Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[Lon]

And finally, if you want to talk about universal common ancestry (UCA), then you need to understand how that conclusion does not stem from a single data point, and as such is not going to be overturned by a single data point. UCA extends from an enormous variety of data, collected over centuries from a wide variety of fields. So simply pointing to a paper that describes a modified model of early bird evolution as somehow justification for rejecting UCA is ridiculous.

:nono: It is important that spokesmen get into 1) the difference between modern thought and Darwinism (he postulated and Origins had a lot of bad ideas, still, Darwin is the father of evolutionary thought). 2) 70% of kids don't buy into the speculation. Sure, Christianity happens to follow those numbers, but it isn't just the Bible that causes the problem. At first (and second and third) glance, I'm not very much like an onion. We both have cells. An onion cell is very different.

And do you honestly think paleontologists just sit around making up stories? Funny... @Lon can't seem to figure out why Christianity is increasingly associated with anti-science and anti-education attitudes, yet here we are....

Very simply, it is the difference between being created 'from the dust' after and separate from the animals then specifically given something 'God-breathed.' The two stories given, are different. One is a story passed down, the other based off of speculation.

I think this is a reasonable question from anybody: Why don't we see an transition today? Specifically, why haven't hippos developed flippers or buoyancy chambers? It isn't a nuh uh question. It works for both science and creation models. God can certainly have given them the DNA to do so. Evolution (assuming this is the way God works, should have came prepackaged with a certain amount of adaption and conditions should be weeding out things that don't work. We are off the topic but I wanted to address the mention. I don't think it unreasonable, given the OP to question evolutionary theory either. If one gets it wrong, it is yet again an 'opportunity' to explain, not accuse 'anti-science.' A LOT of teachers respond as you do. For you? Excusable. For teachers? :nono:
:e4e:

 

[Jose Fly]

If you have an intelligent counter, post it.

Then by all means Lon, keep posting arguments for young-earth creationism, flat-earthism, and any other anti-science, anti-education arguments you can....as often and as loudly as possible. And be sure to tie it all to Christianity. :thumb:

 

[Jose Fly]

:nono: It is important that spokesmen get into 1) the difference between modern thought and Darwinism (he postulated and Origins had a lot of bad ideas, still, Darwin is the father of evolutionary thought).

The concepts of populations changing over time and common ancestry were already within biology at Darwin's time. His primary contribution was to provide a mechanism to explain how it occurs (natural selection).

2) 70% of kids don't buy into the speculation.

Only if you try and say that theistic evolutionists aren't evolutionists. But most folks are smarter than that.

Sure, Christianity happens to follow those numbers, but it isn't just the Bible that causes the problem. At first (and second and third) glance, I'm not very much like an onion. We both have cells. An onion cell is very different.

LOL. Thanks for that very keen and in-depth analysis Lon.

And btw, you share a lot of fundamental cellular functions and genetic sequences with onions. But hey....maybe God just made it that way, right?

Very simply, it is the difference between being created 'from the dust' after and separate from the animals then specifically given something 'God-breathed.' The two stories given, are different. One is a story passed down, the other based off of speculation.

There ya' go....a Christian dismissing the entire field of paleontology as "based off speculation". And you wonder why the kids today increasingly associate Christianity with anti-science attitudes.

I think this is a reasonable question from anybody: Why don't we see an transition today? Specifically, why haven't hippos developed flippers or buoyancy chambers?

Because under evolutionary theory, those sorts of major morphological changes do not occur within hundreds of years.

But the fact that you don't know that shows just how poor your understanding of basic biology is. Yet for whatever reason you've anointed yourself qualified to pass judgement on entire fields of science. Fascinating.

God can certainly have given them the DNA to do so.

And by the same token, God could have created everything last Thursday, but just made it seem like it's all older.

I don't think it unreasonable, given the OP to question evolutionary theory either.

What's unreasonable is to challenge something when you don't understand it even at the most basic level. A general good rule of thumb is to learn a subject first, then see if you can debate it.

If one gets it wrong, it is yet again an 'opportunity' to explain, not accuse 'anti-science.' A LOT of teachers respond as you do. For you? Excusable. For teachers?

Good thing this isn't a school and no one here is in a teacher-student relationship then.

Instead, this is a right-wing religious forum where conservative Christians debate things like the shape and age of the earth.

 

[Stuu]

That which you assert without evidence, we are justified in ignoring without evidence.

But as I was saying, you dismiss evidence without having any of your own.

Stuart

 

[Lon]

Well yes it is a bit of a generalisation. But I think the point about every person who has been to school possessing knowledge that would seem spectacular in 1840 is true.
Yes, the forest is being rediscovered as a source of chemical compounds that are used by its plant (and other) inhabitants to win battles against one another and have medical potential, knowledge that existed to some extent in first nation peoples.

