending From Heaven, Whales Swallowing people who then live in their stomachs and later get spit back out alive, etc. There are also stories that have no evidence that can be found to validate them as actually real.

These and more give the impression that what you have isn't a Strict Factual Literal Account of History but a combination of Moral Tales, Myths and Legends that are told for various reasons. Some may have some literal basis while others are completely made up. That doesn't make the made up ones any more or less important though. We tell stories today that aren't true but they still have a message that is important to understand.

originally posted by: eisegesis
This was the first thing I did before I began typing the thread. Sorry, I was given the wrong impression...

I think people have been fighting the wrong battle...It seems some think that science is somehow outside of God, and theories cannot be of God, but if there is intelligent design then everything is of God, everything...including evolution or any other observable thing.

That is why I think people are wasting their time in debating HOW things happen when the real question to ask is WHY.

a reply to: Grimpachi

For the most part I say live and let live, but they are in political positions what's more concerning to me has been the school board positions trying to and sometimes successfully influencing the curriculum being taught across the country wit YEC in mind.

Also from Gallup...


Here's a funnier take on it.

It’s Time to Tell the Truth: Republicans Aren’t Christians

I call it “Republicanity” and I consider it a cult. It’s a perversion of Christianity mixed with a political set of man-made beliefs. These people view their devotion to the GOP on the same level they do their belief in God. To them, the Republican party is the party of “real Christians.” They don’t need facts or reality to support their political beliefs, they have “faith.”

originally posted by: Xtrozero
That is why I think people are wasting their time in debating HOW things happen when the real question to ask is WHY.

How and Why are often very close in how they are used but if they are considered to be different and distinct they are both equally important but also very different in nature.

"How" is something that should and can be determined by breaking down the mechanics or physics of events. How something happened can most often be found correctly by scientific methods and research in to that event. It is a Scientific endeavor.

"Why" on the other hand I think deals more with Philosophy and isn't something that always can be accurately determined or researched. It deals with many subtle and often times theoretical possibilities which are too flimsy for science to consider as they are not repeatable or measurable.

Both Philosophy and Physics are important but they deal with totally different ideas and aren't always compatible with each other. When they can go together that's great, but when they can't it's ok too. But when they can't go together trying to force them to be one and the same or trying to force one of them out and the other in is a mistake.

originally posted by: eisegesis
Also from Gallup...

Does anyone really think that 50% of all Americans believe in the 10,000 year origin? I guess that means 50% of us here believe that too...

The official Catholic stance is this:

The Church has no defined Dogma regarding the specifics of how the earth and the human body were created. Nor does it think that we have to nail that down to be saved.

The funny part is in the questions asked:

1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced
forms of life, but God guided this process,
2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less
advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process,
3) God created human beings pretty much in their
present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?


So these questions basically asked: Do you believe in evolution? Do you believe that evolution was guided by God? Do you believe that God made man in recent times? But they only gave one choice for the third question and didn't ask, Do you believe the earth is billions of years old and that God made man.

For the religious that believe that God made man they had only one somewhat imperfect choice and we get the big 41% headlines..

a reply to: Xtrozero

Well, I learned one lesson. It's hard enough having a conversation about creation with someone in person, while it's absolutely mind melting to try and discuss or debate an entire group, each with their own definition of creation on a public forum. Maybe I should've kept the training wheels on. Wouldn't want to fall and scrape my knee again.

a reply to: eisegesis

here's the problem i have with that approach: it's talking about people i know and love, even if we don't have all the same viewpoints, i know and love them, and don't want them to be ostracized, degraded, condemned, and so on. it's like calling someone's significant other/parent/sibling/favorite doctor/etc, an idiot, when you happen to know that person isn't remotely stupid. so it rings: 1) disingenuous, 2) deliberately inflammatory and insulting and 3) incorrect, all for political points

oh and it also suggests that if you are a creationist that you automatically believe the earth is only 6k years old, and as this thread has proven, that's not the case as a general rule. in other words, creationism and young earth are 2 different topics.

a reply to: Xtrozero

That's because I don't think that would be a valid choice. You have to read it carefully and pay attention to the words used.

The first two options deal with "Human being Developed" while the 3rd choice has them being "Created". Therefor the choice of a really old Earth but with Created humans wouldn't make sense. Scientifically we have no evidence to show that humans have been around for that long and Bionically that wouldn't make sense because God Created Man very close to creating the Earth so if the Earth was really old then so would Man have to be.

If I'm thinking of that correctly that would be why they didn't have that 4th choice. Check my reasoning on that to be sure though...I'm still mulling it over in my head but I think that makes sense..

a reply to: mOjOm

i think alot of what is considered figurative (not all, but alot) is only seen that way because we didn't recognize the science at the time the critical authors started to pick ancient texts apart.

a reply to: mOjOm

the text does not say that elohim created the adam males and female really close to the time of creation of the universe. the events are separated by a gap in time in which the earth became a desolate wasteland. not was a desolate wasteland, but became a desolate wasteland. so it would read more like

in the beginning elohim created the heavens and the earth.

and the earth became a desolate wasteland.

what happened between the first and second verses? i wonder if some group out there has the details that fit between those two events.

a reply to: eisegesis

None of this really proves anything to the creationist. One year is equal to a thousand, and it even says that in the Bible. So they got the time off...still could all be true...to a point.

Something happened on this planet, there was a point where 2 races mingle, maybe even more than one. I don't think they all originated here and the Bible is a confusing attempt to explain something with some truth to it from the perspective of "then."

This history was so significant that it stuck in people's collective conscious but as histories go, it is written by the successors and slanted toward their view. Over time the history may continue to slant, even change and change back again...but there is a thread of truth, a seed, a reason, a beginning.

The history as written was eventually used as a tool to control people, by the upper classes in a position to do so. The actual truth and facts are lost, misinterpreted and fragmented. But there is and always was, the seed.