My Reconciliation Challenge

[thaumaturgy]

Same Recipe, Different Ingredients:

1. AV makes a "challenge" which contains a couple fundamental flaws.

2. People respond by pointing out the flaws.

3. AV gets to claim "No one ever answers my challenges!"

Now AV will "stockpile" this flawed illogic and dredge it up every time he tries to push his "embedded history" stuff.

Yay. Go Go Go.

Get ready for it. Soon AV's posts will just be hot-linked lists of the Apple Challenge the Ants in the Swimming Pool and now the Rock-Paper-No Scissors challenge.

This isn't progress.

 

[Lakercom]

The two statements are reconcilable. It is simple. God created things with age embedded in them. God created Adam an adult and intelligence and the ability to speak a language. God created Adam with a belly button, I am sure, and there is no reason to think He did not.

 

[[serious]]

I can reconcile the two.

The rock is formed then accelerated to ver y near the speed of light for 2.25 billion years. We then slingshot it arouund a black hole to bring it back to earth over the course of another 2.25 billion years.

Of course, this would provide a rock that appeared to be 6100 years old but that was created 4.5 billion years ago which I thing is the opposite of what you are trying to accomplish.

 

[AV1611VET]

"We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. "

http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm

We believe that among God's good gifts is the ministry of reconciliation and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God's loving revelation of His creation of the universe excludes the literal interpretation of the God-given Documentation on the subject is to attempt to limit God's revelation, an act of foolishness.


AV1611 King James Bible/2 Corinthians 5:18/ministry of reconciliation

 

[milkyway]

How would you reconcile these two statements w/o being disrespectful to either one:

1. This rock has been in existence for 6100 years.
2. This rock is 4.57 billion years old.

I can't. Can you?


"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." Richard Feynman

 

[AV1611VET]

The two statements are reconcilable. It is simple. God created things with age embedded in them. God created Adam an adult and intelligence and the ability to speak a language. God created Adam with a belly button, I am sure, and there is no reason to think He did not.

Ewww, Lakercom, I started to give you reps, until I read that last sentence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's a question for all you guys that think it can't logically be done:

• Can God do it, employing supralogical means?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Here's a question for all you guys that think it can't logically be done:

• Can God do it, employing supralogical means?

There is no such thing as "supralogical" in the real world.

 

[milkyway]

Here's a question for all you guys that think it can't logically be done:

• Can God do it, employing supralogical means?

If you believe in god - a god who is master of the universe and can do ANYTHING - the answer is obviously 'yes'.

For those of us who live in the real world and use our senses and experience to guide us, the "question" is without meaning.

 

[TheManeki]

Here's a question for all you guys that think it can't logically be done:

• Can God do it, employing supralogical means?

• What purpose would God have in doing so?
• Why do you believe it would be in God's nature to do so?

 

[[serious]]

well, the entire earth may have been created last tuesday with embedded age using "supralogical" explanations.

 

[atomweaver]

We believe that among God's good gifts is the ministry of reconciliation and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God's loving revelation of His creation of the universe excludes the literal interpretation of the God-given Documentation on the subject is to attempt to limit God's revelation, an act of foolishness.


AV1611 King James Bible/2 Corinthians 5:18/ministry of reconciliation

By your reply, its obvious that the root disagreement, therefore, is one of Biblical interpretation. Why then, would you post here for your solicitations of reconciliation? Do you belive EAC evolutionists hold a better grasp of Biblical interpretation, than >11,000 Christian clergy? If so, you're spending too much time on Cervo forum, AVVET
Take this matter up with the right audience (fellow Christians). When the lot of you has the interpretation sorted out to a single, agreed upon position (I know... hah!) then the debate here can really start.

 

[AV1611VET]

Take this matter up with the right audience (fellow Christians). When the lot of you has the interpretation sorted out to a single, agreed upon position (I know... hah!) then the debate here can really start.

This matter is for anyone, and my OP doesn't target a non-Christian audience.

So it's okay for you to respond, but you don't think anyone else should unless they're a Christian?

 

[TheManeki]

This matter is for anyone, and my OP doesn't target a non-Christian audience.