But this is not speculative, and it's not about 'millions of years'. This does not require isotope dating. The only 'speculation' would be that the earth has always had hot and cold seasons, and I have never heard of a creationist arguing against that.

So, you can count the years by counting the layers. You could count them yourself, I'd say well past 20,000 years or so before the task became one you would start to find difficult because it starts to get a bit specialised as the layers get thinner. Of course it would take a while, as it does for the ice core scientists, especially when they are making measurements of many different chemical markers across hundreds of thousands of years worth of ice.

I hope you appreciate that this is actually a real thing. It is not a conspiracy, and these people are not trying to peddle any agenda. I was lucky enough to visit an ice core lab myself and I have spoken to some of the scientists who work on ice cores in my country. I have a former work colleague, an engineer, who did instrument work measuring isotopes. These people are not dupes, and they certainly are not idiots. They are independent and critical in their thinking both positively and negatively about their working conditions, and the love they have for the work. I could tell you myself if any of them had become bitter and leaked out any suggestion of a conspiracy.

Yet, when the immovable rock meets the unmoving stone, questions arise, good questions.

They would laugh and probably tell me that they had never even thought their day jobs would be considered part of a conspiracy. The instruments don't lie, they just spit out isotope data and other kinds of measurements. The people don't lie, they have no reason to do that, and they have every reason not to. The ice really is that old, and the layers are calibrated and matched between different ice cores and correlated to recorded volcanic eruptions (the more recent ones) as a way of keeping the counting accurate as they go down the core.

The problem with laughter and 'idiocy' etc. is that such cheapens one's own field and speculation and then 70% of kids watching begin to doubt.
The problem is, scientists don't WANT to field those questions that are equally important or more so to them.

If that argument is valid, then coroners' records are historical fiction.

Not at all. You are a thinking fellow: Why aren't the two comparable. You tell me. If not, I can help, but I'm more than sure you are capable of seeing the flaws in the equivocation.

Well, it depends what you mean by 'everything', and 'chemicals', doesn't it. For almost all situations that is true. Did you have some cases where you think that generalisation shouldn't apply?

Er, science needs to be exacting.

It makes complete sense from where I am standing.

Obviously, or you wouldn't be one, but you concede a few points with sasquatch by example that SHOULD apply to your actuals.

All individuals are egocentric to some extent. Atheism is the first position everyone should take based on observation, because no one can detect your god using senses. Even if you claim to be able to, most others deny it is possible, whether atheist or not. Of course if you can show us an unambiguous photograph, we might have to change our minds.

Incorrect. Agnostic is closer and even it is not the first position. It is somewhere between pre-knowledge. No child is a-mathematics.

What, does a tree falling in the forest make a sound if there is no one there to hear it? That must be dead, surely.

It is for me, but this again isn't a good comparison. Forensics delves from what we actually do, in fact know. Origins? :nono: The comparison fails and falls.

The background of most Western nations is that they have some history of christianity dominating public life. So someone who realises that they are atheist tends to do some research into their own beliefs in relation to the different major religions, with the bible getting quite a bit of the attention. And that is how they come to do better in the religion questions. And I would speculate that 'Jews' might include secular Jews, in which case you are dealing with yet more atheists!

Atheism is not the high-ground. Sorry.

No, not 80% atheist. 80% realise that the earth really is very old.

When you said you live where 80% are atheists, Sweden showed up. As far as age of the earth. It wasn't part of what I gathered from the conversation. I was looking at atheism. One problem with it, is it conflates with other discussion. It is important in that the author of the OP is also an atheist.

Yes, and I love the description of them that called such counterpoints 'exegetical acrobatics'.

Has to. You have to compare two different ideas that conflict and try and come up with a solution. However those gymnastics work, it has to happen. It is part of scientific (or just truth seeking) inquiry. It has to happen. If you were a teacher, it'd encourage you, because you'd see they are actually wrestling with the material and interacting with it. Learning takes place at that point of involvement. Guided learning and they may come up with better answers. I've had teachers that do guided learning exceptionally well, and I've had a few lousy teachers who do the mocking thing. Teacher or not, we are responsible for how others perceive our fields of interest. We are. We have to endeavor to do it right. Now, self-admittedly, I've done it wrong at times, even and/or especially on TOL. I endeavor rather to do it right though.

Stuu: No, it's just that I usually do my homework before posting.

I did my homework on that some months ago. In fact, I even discussed it with some JWs who visited in January. They came back later with the 'counterpoint' about possibly Herod the Great actually being the sons, but the sons were very far from great!

JW's aren't collegiate folks (not meant as a slam - they know they aren't). This guy does a pretty good job, but imo he too isn't looking at all the details. Jewish and Roman calendars were different and BC AD weren't the same. BC and AD are more of our way of trying to collect those years and make them similar to our own recollections.

I didn't realise that 80% of Swedes have a particular view on Sasquatch.

They don't live in the Himalayans or the Pacific North West so you might have to forgive them.

It's not really a matter of making assertions on Sasquatch. Each claim has to be treated on its own merits. The descriptions people give of Sasquatches seem to be somewhat like the appearance of some large mammals. So, do large mammals exist in North America? They sure do. Is it possible that an undocumented large mammal species, a Sasquatch, has survived in numbers large enough to sustain a population, while remaining undetected to zoologists? There is a low but non-zero probability of this. Could the descriptions match unclear sightings of bears? This has a larger probability. Sasquatches are not an impossible interpretation of what people have seen, but they must be considered to have a vanishingly small probability.

...more: We know that many of these were faked and/or allegedly faked in the PNW (Pacific North West). Because of that, one could come to a position that it is all ludicrous based off of the clear debunking we have seen. Yet, and importantly it is not "MY" responsibility nor purview to declare myself anti-sasquatch. In order for me to be such, I personally would have to have been an expert in the topic and thoroughly convinced every single eye-witness is a liar or poor witness. Every last one of them. Point: Atheism is this audacious. It is, in fact, an arrogant and untenable position. Incredibly so, in point of fact:

Now return to your point, which is that I appear to be asserting that you have not experienced a god. I do make that assertion, without evidence, because that is the amount of evidence to which I am responding. Unfortunately it does not matter how much you specially plead for your observations, there are much better explanations for them. I cannot prove you are wrong. I think the probability that you have experienced an invisible being that has created the entire universe has such a low probability that it should be called perverse. I would rank alien abduction at a higher chance, and that's obviously bonkers.

....incredibly so. It is like a blind man saying red cannot possibly exist. It is just that bad.

Even with a concept as difficult to define as love, there is still so much empirical evidence available to be observed. A casual glance here, a bunch of flowers there, a raised pulse. You can define love away from all this if you want, but I think people wouldn't recognise your usage necessarily.

:nono: An infant in the crib, by sad experiment. Love is intangible. No amount of using robotic arms to fake it will suffice.
It is not a physical commodity.

I see, you mean like Stripe when he accuses others with the word evidence because he has none of his own.

Stuart

Er, Stuart, isn't that ALSO projection? :think:

 

[Lon]

Then by all means Lon, keep posting arguments for young-earth creationism, flat-earthism, and any other anti-science, anti-education arguments you can....as often and as loudly as possible. And be sure to tie it all to Christianity. :thumb:

Nice congratulatory self-back-patting there, Joe.

 

[Lon]

The concepts of populations changing over time and common ancestry were already within biology at Darwin's time. His primary contribution was to provide a mechanism to explain how it occurs (natural selection).


Only if you try and say that theistic evolutionists aren't evolutionists. But most folks are smarter than that.


LOL. Thanks for that very keen and in-depth analysis Lon.

And btw, you share a lot of fundamental cellular functions and genetic sequences with onions. But hey....maybe God just made it that way, right?

There you go. "Hey everbody! Joe's great great grandfather was an onion! It all makes sense now!"

Nice.

There ya' go....a Christian dismissing the entire field of paleontology as "based off speculation". And you wonder why the kids today increasingly associate Christianity with anti-science attitudes.

Uhm, WE were here first. :noway: :chuckle: (You probably won't understand).

Because under evolutionary theory, those sorts of major morphological changes do not occur within hundreds of years.

:nono: As others have argued, you'd necessarily have to have a transitional species. By example, some have suggested platypus is a transitional species. :nono: They are a VERY old species not in transition at all.

But the fact that you don't know that shows just how poor your understanding of basic biology is. Yet for whatever reason you've anointed yourself qualified to pass judgement on entire fields of science. Fascinating.

:chuckle: Love your prognosticating, Joe. You are, after all, a haughty and arrogant fellow. Try to come down and see what the rest of us lowly slobs see once inawhile :chuckle:

And by the same token, God could have created everything last Thursday, but just made it seem like it's all older.

See, this is why fellow scientists aren't your friend. In fact, a couple of my science professors insisted that only those thinking outside the box could become exceptional scientists. On this point, you are thinking time (a human construct) is constant. It isn't. It is as different as each culture. In a sense, a YECer will concede that all of creation is an incredible thing in just 6 days.

Did this take 8 days or just 1 minute? (both).

What's unreasonable is to challenge something when you don't understand it even at the most basic level. A general good rule of thumb is to learn a subject first, then see if you can debate it.

:chuckle: Yet you can, by turn-around, question theology with only the most basal level of understanding :rotfl: (sorry, irony gets me).

You are being thick. Anybody can question anything that another is trying to get them to believe and assimilate. Questioning is part of that filter.
Your 'rule' is absurd.

Good thing this isn't a school and no one here is in a teacher-student relationship then.

Instead, this is a right-wing religious forum where conservative Christians debate things like the shape and age of the earth.

And it is mostly Christians explaining to them why the earth is a globe, so your comparison or bin is sloppy, imho.

(btw, this is where your sig comes in and betrays your actual sentiments, Joe, it is this transparent).

 

[Jose Fly]

Nice congratulatory self-back-patting there, Joe.

I said nothing about me nor did I congratulate myself.

There you go. "Hey everbody! Joe's great great grandfather was an onion! It all makes sense now!"

And that apparently is your level of understanding of evolutionary biology.

Uhm, WE were here first.

Got news for ya'.....being "here first" doesn't mean anything in science. If two scientists have competing hypotheses, which one came first isn't a factor in figuring out who's right.

So it looks like your ignorance extends to science as a whole, rather than being limited to evolutionary biology.

See, this is why fellow scientists aren't your friend. In fact, a couple of my science professors insisted that only those thinking outside the box could become exceptional scientists.

I've never said anything about not being creative in one's thinking. What you're advocating is putting absurdity and ignorance on equal footing with established reality and knowledge.

Yet you can, by turn-around, question theology with only the most basal level of understanding

First, I'm quite familiar with theology and the Christian faith. But more importantly, I don't debate theological issues here.

Anybody can question anything that another is trying to get them to believe and assimilate. Questioning is part of that filter.

Sure, but when you question from a position of extreme willful ignorance, you have to expect criticism and ridicule for doing so.

What you're doing here is the equivalent of never reading the Bible or attending church, then arguing that there's no way Christianity is true because it's silly to believe Jesus took the Ten Commandments on the Ark with all the animals and lost them when he dropped them overboard.....and then act offended and exasperated when people laugh at you.

Your 'rule' is absurd.

Let it be known then....To Lon, the notion of understanding a subject before trying to debate it is "absurd". That's priceless and won't be forgotten.

And it is mostly Christians explaining to them why the earth is a globe, so your comparison or bin is sloppy, imho.

Yes, within Christianity the shape of the earth is a matter of debate just like the age of the earth.

(btw, this is where your sig comes in and betrays your actual sentiments, Joe, it is this transparent).

And once again, Lon just can't get past my signature line. Awesome.

 

[jsanford108]

1.)

Yes, on the whole I think that is fair, especially if we are discussing cosmology. And you'd have to say that the peoples of ancient Palestine were particularly ignorant compared to the ancient Greeks or ancient Chinese.

Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Brahe, Vesalius, Paracelsus, Boyle and Huygens can't be rejected.

Now, you are utilizing a selective bias, in selecting which pre-industrial persons' you accept and which you reject (akin to that used by 6days).

I assume that you utilize various philosophies of the ancient Greek, no? Thus, in rejecting that of the Hebrews, you are being disingenuous. You are not basing the philosophical musings on merit, rather your personal view of their theological stance.

Furthermore, you cannot logically accept some scientific theories, while rejecting others, of various time periods, based on which better suits personal bias. Most pre-industrial scientists prescribed theories in supporting Intelligent Design theory (ID, for shorthand). So, you cannot select which particulars of information and theory, while rejecting ID, and maintain a consistent argument. I cannot accept natural selection and reject Darwinism; that would be illogical. And yet, that is the approach you appear to be making.

2.) a.

I think you are applying a theological construction, invented in ignorant times, to a question of particle physics. What is the cause that makes particles appear and disappear all the time? It's the inherent behaviour of spacetime. Light is a particle of electromagnetic disturbance

The idea of cause is not a theological construction. You seem to intentionally misapply various concepts as "theological," in order to distance yourself from having to reconcile such concepts with your views.

You could classify cause as a philosophical construction; yet, cause is integral to science. Newtonian physics require a cause. Any motion has an point of origin. Chemistry requires a cause. Any combustion requires a catalyst and an ignition (cause). Biology requires a cause. Any cellular replication of DNA requires an innate physical drive for fitness (one could argue this as a biochemistry example, only reducing the cause aspect to a micro-level).

In closing this point, cause is not a theological construction. Natural phenomena require a cause, thus making "how" a relevant question; one which you seem to be unable to (or, ignorant to the) answer.



On the god topic:

Well, I am flattered that you expect me to have all the best answers, with supporting evidence. I agree, I have that expectation of myself too. But on this one occasion, I am happy enough just baldly asserting that there are no gods, because god believers only have bald assertion themselves.

But, we could treat this as a scientific question: you claim there is such a thing as at least one god, which you seem to attribute with great powers. So, what exactly is a god, how does it work, and do you have any unambiguous evidence for the existence of such a thing?

The singular thing about god claims is that no one has ever produced any unambiguous evidence for the existence of even a single god, so it could be a scientific conclusion that no such thing exists, provisional on the discovery of unambiguous evidence. Do you have any?

You flatter yourself too much. I do not expect you to have the answer. In fact, that is why I posed the question; to demonstrate that due to your lack of evidence, you cannot claim an absolute.

While this is off-topic (due to my own questioning), I would be happy to discuss it if you desire. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of an absence. So, while I cannot posit absolute evidence of God existing, neither can you posit absolute evidence that God does not exist. The argument of God is a philosophical or theological discussion. While we could use natural evidence as mitigating or aggravating points, we could not make absolute claims on supernatural (meaning "beyond the natural"), due to lack of supernatural evidence. If you are willing to go into such an arena of discussion, I would be glad to represent the opposition to your stance on God being real or imaginary.*

2.) b.

It's a rhetorical device, I don't actually expect an answer because I know already there is no direct way of measuring two-way speeds of light, and all the indirect experiments have been tried and there appears to be only one speed of light in a vacuum.

You did not present your initial question as rhetorical. Now, that could have been my own fault for not properly observing contextual evidence; however, you posed it alongside very literal questions in a debate with a very "literal interpretation" individual. You also never revealed the nature of your question being rhetorical when discussing it with the other user. Therefore, it makes sense that I would have interpreted your question regarding various velocities of light and its respective origin.

No one has suggested that there are various speeds of light, neither creationist or anti-creationist; you were the first (and only) to pose such a question, as stated before, expecting an answer with evidence, when no such evidence exist. I maintain my original statement that this demonstrates an ingenuous approach to the conversation. If I am wrong, I apologize; but the evidence within your posts allude to this being the case.

If you are going to call into question my rhetoric, and be consistent, then you will have a very large task reforming some of your other interlocutors here on ToL. The fallacies, formal and informal, pile up like fish bones at the Feeding of the 5000.

I have not entered into a discussion with other users in this thread. And I have not in any way denied that there are many on here with varying volumes of fallacies.

This seems like another misdirection. You are pointing my criticisms out onto others, rather than accepting it as being leveled at yourself. We are not discussing other users on TOL, we are discussing the evidence that supports your claims and criticisms leveled against creationism. If you are unable to adequately defend your view, then feel free to admit it (or even cease responding to my queries). I will not judge you in any capacity for doing so. In fact, that would place you right alongside most YECists.

*My very intention for being a part of this thread is a discussion with YEC theorists. Yes, I prodded you with a questioning of your evidence, since you so boldly made your assertions against creationists. I have entertained this conversation due to the initiation of conversation being my own post. Thus far, you have demonstrated the same lack of evidence in support of your personally accepted theories as they do.

 

[Stuu]

I don't demand that life have a purpose but I find it hard to believe that it would not.

And do you not suppose that could be because humans have doggedly pattern-seeking brains that causes us to see patterns even when patterns don't really exist?

Sometimes our first questions are ill formed. Newton saw an apple fall and wondered why. We ended up with differential calculus because of his simple question why. We do not have to have a well defined hypothesis to start exploring something. Things will get refined over time as knowledge and understanding grows.

When you ask 'what is the purpose of life?', that is begging the question of life already having an existing purpose. If you ask 'does life have a purpose?' there is a danger of the fallacy of equivocation, because the usage of the word purpose could be ambiguous. The latter depends on what you think a purpose is. But we all seem to be able to set our own life purposes, to the degree that we are able, and I think there is no problem asking what an individual has decided is their self-determined life purpose. You could also ask what a person's function is in a particular social context. Then you would be free to answer for yourself, that you see your purpose in terms of the bible and one or more gods. I don't think it is reasonable to make that claim on behalf of all of humanity unless you can demonstrate reasonably that it is true, which I think it isn't.

Having offspring is the very definition of making sure my genes survive.

Yes, although not completely. Because the genes of someone without children are also carried by their siblings, nephews and nieces (and parents). So the survival of those people is also of interest to your genes. And it is in the interests of your genes that all the people who provide services that maintain your health, from food to quite a lot of other things, also survive.

Take a whole species when resources are greatly restricted. The chances of my offspring surviving to reproduce and greatly increased if I don't have to care for your tribe. A species will lay claim to a territory that can support them. This spreads the tribes out. But the tribes come together once a year a so to meet and marry before they disperse into their lands. You invade my land uninvited and I am going to defend that. Evolution is not a gentle process.

Indeed, well put. And those are some of the factors that lead to typical tribe sizes in nomadic tribes. The meeting and marrying part is the prevention of inbreeding.

