Bad News for Creationists? A Creationist Answers

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2009 12:27 AM GMT
    This is in reference to McGay's thread, Bad News for Creationists, concerning the stone circle found in Turkey. The issue? These monoliths are 12-13,000 years old, so according to you evolutionists, they are older than the Universe we believe God created in 4004BC. Luckily, I'm blessed with a thick skin, I can take aboard the flaming you throw at me. That is why I can stick my neck out and answer, even knowing how emotive all this is. (My reference to the word "you" here is plural. I'm not talking to just one person).
    And here is the point. McGay's thread is not an academic discussion, it is an emotive persecution of those who choose the Bible's revelation above academia. Really, if you are honest enough, you'll admit that your thread was directed at me, wasn't it?
    But let us look at the issues you have raised. It is quoted that "the complex has been carbon dated as 12,000 years old." But what was exactly tested here? The natural stones that formed the circle? Only 12,000 years old?
    In that case the stones are extremely young in geological age. I would thought they would come up with several million years, to say the least.
    It is like if I bought a 200 year old property, then carve a decorative nitch in the brickwork. The house would still be 200 years old, even if the carving is just minutes/hours old.
    And the carvings themselves are beautifully worked with precision. This seem to indicate that if the dating is true, then there was a highly developed culture with intricate skills, not compatible with the cavemen that are supposed to have lived at the time, but rather gives credence to what the Bible insist that we were initially created perfect, but since the Fall, it has been downhill ever since, especially the shortening of the human lifespan after the Flood, as listed below:

    Adam 930 years
    Seth 912 years
    Enosh 905 years
    Kenan 910 years
    Mahalalel 895 years
    Jared 962 years
    Methuselah 969 years
    Lamech 777 years
    Noah 950 years
    Shem 600 years
    Arphaxad 438 years
    Shelah 433 years
    Eber 464 years
    Peleg 239 years
    Reu 239 years
    Serug 230 years
    Nahor 148 years
    Terah 205 years
    Abraham 175 years
    Isaac 180 years
    Jacob 147 years
    Joseph 110 years

    If you care to plot a graph using the table given above, the result would show an astonishing drop of longevity since Noah.
    So in opposition of evolution, where living organisms are meant to progress upward, the Bible indicates a downward trend. This seems to be backed up by the intricate beauty and precision of the artwork done on those stones. Seldom do we see the modern equivalent created at present.
    I could give much more on what the Bible says, I don't have the space here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2009 12:51 AM GMT
    LMAO!!! That's all I can say... LMAO!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2009 1:16 AM GMT
    To the OP: Rule of internet claims - Pictures or it didn't happen!
  • Sebastian18

    Posts: 255

    Mar 05, 2009 1:19 AM GMT
    Interesting conclusion, but I don't think it was meant to be taken literally. First of all, the Genesis story was written in two parts separated not only by at least 600 years, but also written by two different source traditions - the Elohist and the Yawhist, respectively northern and southern Judaic Kingdoms.

    Aside from the the anectodal error in representing radio carbon-14 dating, which could easily be researched on Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia, I would like to explore a different possible interpretation regarding the supposed life-spans of the patriarchs of the Hebrew Scriptures, namely it is symbolic and meant to represent mystical concepts which would have been familiar to Levite/Priests and scribes who would be literate in their language as opposed to the rest of the citizens of Judea.

    As an example, let's start with Adam. Adam is widely recognized as the first human being in the story of Genesis. One of the central themes we have in the creation myth is, following each day, G-d declares his creation "good". Interestingly enough, mankind - made in G-d's image and likeness as we are told - would also be good.

    One thing that should be remembered is that written Hebrew is alphanumeric, meaning that letters can also represent numbers. So, if we add up the letters which make the name "ADAM" we arrive at the sum: 45, which shares the same numerical value as concepts such as: humanity/humankind, to be expelled, greatness as well as a number of other concepts which would have relevance to the story.