So it's okay for you to respond, but you don't think anyone else should unless they're a Christian?

I figured he was referring to the inability for creationists to get their own story straight, even though all claim that the literal truth of it is obvious. I mean, just look at this telling exchange:

The two statements are reconcilable. It is simple. God created things with age embedded in them. God created Adam an adult and intelligence and the ability to speak a language. God created Adam with a belly button, I am sure, and there is no reason to think He did not.

Ewww, Lakercom, I started to give you reps, until I read that last sentence.

There are a host of competing creationist interpretations, including your novel one, AV. Young Earth. Old Earth. Gap. Ruin and restoration. Local flood. Global flood. Then there are the even smaller details -- did Adam and Eve have navels? Creationists can't seem to work out the details, probably due to an attack of the "I-am-right-and-anyone-who-disagrees-with-me-is-a-tool-of-teh-debbil" syndrome.

Methinks atomweaver was suggesting creationists to go after the plank in their own theory's eye before they go after the mote in evolutionary theory's.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Here's a question for all you guys that think it can't logically be done:

• Can God do it, employing supralogical means?

Yes. Yes, God can do that. God can do anything.

Which means the God Hypothesis is exactly and wholly useless.

God can make all my reactions run counter to every law of Thermodynamics next Tuesday.

God can make things appear as they are not to the trained eye.

God can make verbs nouns and nouns verbs and can alter all meaning of all terms at his will.

God can make every word in your sentence mean just the opposite for the next 10 seconds and then switch it back.

God can do anything.

Now make some sense of the world using that information.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I figured he was referring to the inability for creationists to get their own story straight, even though all claim that the literal truth of it is obvious. I mean, just look at this telling exchange:





There are a host of competing creationist interpretations, including your novel one, AV. Young Earth. Old Earth. Gap. Ruin and restoration. Local flood. Global flood. Then there are the even smaller details -- did Adam and Eve have navels? Creationists can't seem to work out the details, probably due to an attack of the "I-am-right-and-anyone-who-disagrees-with-me-is-a-tool-of-teh-debbil" syndrome.

Methinks atomweaver was suggesting creationists to go after the plank in their own theory's eye before they go after the mote in evolutionary theory's.

This is indeed endemic to the Creationist approach, or, more broadly, the fundamentalists approach.

Fundamentalism attempts to codify one single interpretation and thereby eliminate the need for thought.

In so doing you will often see the Fundamentalists on this board make broad claims, often founded on their own ignorance of the science that would gainsay it, and then they will never brook the concept of self examination.

They speak forcefully and almost never admit they could be mistaken. To be mistaken, or to even grant that they might be mistaken is the hallmark of thought or self-examination, which is precisely what they have chosen to avoid when they have chosen Fundamentalism/Literalism.

But strangely enough, no matter how LITERAL the Literalist they will often pull up someone else's interpretation, be it some ministry or some study bible or what not.

Makes me wonder why they pursue the whole literalist bent.

 

[TheManeki]

To paraphrase Shakespeare, it seems fundamentalists believe not wisely but too well.

Or, as they would say in the Southeastern United States, "Bless their little fundamentalist hearts."

 

[FishFace]

How would you reconcile these two statements w/o being disrespectful to either one:

1. This rock has been in existence for 6100 years.
2. This rock is 4.57 billion years old.

Easy. They are reconciled by the first one being incorrect.

 

[FishFace]

Here's a question for all you guys that think it can't logically be done:

• Can God do it, employing supralogical means?

Here are two related questions:

1. Can God make a square circle
2. What would it look like

Or equivalently:

1. Can God make a pure iron bar out of pure gold?
2. What colour would it be?

You ask God to do the logically impossible. That firstly makes God completely beyond human understanding. It makes no sense to think of God being "loving" or "omnipresent" or any of that, since logic doesn't apply. It is also plainly ridiculous.

 

[Loudmouth]

How would you reconcile these two statements w/o being disrespectful to either one:

1. This rock has been in existence for 6100 years.
2. This rock is 4.57 billion years old.

It's quite easy to reconcile these two. If a rock has been around for 4.57 billion years then it has also been around for 6,100 years. I am 34 years old, but I have also been in existence for a week.