| Physical & Life Sciences A forum for physics, biology, chemistry and other physical sciences. |
 | | 
20th February 2009, 03:58 AM
|  | SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
57     
 | | Join Date: 18th June 2006 Location: United States
Posts: 2,126,164
Blessings: 2,934,947,674 My Mood 
Reps: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (power: 9,223,372,036,856,908) | | Originally Posted by CACTUSJACKmankin  it's absent from the data... What is absent from the data?
In ex nihilo, nihilo ≠ data.
There is no data to be absent.
In the beginning, mass/energy = nihilo --- then it steadily rose over a six-day period to its current level.
Another way of looking at it is that the universe wasn't created under the Laws of Thermodynamics; those laws didn't exist yet.
__________________ GOD SAID IT -- THAT SETTLES IT
|
20th February 2009, 04:02 AM
| | SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
57
| | Join Date: 18th June 2006 Location: United States
Posts: 2,126,164
Blessings: 2,934,947,674 My Mood
Reps: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (power: 9,223,372,036,856,908) | | Originally Posted by Split Rock Right. But in the case of The Flood you instead invoke God "cleaning up" after himself to hide the evidence.
Feel free to to show me where I ever said that --- please take any of my posts on the Flood and highlight that part in red. In fact, I've denied that several times.
__________________ GOD SAID IT -- THAT SETTLES IT
|
20th February 2009, 04:05 AM
| | SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
57
| | Join Date: 18th June 2006 Location: United States
Posts: 2,126,164
Blessings: 2,934,947,674 My Mood
Reps: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (power: 9,223,372,036,856,908) | | Originally Posted by Nathan Poe No, but once it's been thouroughly debunked -- and it has...
No, it hasn't.
Even you (I think) admit that you can't prove a negative, and if there was no global flood, you'll never prove it.
Note to all: Can we get off this flood stuff now? It has nothing to do with the Creation Week.
__________________ GOD SAID IT -- THAT SETTLES IT
|
20th February 2009, 05:22 AM
|  | I need a new username...
30    
| | Join Date: 14th March 2005 Location: Norway
Posts: 10,194
Blessings: 10,151,241 My Mood 
Reps: 80,175,838,156,492,624 (power: 80,175,838,156,509) | | Originally Posted by AV1611VET I have to respectfully disagree, Guardian, on a technicality.
God created this universe ex nihilo --- and that type of creation did not leave an audit trail that we can trace back.
Therefore, and in my opinion, the Creation Week cannot be ascertained scientifically.
We must go by faith in the Documentation as to how it happened, when it happened, Who did it, why it was done, what order it was done in, and even who the eyewitness were --- which said Documentation gives us all that information, and more.
God bless!
What makes you think your own interpretation of the bible is correct? The inquisition were certain heliocentrism was heretical.
Besides, all the other documentation God gave us tells us that your interpretation of the bible is incorrect. Soooo, who should we believe? You, a human being, or the creation itself - written by the hand of God?
__________________ Originally Posted by Helle Gannestad (Utøya massacre survivor) To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dir="ltr"> “When one man could cause so much evil - think about how much love we can create together.”
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
20th February 2009, 05:23 AM
| | I need a new username...
30
| | Join Date: 14th March 2005 Location: Norway
Posts: 10,194
Blessings: 10,151,241 My Mood
Reps: 80,175,838,156,492,624 (power: 80,175,838,156,509) | | Originally Posted by AV1611VET No, it hasn't.
Even you (I think) admit that you can't prove a negative, and if there was no global flood, you'll never prove it.
Note to all: Can we get off this flood stuff now? It has nothing to do with the Creation Week.
You cannot 'prove' anything at all. You can merely find out what is most likely.
__________________ Originally Posted by Helle Gannestad (Utøya massacre survivor) To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dir="ltr"> “When one man could cause so much evil - think about how much love we can create together.”
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
20th February 2009, 05:40 AM
| | SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
57
| | Join Date: 18th June 2006 Location: United States
Posts: 2,126,164
Blessings: 2,934,947,674 My Mood
Reps: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (power: 9,223,372,036,856,908) | | Originally Posted by faith guardian What makes you think your own interpretation of the bible is correct?