    Similarly, just taking the age of Adam at his supposed death, 930, we arrive at least one concept which, mytho-poetically, would be relevant to the subject of Adam and G-d's creation: שלם, ShLM which means "perfect" or "whole"

    Similarly, looking at the next patriarch Seth, his age 912, has with it concepts such as התחזויותיכם, meaning "Impersonation" - if you remember, he is the replacement for Able; ושום, meaning "to appoint", which would go along well with the biblical narrative, as well as a variety of other things.

    Since I've already taken up enough space on here, I'll just close my comment with a reminder that there is a lot of truth in the Bible if you look at it critically and in the context as the liturgical and mythic history of a group of people, but one should be careful in believing in the literal interpretation of the text as much as one should be critical about whether or not George Washington actually spoke the truth when chopping down a cherry tree... something that is canon in the national mythology of the United States, but never actually happened in the first place.
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Mar 05, 2009 1:40 AM GMT
    Just as I predicted in McGay's thread... just as I predicted...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2009 1:55 AM GMT

    dear NotthatOld, I've had a rotten day, so forgive me if this post seethes with contempt.

    Actually, I dont feel like arguing.

    But I will say this... in the historic era the bible was written, years were missing months, and months were missing days, and days -as recorded back then- only lasted about 18 hours. I'm speaking as a Catholic who DOES NOT take the Bible literally. It is impossible to determine the exact age of those biblical characters you mentioned. Suffice it to say -and this I will say as a Medical student- that it is physiologically impossible for a human being to live more than 200 yrs.

    Del..take this one, will ya?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2009 1:55 AM GMT
    I know Flipper's mom told him that if you don't have something nice to say don't say nuthin' at all.

    But, in this case, I can't believe the nuts around town.

    How could a creator create such head cases?
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Mar 05, 2009 1:57 AM GMT
    jprichva saidModern Biblical scholarship has shown that the longevity of the old Biblical patriarchs was simply a mis-translation of the original Hebrew. In fact, Methuselah didn't live anything like 900 years. I seem to recall that it wasn't even 90.


    Ok... Why????

    You are such a....

    eaglescout.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2009 2:03 AM GMT
    Silly me, when you said "A Creationist Answers", I really expected an answer.
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Mar 05, 2009 2:06 AM GMT
    Any one delusional enough to think that any human ever lived 900+ years belongs in an insane asylum. Only religion could breed this level of ignorance and ability to ignore reason and science.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2009 3:01 AM GMT
    t0theheights saidAny one delusional enough to think that any human ever lived 900+ years belongs in an insane asylum. Only religion could breed this level of ignorance and ability to ignore reason and science.

    As some observant atheist once said, when a single person has delusional and irrational beliefs, we call them insane. When millions of people have the same delusional and irrational beliefs, we call it religion.
  • Sebastian18

    Posts: 255

    Mar 05, 2009 3:08 AM GMT
    Global_Citizen said
    t0theheights saidAny one delusional enough to think that any human ever lived 900+ years belongs in an insane asylum. Only religion could breed this level of ignorance and ability to ignore reason and science.

    As some observant atheist once said, when a single person has delusional and irrational beliefs, we call them insane. When millions of people have the same delusional and irrational beliefs, we call it religion.


    In a similar vein, the great poet and religious scholar Aleister Crowley once noted: "“If one were to take the bible seriously one would go mad. But to take the bible seriously, one must be already mad.”
  • swimbikerun

    Posts: 2835

    Mar 05, 2009 3:09 AM GMT
    screw_ball.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2009 3:14 AM GMT
    Ozzy Osbourne has all the answers .. kinda like that fortune telling machine icon_lol.gif
    Sebastian18 saidIn a similar vein, the great poet and religious scholar Aleister Crowley once noted: "“If one were to take the bible seriously one would go mad. But to take the bible seriously, one must be already mad.”



    swimbikerun saidscrew_ball.jpg

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2009 3:40 AM GMT
    what ROYAL BS icon_smile.gif

    bible-holics would simply a) believe anything, and b) say anything.

    pathetic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2009 5:13 AM GMT
    OH, the irony that someone who doesn't appear to believe in evolution is nonetheless suggesting devolution (evidenced, supposedly, by the drop in longevity). As if God's alleged creation would degrade?