In my opinion, yes. What they fail to recognize is the difference between religion and God.

Well it really depends on what you mean by a god. My favourite argument against a god is an appeal to aesthetics: the universe appears to be beautiful. A world with an invisible meddler, working undetectably, would not be beautiful because it would be a deception.
While this is very weak syllogistically, I think a god-driven universe is too ugly to be worth exploring, and the universe is too beautiful for that to be credible.

It may never be. I hope that one day it can be.

Well, if you need any literature...

True if and only if you believe that God is constrained by time as we are. I believe that time was created by God during His act of creation. Mr. Hawking's explanation is woefully lacking in any useful information. He is implying that there was nothing and then there was everything. That sounds more like creation than chance.

Stephen Hawking is the only one providing any useful information in that scenario. You are just speculating based on what you reckon, whereas he is give a fact about the universe, one that forces a god believer then to be a bit more specific. So it has forced you to be more specific about your unsupported speculation. But perhaps you expected Prof. Hawking to give you some insights into the nature of your god. Well, I think he was doing exactly that too.

"Do not test the Lord your God." God does not wish to be tested.

So your god was tested on the question of whether it wanted to be tested, and the result was a no. That's hardly surprising, is it. Aren't you suspicious of humans who would rather not be tested, say when they might be fraudulently claiming social support payments or driving without a license?
But anyway, you have a mystery to maintain, lest a thread come loose and lead to a great unweaving.

I've said this before, knowledge does not save, faith does. If you replace faith with knowledge then salvation is lost.

Well then why would you have even read the scriptures to gain the knowledge that tells you that in the first place? With christianity the logical fallacies are just left to pile up all around.

Jesus will return one day. I have no doubt that is return will not be missed for what it is. As to whom I would have locked up, well, there have been several cult leaders that have lead their followers into death. It would have been good if we could have prevented that.

I guess a widespread cultural belief that is barking mad, when it doesn't materially lead to harm, gives no good reason to lock up its mad adherents. After all, I'm sure after enough picking at what I believe, I could be locked up on the same grounds if that were not the case. But as you point out, there are people who have caused harm by acting on that same belief. So would it be fair then to characterise christianity as a safe activity as long as it's not put into practice as written? You shouldn't leave your family to follow Jesus, for example. You shouldn't love your enemy if that enemy is a foreign state intent on destroying you. You shouldn't put gay people to death by stoning, as recommended by the zealot Paul.

A just God. A God who has said what will happen and stands by what He said. God does not want to change us. He gave us free will. He wants us to return to Him. He will honor your choice if you decline to do so.

I know you, as much as I do, as an intelligent human being. When you write down your doctrine, I'm sorry, but it makes you sound like an idiotic robot. You aren't engaging in any kind of exercise in logical discourse here, it's like you are a different person when you are spouting dogma. Quite striking, and almost frightening. You really do write as if a meme has taken over your rational brain. I'm a bit shocked by the immediacy of it.

Yes, I do. His name is God. He is without beginning and without end.

Right, so that deals with the 'atheists have no uncaused cause' nonsense. It is hypocrisy, and again an equivocation on the question of what the word 'cause' could even mean at the beginning of time, and a begging of the question of whether the concept of an uncaused cause has any necessity at all. It looks to me like a platitude from the time of the philosopher-Archbishops of Canterbury.

But look at what He did. He created a universe that we can understand. He made it work in ways that allow us to manipulate it to our advantage. He created four molecules that have virtually limitless ability to create and modify life. His first act, the Big Bang, was miraculous, and the wonder that that released is staggering.

To Einstein, that's not what a god did, that's what a god is:a comprehensible universe. That god of Spinoza already sounds better than a petty god that needs to burn what it made because it doesn't like it. That is an action of a petulant child, not a great ruler.

I'm surprised you took a literary illusion so literally. I do not know exactly what form God's finger took, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. A solar flare at exactly the right moment. A walk across an area with unusual radiation. God can make it happen according the systems He designed.

I took it literally because you are making a claim about how your god achieved something. And now it appears you are not making a claim about a finger, but a claim about divine solar flares or magic radiation. Your attempts are a decent cut above the usual attempts, but you can see why you should be ignored, can't you. You are not saying anything useful, and actually you are really trying to deflect to maintain mystery while trying to pay some lip service to the language and power of science, which destroys mystery. There's a dilemma.

I had to take you literally to demonstrate that no scientists need concern themselves with the claims of christians, and that especially includes creationism, which is an industry dedicated to telling lies to support their god finger hypotheses. Of course, as soon as scientists do the right thing and ignore the religious noise, some creationist will complain that there is discrimination against the possibility of their god, built into the mechanism of science. Actually, science will take on anything that involves unambiguous evidence, and given the success of science and the failure of any religious person ever to provide any unambiguous evidence for any god, you would think that might suggest something about the existence of any gods.

