Evolution vs. Creationism

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

 AmbianceMan wrote:

 If we discount the impractical explanations (sunken sandbars, frozen lake, turtles or other water animals as stepping stones etc) then all that remains is the evidence of two biased witnesses (out of a possible 12), the secondhand (hearsay?) account by someone who wasn't there (Mark) and no corroborating independent witnesses. Also the two eye-witness accounts of Matthew and John differ by one significant point - only Matthew mentions that Peter got out of the boat and walked a few steps before sinking, John doesn't think that worthy of mention. Also, Luke fails to report the event at all, yet he writes about the miracle of the previous day (which they all agree on). 

Not sure I see a problem here.  Most of what we read and understand to be true is EXACTLY the same as this.  A history book, for example, is full of events from long ago, written by people who weren't there.   And how are you going to have any corroborating witnesses in the middle of a sea during a storm, except for the disciples?   Maybe he talked to several of them.  Maybe there were many of them that couldn't read or write.

Also, have you ever seen two newspapers or internet sites that have varying events of the same story?  Not that either of them are wrong, but they may vary in the content they choose to publish.  Matthew, Mark, and Luke were writing to different audiences, Matthew to the Hebrews, Mark to the gentiles, and Luke to the more educated crowd (he was a physician).  John was an emotional chap that described spiritual movement, not a history buff.  These books were written independently and vary quite a bit.

I could continue to apply your own arguments to your own knowledge, and probably show you that there is less evidence for some of the things you believe than there is for biblical accounts.  But would it do any good?

Most of what you believe or hold to be true in many cases is because someone told you.  Granted I'm sure you have spent time in school learning much, but a lot of it is hearsay.  Doesn't mean it's not true, though.

 Only Matthew mention the earthquake, the other gospels don't, Mark, Matthew and Luke mentions an eclipse, John doesn't. 

Looks like Matthew likes to embellish his stories a little.  

Of course this all presupposes that the gospels of X,Y and Z were written in the hand of X, Y and Z, that Matthew is the same Matthew of the 12 apostles.

See above post.  This is common even today, and is used even to publish textbooks.

I do not disagree with you, and my post does not make an claims or draw any conclusions, though I was responding to the original question: "how could you explain it today?" and to do that I felt it necessary to look at the "evidence" of the events to see whether a rational explanation was necessary. If the evidence was incontrovertable and a rational explanation could not be speculated then I admit I would be stumped for an answer, but as it is there is reasonable doubt in my mind.

History ("knowledge acquired by investigation") isn't an academic science as such in the same way that chemistry, biology or physics are, however it is the subject of scrutinised research and to the scientific method. What was taught as fact in history lessons 100 years ago is now treated with caution if there is no external supporting evidence - for example no one today believes Sir Francis Drake was playing bowls on Plymouth Hoe when the Spanish Amanda was spotted in the English Channel. As a historic document the bible should be treated the same way, as a religious scripture it can be treated however you like. 

Edited by Dean - December 04 2009 at 12:19

Poll Question: What represents your opinion best?
Poll Choice	Votes	Poll Statistics
I'm a young earth creationist	2	[3.23%]
I'm a creationist (old earth)	3	[4.84%]
I accept evolution as fact, but with divine intervention	12	[19.35%]
I accept evolution as fact (natural selection)	45	[72.58%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted