Berzerker

I'm not much of a scientist spending more time studying religion and mythology. But I have noticed from my experience debating "creationists" that any science-based argument against their view is easily dismissed with the Sgt. Shultz defense - "I know nothing, I see nothing".

However, I have also noticed that debating creationists using religion - the Bible - is a better means of stumping them. I had the opportunity to "debate" Bob Enyart via phone back when he had his television show. The result was rather humorous and I have no doubt made an impact - I repeatedly stumped him.

I began by asking where the waters in Gen 1:2 came from. He responded with his usual sarcasm, claiming they must have come from Shirley McClaine, lol. But once we got past his opening round of insults, the debate became quite interesting. He claimed the waters came from Gen 1:1 - God's creation of Heaven.

I pointed out to him that the word "Heaven" has a specific meaning in the text, and that meaning clearly shows Heaven was neither the universe or outer space since the Heaven was used by God to divide the waters - waters that were already in existence.

He then jumped to God's "creation" of the "Seas", easily refuted by showing the word "Seas" was used to identify the gathered together waters under the Heaven into a specific body of water called "Seas", not the waters themselves much less the waters above the Heaven. Furthermore, I showed that the word "Earth" did not refer to this planet, but only the "dry land" revealed when God gathered together the waters to "create" the Seas. Notice how slippery the word "create" can be?

Enyart then jumped to the "canopy" theory as if this had anything to do with the origin of the waters, which I quickly pointed out. The debate ended abruptly when I refuted Enyart's next argument that since God created the "Heaven", that was proof God created the waters because of all that God placed in the "heavens". I showed that the text said God only made what was in the Heaven - the firmament - and since the Heaven was used to divide the waters above and below the firmament, God could not have created the waters since they were never "in" the firmament. The fact the waters preceded both the Heaven and all that God placed in them was also lost on him. Enyart disconnected me and ended the debate with another insult, but it was very funny watching him jump from one explanation to the next as I shot them down.

Using this line of logic and the actual text of the Bible has led some "creationists" to acknowledge they didn't know as much about the supposed basis for their beliefs as they had thought. I've yet to see that reaction from a creationist after debating an "evolutionist".
Get them to question their interpretation of the Bible and half the battle is won...

Late_Cretaceous

You should take this tact with those over at the baptist board. It would be very interesting to see the results.

Berzerker

I'm debating this issue in a thread called "life begins" at the Newsmax "culture/society" section.
And I'd appreciate it if someone with an extensive knowlegde of molecular biology/genetics
and abiogenesis would drop by to debate David C. He claims to be an expert in these fields and posts what looks like alot of gobbledygook to me which is due to my ignorance of the subject matter.

randman

I'll be your huckleberry.
On the subject of water, God obviously ceated it, but it is interesting that water and the "deep" are not specifically mentioned as having been created. Now, if you can back away from your predisposition for a moment, have you ever thought there might be a spiritual reason for this to be written this way?
Both water and wind are used a lot as spiritual imagery of spiritual substance, of spirit. I have often pondered why water and the deep are mentioned there, and I don't mean to infer that it is totally allegorical, but just that things are expressed in the Bible a certain way for spiritual reasons often, such as describing the sun and the moon as having dominion. If you were to do a search of the idea of dominion, the third day, and light throughout the scriptures, from a beleiver's perspective you come away as seeing One Spirit fashion the whole Bible with deeper ties and meaning than one man could possibly imagine and put together. If you take the unbeleiving perspective, you consider things like God telling Moses to tell Pharoah that they need to go 3 days journey in the wilderness as being unrelated. For me, it is 3 days, 3 spiritual days/experience levels in order to get out of Egypt and into the light of His dominion.
By the way, Genesis talks about the dinosaurs.
If you read Genesis closely, you will see that there were prehistoric "fowls" created before man "from the water." By the way, the creating from the land or from the water fits rather neatly with evolutionary theory. I don't buy evolution anymore but not because of the Bible.
Then, the Bible also talks of birds being created in the same "day" as man, and they are from the ground. It is clear then that there are 2 sets of "birds", one reptilian, or dinosaur birdm or whatever you want to call it, and another warm-blooded.
Wonder how the writer of Genesis knew that?

Race Bannon

Originally posted by randman:
<strong>By the way, Genesis talks about the dinosaurs.
If you read Genesis closely, you will see that there were prehistoric "fowls" created before man "from the water." By the way, the creating from the land or from the water fits rather neatly with evolutionary theory. I don't buy evolution anymore but not because of the Bible.</strong>

I'll bite. What DO you buy?

<strong>Then, the Bible also talks of birds being created in the same "day" as man, and they are from the ground. It is clear then that there are 2 sets of "birds", one reptilian, or dinosaur birdm or whatever you want to call it, and another warm-blooded.
Wonder how the writer of Genesis knew that?</strong>

Clear to who? You and Kent Hovind?? Is that why so many Theologians over the past century have drawn the same inferences you have?

These mythicists still believe that "Moses" wrote Genesis

lpetrich

If these references are supposed to have some allegorical meaning, then where is the disclaimer to that effect? And if they are allegorical, then why argue for literal historicity?

Where???

Randman shows how little he understands about evolution. Life comes from life almost universally, and is not continuously spotaneously generated.

For what nonbiblical reasons?

What birds?

randman

Guys if you are not even going to read Genesis 1 and 2, then don't ask questions about it.
By the way, it is perfectly reasonable that life began from non-life as one event, despite the incredible leap of faith that would take to beleive, but to posit that the Creator did it on more than one occasion, or better put, to suppose it happened twice or three times is ludicrous, eh?
Sorry, but your argument doesn't wash. I agree that life can only come from life, and that design can only come from design, but evolutionists beleive in a mysticism even more far-fetched from a scientific perpsective than the Easter Bunny.
Fact is life comes from Life, that is God. The stuff of earth or water are just the substance used.

Kosh

We're still waiting for an answer about the level
of education and area of study in your background...

Coragyps

Agreed. Add a little air, and you will find that all life is made up of this "stuff." It's all we've got!!! That does not-a-whole-lot to make Genesis more accurate, or a deity more necessary.

Mageth

Guys if you are not even going to read Genesis 1 and 2, then don't ask questions about it.

Butting in, but I doubt there's a single person posting here who hasn't read Gen. 1-2 (and much more of the bible) many times.