    But did people really live that long back in the day? Consider that the calendars back then were lunar (rather than solar). What seems obvious to me is that at some point the metric of counting ones life changed from months to years. But that was lost in the story, which kept the numbers as they were but changed the unit.

    Consider: 900 months = 75 years, which back then would have been very old (if I remember correctly, even during Roman times life expectancy was only 30-some years).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2009 5:55 AM GMT
    icon_rolleyes.gificon_confused.gificon_eek.gificon_neutral.gif
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Mar 05, 2009 6:06 AM GMT
    Caesarea4 said
    Consider: 900 months = 75 years, which back then would have been very old (if I remember correctly, even during Roman times life expectancy was only 30-some years).



    That makes a lot of sense. As any rational, thinking person, knows life expectancy has actually INCREASED steadily throughout the course of human history because of advances in medicine and improved living conditions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2009 6:51 AM GMT
    Caesarea4 saidOH, the irony that someone who doesn't appear to believe in evolution is nonetheless suggesting devolution (evidenced, supposedly, by the drop in longevity). As if God's alleged creation would degrade?


    There is, of course, the universal law of decay.

    I agree that hyper-literalism is a problem. The scholarly application of literary analysis to the Bible will unveil many genres that must be interpreted in different ways. Within the Bible (and presumably other sacred texts) are allegories, history, epics, diaries, erotica (Song of Songs), biographies, proverbs, poetry, prophecy, and more. It is just as dangerous to over-literalize the Bible as it is to dismiss it, outright. The Bible has had a tremendous influence upon Western Civilization for two millennia, with both positive and negative consequences. So many of our modern institutions and concepts, whether you realize it or not, are at least in part derived from biblical principles (i.e., democracy, autonomy/free will, justice/social justice, etc.). Heck, up until the cold war, liberalism was the domain of Christians in the US and Europe. Of course, there were also the Crusades, witch hunts, forced conversions, etc.

    All of that aside, why all the hating? What is it about religion that incites such vile reactions from the gay community? I think the OP has a point when he says that these 'debates' are emotive. You have every right to disagree with the man's opinions, but no right to assassinate the man's character.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2009 7:12 AM GMT
    Ruck_us, you're right--we should not bully the OP. However I disagree with your reasons.

    As is his MO, the OP does a hit-and-run post, and disappears for a day or two, without remaining to defend his position or read his replies, and wishing instead to remain just out of reach in martyr territory. Commentators against the OP seem to sense this, and I think their tirades are relatively healthy and warranted.

    If we operate under the assumption that the OP is WELL, we'd expect him to have a healthy sense of humor about something that he appears to believe with all of his heart, and take the attacks in stride. On the other hand, if we operate from the assumption that the OP is NOT WELL, then yes, it is cruel to engage him with ad hominem attacks. This is the reason I think we should not attack him. I fear we're his only family.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2009 9:19 PM GMT
    Mickey, I'm right here..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2009 9:23 PM GMT
    Oh. Is he being serious? I thought it was delious sarcasm.

    icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2009 9:35 PM GMT
    I said this in another thread, but, it seems even more appropriate here.

    LSD
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2009 9:42 PM GMT

    As much as I hate religion I can still understand people's faith cuz I was a beliver once ..

    you guys are being too offensive to these people .. yes it sounds like a tottal bullshit to us but I think he has a point when it comes to the age of the stones. While the other calculations are just what he belives in: he belives in god and in the bible that means he must belive in everything said in it with no exeptions ..

    I can't belive I'm defending religion.. but it's starting to annoy me all these insults against people that belive, don't respect jesus and his bible but at least respect these people's feelings..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2009 9:43 PM GMT
    And Sigfried and Roy really do magic.

    tigger.gif