My debate with a creationist in yahell.

Lord_Xerxes · Post by **Lord_Xerxes** » 2003-02-09 06:18am

It began in the Atheists vs Christians chat room which I have been frequenting lately, but had to be moved to PM, because the room scrolling was atrocious. In the following, my sn is Dameon_Garamond:

dameon_garamond: I'm sorry, the room scrolling is too bad
dameon_garamond: Could you copy that here.
pure_idea: no prob
dameon_garamond: Your last few posts.
pure_idea: k
pure_idea: so when he says "let there be" he is fashioning something already in existence...namely the atmosphere, so it allows some light to penetrate
dameon_garamond: It's difficult to have a discussion or debate if you can't even read their points.
pure_idea: yeah
dameon_garamond: could you throw up the other few posts, back to the two definitions. That way I can see the whole train of it.
pure_idea: ok
pure_idea: Here is where im getting the info by the way http://reasons.org/resources/apologetic ... shtml?main so the word used for "let there be" is HAYAH: become; cause to appear or arise; cause to be made or done; come into existence; come to pass; make into something
pure_idea: the word used for "created" (the heavens and the earth) is BARA: bring forth something that is radically new; produce that which is new, extraordinary, and/or epochal; produce through supernatural activity
pure_idea: so God is fashioning the earth so that light can penetrate the atmosphere...the sun moon and stars are not yet visible
dameon_garamond: oh, so your point is the "let there be light" is somewhat...allowing light to come to earth, and not essentially meaning that he created actual light?
dameon_garamond: Or am I misinterpreting?
pure_idea: youve got it exactly
dameon_garamond: Ok.
pure_idea: i agree that the interpretation that most have doesnt make sense (the view i grew up with, though i hadnt analyzed it that much)
dameon_garamond: I'm glad we were able to discuss this here, because I never would have been able to read your posts and figure out what you were meaning with the scrolling.
pure_idea: yeah, the comments are flying fast in there
dameon_garamond: Well, that being said, if the interpretation you are suggesting is correct, and that God is simply allowing light to fall on earth, or creating the atmosphere as you put it, then what about the "And God saw the light, that it was good"
dameon_garamond: Wouldn't there have to be light for him to see it?
pure_idea: hmmm, ok God allows some light to pass through the atmosphere, and sees it is good...i dont see a problem, maybe explain further
dameon_garamond: The problem being that he can allow light to pass to earth all he wants, but without celestial bodies, there is no light.
dameon_garamond: 1:14
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