What kind of question is that?
Are you asking why I don't follow someone else's interpretation and not defend the Bible from my own point of view? Originally Posted by faith guardian The inquisition were certain heliocentrism was heretical.
The Inquisition was in spite of the Bible, not in respect to It. Originally Posted by faith guardian Besides, all the other documentation God gave us tells us that your interpretation of the bible is incorrect.
What "other documentation"? Originally Posted by faith guardian Soooo, who should we believe?
Well, that choice is yours, Guardian.
If you want to believe in a figurative interpretation, and by so doing, conclude that Christianity and the Creation are irreconcilable, it's your call --- but it also shows a willingness to be hostile to, and not friendly with, Genesis 1.
Your bringing up the Inquisition is indicative of that.
In all my years here, I've yet to see someone who interprets the Bible figuratively not blame the Inquisition on Christianity. Originally Posted by faith guardian You, a human being, or the creation itself - written by the hand of God?
This sentence lacks a verb, and I don't understand it.
__________________ GOD SAID IT -- THAT SETTLES IT
|
20th February 2009, 06:32 AM
| | I need a new username...
30
| | Join Date: 14th March 2005 Location: Norway
Posts: 10,194
Blessings: 10,151,241 My Mood
Reps: 80,175,838,156,492,624 (power: 80,175,838,156,509) | | Originally Posted by AV1611VET What kind of question is that?
Allow me to reiterate then.
All texts are interpreted by the readers. There is no such thing as a literal reading. Given that, what makes you think your own interpretation of the Genesis story is accurate? Originally Posted by AV1611VET Are you asking why I don't follow someone else's interpretation and not defend the Bible from my own point of view?
I guess I am asking what makes you think your own interpretation is infallible. The Inquisition was in spite of the Bible, not in respect to It.
They didn't think it was in spite of the bible. They thought it was perfectly in-line with 'literal' interpretation of it. What "other documentation"?
Creation itself. Kind of silly to disregard that, don't you think? Originally Posted by AV1611VET If you want to believe in a figurative interpretation, and by so doing, conclude that Christianity and the Creation are irreconcilable, it's your call --- but it also shows a willingness to be hostile to, and not friendly with, Genesis 1.
No, I am not hostile to genesis. I think that I interpret it differently than you do. Also, note that I never said creation was antithetical to Christianity, only creationism. And by that I mean the belief that the world and universe at large was created in 6*24 hours 6-10 000 years ago. The belief that evolution, big bang etcetera are all false based on a "literal" interpretation of a few verses in Genesis. Originally Posted by AV1611VET Your bringing up the Inquisition is indicative of that.
Are you sure you're not just a little paranoid? Originally Posted by AV1611VET In all my years here, I've yet to see someone who interprets the Bible figuratively not blame the Inquisition on Christianity.
I didn't do that. I said that the inquisition did what you do, interpret the bible a specific way and honestly believed that this way was the only way. Originally Posted by AV1611VET This sentence lacks a verb, and I don't understand it.
Really? Let me rephrase then.
Who should we believe? Your human interpretation of a written work, or the mathematically accurate creation itself?
__________________ Originally Posted by Helle Gannestad (Utøya massacre survivor) To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dir="ltr"> “When one man could cause so much evil - think about how much love we can create together.”
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
20th February 2009, 07:04 AM
| | SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
57
| | Join Date: 18th June 2006 Location: United States
Posts: 2,126,164
Blessings: 2,934,947,674 My Mood
Reps: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (power: 9,223,372,036,856,908) | | Originally Posted by faith guardian Allow me to reiterate then.
Thank you --- I'm not the smartest person in the world to talk to. Originally Posted by faith guardian All texts are interpreted by the readers.
That is correct. Originally Posted by faith guardian There is no such thing as a literal reading.
Wrong --- it is technically called the Historical-Grammatical Interpretation. Originally Posted by faith guardian Given that, what makes you think your own interpretation of the Genesis story is accurate?
This thread for one --- it makes me glad I'm a literalist. Originally Posted by faith guardian I guess I am asking what makes you think your own interpretation is infallible.
The literal, or Historical-Grammatical method of Bible interpretation was used by our forefathers all throughout history; as well as by Jesus Christ and His disciples, themselves.
The Allegorical Method was made popular by Philo of Alexandria, in an attempt to meld Christianity with Platonic thought.
This book is an excellent source of information on this subject:  Originally Posted by faith guardian They didn't think it was in spite of the bible. They thought it was perfectly in-line with 'literal' interpretation of it.
What they thought is none of my business; especially since I'm an Independent Baptist. The thing is though, they were wrong.
If I interpret G=m 1m 2/r 2 to mean that I can walk on air, and I step off of the top of the Empire State Building, whose interpretation is going to prevail --- mine or nature's? Originally Posted by faith guardian Creation itself. Kind of silly to disregard that, don't you think?
Creation does not have "another documentation". Originally Posted by faith guardian No, I am not hostile to genesis.
Glad to hear that --- funny though --- why didn't you quote from it then to support your OP? Originally Posted by faith guardian I think that I interpret it differently than you do.
What method do you use? It sounds to me like you use Philo's Allegorical Method. Originally Posted by faith guardian Also, note that I never said creation was antithetical to Christianity, only creationism.
Creationism, to me, is simply a belief in the Creation Week --- but again --- that's just my definition. Originally Posted by faith guardian And by that I mean the belief that the world and universe at large was created in 6*24 hours 6-10 000 years ago.
So how long are those periods, specifically? 1,000,000 years? If so, how did the plants survive that long without the sun? Originally Posted by faith guardian The belief that evolution, big bang etcetera are all false based on a "literal" interpretation of a few verses in Genesis.
I like to put it this way: - Genesis 1 pwns Evolution.
- Genesis 1:1 pwns Atheism.
Originally Posted by faith guardian Are you sure you're not just a little paranoid?
I've been called worse ---  Originally Posted by faith guardian I didn't do that. I said that the inquisition did what you do, interpret the bible a specific way and honestly believed that this way was the only way.
Do you do the same thing? Do you interpret the Bible a specific way, and honestly believe that this is the only way? Or, as the saying goes: If you don't believe in something, you'll fall for anything. Originally Posted by faith guardian Really? Let me rephrase then.
Who should we believe? Your human interpretation of a written work, or the mathematically accurate creation itself?
I have no trouble whatsoever believing both.
__________________ GOD SAID IT -- THAT SETTLES IT
|
20th February 2009, 04:43 PM
|  | Legend
37  
| | Join Date: 21st September 2002 Location: United States
Posts: 32,422
Blessings: 39,581
Reps: 295,212,687,427,838,720 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by AV1611VET Note to all: Can we get off this flood stuff now? It has nothing to do with the Creation Week.
But it does, AV -- it undermines the credibility of the "Documentation," which, by your own admission, is the only reason to accept the "Creation Week."
Would you agree that without the "Documentation," you have nothing to go on? If the "Documentation" is wrong on one of God's acts, then it's not infallible -- just the work of mere mortals. |
20th February 2009, 04:55 PM
| | SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
57
| | Join Date: 18th June 2006 Location: United States
Posts: 2,126,164
Blessings: 2,934,947,674 My Mood
Reps: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (power: 9,223,372,036,856,908) | | Originally Posted by Nathan Poe But it does, AV -- it undermines the credibility of the "Documentation," which, by your own admission, is the only reason to accept the "Creation Week."
Science does not undermine any credibility where God is involved. Originally Posted by Nathan Poe Would you agree that without the "Documentation," you have nothing to go on?
Yes --- so far --- and by that, I mean if scientists would soon find a global layer. Originally Posted by Nathan Poe If the "Documentation" is wrong on one of God's acts, then it's not infallible -- just the work of mere mortals.
Correct --- either that, or God, Himself was wrong, which is impossible; but either way, yes, the Documentation would be flawed.
__________________ GOD SAID IT -- THAT SETTLES IT
| | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