You would not have succeeded. Had Mary said no to God then Jesus's mother would have had a different name but He would been born none the less. God had a plan for salvation and no one man could thwart that plan.

Well, I think I did concede I might be destroyed. But that would highlight the kind of fascist totalitarian regime we are discussing.

I think that He always acts logically according to His plan. I think that we as humans fail to understand His logic.

That really calls into question Genesis 1:27 then.

It is what I have learned from reading scripture.

I have learned a lot from reading scripture too.

Stuart

 

[Jose Fly]

Furthermore, you cannot logically accept some scientific theories, while rejecting others, of various time periods, based on which better suits personal bias.

Forgive my intrusion, but this is a very good point.

The scientific community didn't reject the notions of a ~6,000 year old earth that had been completely flooded ~4,500 years ago and all its life wiped out save what rode aboard a wooden boat, from personal bias. In fact, many of the European scientists who first began to write about this change were Christians.

The reason they rejected it and have continued to do so over the ensuing 200+ years is quite simple.....it's wrong. Young-earth creationism simply does not match the data at hand.

There's one reason and one reason only to believe in young-earth creationism...a particular reading of ancient Jewish scripture. Take that away and there's absolutely no reason to ever even conceive of it in the first place.

 

[6days]

Why does it not allow for anything other than 24 hours? Please explain.

Sure... I will try explain. Several of us have been saying that it can't be anything other than a normal day night, because of context. I also quoted a Hebrew scholar saying the same thing. But, I will try explain further. (My answer will be apart from all of the scientific evidence that supports our young universe).


The Hebrew word YOM and the English word DAY, have a variety of meanings and in both languages the meaning is determined by the context. In the Bible we see the word also has a variety of meanings including a long time... a period of daylight... or a normal period of day and night that we call a 24-hour day. (In fact, those 3 definitions are used betwren Gen. 1:1 and 2:4). The word is used 2000+ times in the Old Testament and it is always easy to understand. Genesis 1 is the only place in the Old Testament where anyone wants to ignore the context in order to add compromising ideas of long periods of time.


In Hebrew (English also) when a number is associated with the word YOM / DAY, it ALWAYS refers to what we call a 24 hour day. YOM is associated with a number more than 350 times in the Old Testament. (40 days, the third day etc).


Then.... it seems as if the author of Genesis 1 wanted to hammer home the point of literal days for those who are hard of believing. In the O.T. the word YOM is associated with the words evening, or morning, or night 90 times... and in every one of those 90 situations everyone understands it is referring to a normal 24-hour day.


There is other context also in Genesis 1 that help us know the author is referring to literal days such as the use of cardinal and ordinal numbers.


We can also look in scripture at how various authors refer to Genesis as literal history. There is never any suggestion that it is allegorical or that it is just poetry.


We can look at how Jesus believed Genesis 1. He referred to male and female from the beginning of creation... the 6-day creation account found in Genesis 1. Jesus also connected humanity to the "foundations of the world". Surely, you don't believe our Creator would use phrases that would be misleading if our world was billions of years old.


We can look at the context of how the creation account is integrated into the gospel. Paul tells us that death entered our world because of "first Adams" sin; and death was defeated by "Last Adams" sacrifice. If a person believes that death, pain, thorns, suffering and extinctions existed before sin; then the purpose of Christ's physical death becomes meaningless.( He would not need defeat death, the "final enemy" if death was part of God's "very good" creation.

 

[Apple7]

YEC peeps...

The Hebrew day begins and ends in the evening.

Thus, when ONLY evening and morning are mentioned on each creation 'day', this can, at best, represent a 12hr period, and NOT a 24 hr period, according to your literal, and limited, viewpoint...

 

[Stripe]

Jonah... we all have the exact same evidence.

We all have access to the same data. The problem is that Darwinists use their ideas as evidence. Before the discussion can reach the point out should — where ideas are tested against the data — evolutionists demand that ideas they hate be thrown out.

Ice cores, for example. Stuart demands that the Earth must be accepted as at least 800,000 years old because of his assumptions and will not consider a competing idea.

Why does it not allow for anything other than 24 hours? Please explain.

Hold on a second, sunshine. You tell us why it doesn't mean 24 hours. It says "six days." Those who accept that it means what it says are not in a position where they have to defend themselves. Those who say it cannot mean six days are.

But as I was saying, you dismiss evidence without having any of your own. Stuart

Nope.

First, I haven't dismissed anything. I ventured a few steps down the road of a conversation before you started demanding my ideas be eradicated. We got nowhere near any evidence.