1:15
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

Job 38:4-7
1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Gen.1:3-5
1:17
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
dameon_garamond: So that pretty much conclusively says that God did not create the sun or moon, or stars, until after the 3rd day.
dameon_garamond: Without those bodies, there is no light in the sky.
dameon_garamond: That was my point.
dameon_garamond: Furthermore, he created plants before there was light. You would thing an omniscient being would realize that plants need light, and therefore, it should be a primary though, and not "Oh shit. They're dying. I guess I should make the stars now."
pure_idea: ok, you are referring to "And God made two great lights", where it sounds like he "made" them in the sense that he created them at that moment in time...i think the verb used is [ ASAH: produce; manufacture; fabricate ] and it is apparently in the completed form, so it means at some time in the past he made it....so they were already there to shine light through the atmosphere when God changed the atmosphere
dameon_garamond: Why would he create them again, if he'd already created them.
dameon_garamond: Furthermore, why would have have this blunder documented. You think an diety would want this blunder covered up.
dameon_garamond: Furthermore, your point that the verb is in a past tense for, therefore they were there when he created the atmosphere is a leap in logic. It could have been anytime in the past. It doesn't have to be exactly at that point.
(he took several minutes to digest this)
pure_idea: its describing it from the point of view of an observer 'upon the surface' of the earth, so reading it from the beginning with that in mind helps a lot...he didnt create them again actually...it doesnt document when they were created, just the appearance in the sky of them
dameon_garamond: But...who could have observed these things, if he had not yet created man?
dameon_garamond: If genesis is to the story of how god created things, then why are we supposed to believe, as you suggest, that when god says he created this this and this, in this order...that it means "This doesn't mean it's when he created them. it's just when they appeared." It's his story of the creation! Why would be so vague from the get go.
pure_idea: no one was there to observe it except God of course, so this would be God relating what happened to Moses from the point of view of an observer on earth...maybe it was a vision
dameon_garamond: Alright, so then, you would think god would give this person a ordered tale of how things would happen.
dameon_garamond: He is god, after all. Is memory such a hard thing for him?
pure_idea: right, so if you look at the sequence of events and the events themselves, properly understood of course...it does line up with modern scientific knowledge about earths early conditions
pure_idea: earth being covered with water for example, verified by science
dameon_garamond: Are you proposing that god's order of creation goes along with what we have learned through science? Plants before the sun, man!
pure_idea: dameon, remember "let there be light" occured early on, so while the sun and moon werent distinguishable yet, just like on an overcast day, ultraviolet penetrates so plants can carry on photosynthesis
pure_idea: i like visual aids...someone put this one together and sent it to 'reasons to believe' if you want to check it out, it attempts to match the sequence with the 'day' in genesis http://reasons.org/resources/apologetic ... shtml?main
dameon_garamond: Yes, let there be light happened on the first day. However, he did not make celestial bodies till the forth. But, he made plants on the 3rd. And I will follow this point up with the fact that all the creation was done in six days, as opposed to thousands upon thousands of years. You may then follow that question up with the reply "each day to god was several thousand years." I will point out that a very uncaring god would create plants without light and then not make the light into thousands of years later. Then he has no plants. Then he has to start over again.

Lord_Xerxes · Post by **Lord_Xerxes** » 2003-02-09 06:29am

To his credit, the debater offered a fair exchange, free of any sort of ad homenim attacks or other shady debate tactics. Far above the general consensus of the creationist debaters that I've seen in that room.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-02-09 06:35am

These idiot creationists have no critical thinking ability whatsoever. They seem to think that they can just make shit up, and then argue their bullshit against logical and well thought out points.

I know; I used to be one of them.

Lord_Xerxes · Post by **Lord_Xerxes** » 2003-02-09 06:38am

As you can see, Superman, even with me allowing (going along with) some of those bs points, I was still able to find contradictions or holes.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-02-09 06:42am

Right, lies don't stand up very well against truth. I tend to view Christian fundamentalists now as having some kind of personality disorder. It's more than just a lack of education; it's a desire to remain uneducated and dilluded.

Lord_Xerxes · Post by **Lord_Xerxes** » 2003-02-09 06:45am

Or even worse, to spread that disorder to others, so they become (or remain) uneducated and logically dilluded.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-02-09 06:49am

Agreed. This is why many scientists refuse to debate these idiots in public forums. These people already have their minds made up. They would rather just "feel good" knowing that the Bible is right and never question anything.

I think that they are very afraid. If they realize that they are wrong about creationism, then they must also realize that they could be wrong about other things as well.

Lord_Xerxes · Post by **Lord_Xerxes** » 2003-02-09 01:56pm

So what does everyone else think about the debate? So far only Superman commented. I think I held my own pretty well.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-02-09 03:33pm

I thought it was pretty good. You could've been a bit more aggressive though...

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-02-10 02:06pm

You made points. He made excuses. Typical of them in these debates.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-02-10 02:12pm

Good debate, at least he actually knew those words in the original Hebrew/Aramaic, so much gets lost in the translation...

Lord_Xerxes · Post by **Lord_Xerxes** » 2003-02-11 02:33am

Darth Servo wrote:You made points. He made excuses. Typical of them in these debates.

yeah, I don't think he was quite getting the part that there could not be light without celestial bodies.

Seems like it would be common sense, wouldn't it.