Creationism is a viable theory

On to opening arguments. First, evidence for evolutionary theory in modern creatures. The theory is 143 years old. For all intents and purposes it might as well be called a law. For a theory to last that long under the intense scrutiny that dominates and is inherently built into proper scientific methodology…well, it’s difficult to make any logical assumptions against generation after generation of scientist who, in majority, have found evolutionary theory to be not only plausible, but actually able to demonstrate and predict results. The kind of bizarre conspiracy some Creationists cook up that somehow scientists hate god and therefore willfully ignore evolution is rubbish. The scientist who disproves evolution is the scientist who wins the Nobel prize. The evidence for evolution is so vast that for me to pick examples is actually a bit difficult. We can begin in our own bodies. The evidence against our biblical perfect creation is just impossible to ignore. For example, our appendix that currently does nothing for us except occasionally get inflamed and infected. This organ aided in a grass-based diet long ago. Take Darwin’s point on about 10% of human ears, a remnant from our ape-like days that has almost entirely been phased out by natural selection. Take the lizard-like third eyelid, plica semilunaris, again, a remnant from long ago. Take wisdom teeth – so useless to us they are routinely surgically removed because our jaws have shrunk thanks to natural selection; some people don’t get wisdom teeth, as they are in the process of being ‘phased out’. If you don’t want to use human-kind, you can easily see evolution at work famously in Darwin’s finches, or in whales and dolphins, where vestigial hind-limbs are visible. Second, proof against the biblical accountUsing Genesis as a scientific account is ludicrous, and I can explain why. Genesis isn’t scientifically accurate. In fact, it’s not even original. It’s a book that rips off several ancient stories, notably, Gilgamesh, in which the story of Eden and the tricking serpent was originally created, along with the flood, and a few other stories. Plenty of myths were reused from the area to create Genesis, like Cain and Abel actually descending from the myth of Emesh and Enten from the 3rd Millennium BCE, some thousand plus years before Genesis was supposed to have been written. The book contradicts itself right out of the gate. 1st Genesis is Elohim creating night, stars, earth, animals, etc. Genesis 2, on the other hand, shifts and becomes ‘Lord God’ – two very different titles, as Elohim is actually plural. Some scholars Gen 1. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them…”Gen 2. “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. ”You might notice that in the traditional narrative, and indeed, in Genesis 1, Animals (including birds) are created along with male and female human beings. Suddenly we shift Gen. 2, where god takes pity on Adam and creates “every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air” and then proceeds to create Eve. It’s a glaring contradiction and it’s immediate, and yet creationists are trying to persuade us that this ancient document is accurate scientifically. Outrageous! Most historians trace the current manuscript not to Moses, but to a group of scribes in the second temple. The book wasn’t even considered authoritative by Jews until the 5th century. A history of how these books have been translated is enough to stagger even the toughest creationists. The book was translated first into Greek around 150 BC, and that translation is still essential in Eastern Orthodoxy. That translation soon overtook the older Hebrew version even among Jewish priests – despite the fact that books were omitted, added, and changed during this time. It was further translated multiple times, with the three major ‘interpreters’ being Aquila of Sinope, Symmachus, and Theodotion. From here, the translation is produced into fifth and then sixth editions, adding more questionable changes. From here, Constantine orders more translations, and these translations are translated into Latin and are changed again; the Vulgate Bible, the official Text of the Catholic Church. Over the middle ages this translation, the main modern source, was revised countless times. We can see the changes from earlier versions to later versions – sometimes marginal notes were accidently added into the text, the text was misspelled and had portions removed. Jerome’s translations ordered by Pope Damascus completely revised the entire text – and not with care. Alcuin of York tries to correct the translation for a final version for Charlemagne, and further versions were changed in accordance with the preference at that time for changing Bible verses to match the older quotations of Church officials. That’s not even close to the complete history of Biblical revisionism. To make any assumption that this book is even close to the original text is absolutely ludicrous. To assume that trusting scribes who describe god as setting the sky and stars “…in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth” is plain crazy. As it says in Gen. 1:6-7 “And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. ” I remember thinking in Sunday school, “What is a firmament? ”As it says in the Rational Wiki, ‘"Firmament" is the most common English translation of the Hebrew word raqiaà, as used in the Bible. The Firmament is a vast, solid plate/dome/sphere upon which God affixed the stars. It separates the Earth from the waters of Heaven,but has floodgates for when God feels like letting it rain, or simply killing people. Elsewhere in the Bible, the firmament is compared to a tent. It is made of a metallic, reflective or crystalline substance. The early model of the universe had a flat earth with a flat sky held up with pillars, much like post and lintel construction. After dome construction was invented, it became obvious that God had used the best construction method and earth was flat with a domed sky. Plato showed that earth was a sphere and proposed seven crystal spheres holding the heavenly bodies giving us seven heavens. The Bible uses all models without noting their incompatibilities. This shows that the writers of the Bible believed that the sky was a literal solid; thus, creationists have tried to come up with various excuses. Kent Hovind claims that the firmament was a shell of solid ice which completely covered the Earth before the Great Flood. ’Let’s not base our science on a book like this. It’s just frightening that people honestly use this as a scientific document. Sources:. http://www.nobeliefs.com...http://www.patheos.com...http://www.scientificamerican.com...http://godisimaginary.com...http://www.bible-researcher.com...http://rationalwiki.org...