Second, my possession of evidence has no relevance. You've presented a classic non sequitur.

Nice congratulatory self-back-patting there, Joe.

He's got little else.

There you go. "Hey everbody! Joe's great great grandfather was an onion! It all makes sense now!"

:rotfl:

The scientific community didn't reject the notions of a ~6,000 year old earth that had been completely flooded ~4,500 years ago and all its life wiped out save what rode aboard a wooden boat, from personal bias. In fact, many of the European scientists who first began to write about this change were Christians.

The reason they rejected it and have continued to do so over the ensuing 200+ years is quite simple.....it's wrong. Young-earth creationism simply does not match the data at hand.

Billions of dead things buried in water-deposited rock the world over. Clear, incontrovertible evidence of a global flood.

Sorry, the evidence trumps your appeal to popularity

There's one reason and one reason only to believe in young-earth creationism...a particular reading of ancient Jewish scripture. Take that away and there's absolutely no reason to ever even conceive of it in the first place.

Nope.

As you've seen: Evidence. We know you hate it.

The Hebrew day begins and ends in the evening.

Which would be 24 hours.

Thus, when ONLY evening and morning are mentioned on each creation 'day', this can, at best, represent a 12hr period, and NOT a 24 hr period.

It looks like you haven't thought this through very well. :chuckle:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

YEC peeps...

The Hebrew day begins and ends in the evening.

Thus, when ONLY evening and morning are mentioned on each creation 'day', this can, at best, represent a 12hr period, and NOT a 24 hr period, according to your literal, and limited, viewpoint...

Evo peeps
Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:
'Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

(C)Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.

Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the “days” of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.' [

 

[jsanford108]

Forgive my intrusion, but this is a very good point.

The scientific community didn't reject the notions of a ~6,000 year old earth that had been completely flooded ~4,500 years ago and all its life wiped out save what rode aboard a wooden boat, from personal bias. In fact, many of the European scientists who first began to write about this change were Christians.

The reason they rejected it and have continued to do so over the ensuing 200+ years is quite simple.....it's wrong. Young-earth creationism simply does not match the data at hand.

There's one reason and one reason only to believe in young-earth creationism...a particular reading of ancient Jewish scripture. Take that away and there's absolutely no reason to ever even conceive of it in the first place.

No intrusion here.

Also, I agree.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Stripe]

I agree.

Darwinists hate evidence.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[way 2 go]

I didn't say that it does not say "six days." Don't twist what I said. My point was that a "day" does not mean 24 hours in length. Not here in Genesis. A "day" means a period of time of unspecified length, just as when someone says, "In my father's day..." Are they talking about a single 24-hour day in their father's life? No! Then why is it so difficult for you to understand that a creative "day" is not necessarily 24 hours in length?

1 rotation of the earth = 1 day
which is how you get evening and the morning unless you know of another way to get evening and morning.

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

 

[Apple7]

Evo peeps
Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:
'Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

(C)Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.

Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the “days” of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.' [

zzzzzzzzzz.....that does absolutely nothing to address erev and boker...

 

[George Affleck]

YEC peeps...

The Hebrew day begins and ends in the evening.

Thus, when ONLY evening and morning are mentioned on each creation 'day', this can, at best, represent a 12hr period, and NOT a 24 hr period, according to your literal, and limited, viewpoint...

The first day began in darkness and then, during that first 24 hour period, God said "Let there be light".
I take this to mean; "To oppose the nothingness of darkness, let there be such a physical construct as 'light' energy.
Later He would use this building block to form celestial bodies to regulate the darkness/light in our corner of the universe, for our specific needs.

Following the same creative pattern, just as the first day's end was marked by nightfall, the beginning of the next day was marked by nightfall beginning in the evening, followed by the light of morning and daytime in which to work. We know that there is, in reality, no such thing as darkness; only the absence of light. Darkness cannot be called a "thing" because it cannot be measured and it has no effect. From this viewpoint, God created something where there was nothing.

God could have made the universe in 7 nano seconds or 7 billion years. But He is relational to, and ever mindful of His crown of creation; man. He chose to create in 7 normal days for the benefit of man's relationship to Him and made the sabbath for him to emulate his Creator.

Jesus declared that the sabbath (7th day of creation) was made for man, not man for the sabbath. The weekly cycle was instituted by God for our benefit. The first allusion to the gospel is when God made light to shine in the darkness on day one. And, because He is our sabbath (that is, not by works but by resting in Him by faith), the whole of creation daily shows the glory of God and preaches the gospel to every man daily.

The short answer to your objection is: Unless the evening darkness is followed by a morning of light, the next day has not begun. If light does shine into the darkness, the very next, consecutive day began. So God builds upon the foundation of the first day's events our reliance on Him to turn darkness into light every day.