Which creation do creationists want us to believe took place?

[thaumaturgy]

Because science is currently hostile [but obedient] to God

How do you know this?

(Let me hazard a guess here: because there are parts of science that you willfully do not understand, have no interest in understanding, but appear to go against your interpretation of the word of God. --Note how many times I used the word "you" and "your" in that.)

, and in no way represents the state of the universe 6100 years ago in Genesis 1 --- not even close.I would imagine that, to God, science is a nuisance

I highlighted a very important aspect to that sentence.

You imagine how God interprets science. Yet you don't have any real interest in understanding this science.

So are you acting on God's behalf? Is God intellectually lazy?

--- and soon to be removed out of the way.No --- Lucifer did --- and thought he could subvert his Creator with it.

Again, you are making claims based on your faith.

Which is OK, but yet I don't feel "compelled" to take the word of someone who has shown so little interest in science as to what science is or isn't and how "god" thinks about science.

If God find "science" a nuisance, then God finds me a nuisance.

 

[juvenissun]

Me, I'm more scared for his students. Having a teacher that just tries to ram facts down his students throats, with no argument, no supporting evidence? No understanding, just random assertions? If I ever have children, I would pull them out of that class in an instant if I found their teacher taught like that.

Why don't you try to find a teaching job? It is fun and rewarding. Today's student (undergrad or grad) is not qualified to be taught by the way you described. Too bad.

 

[thaumaturgy]

As long as you guys keep thinking this, you're not going to believe a word I say. "My Truth" is "Your Truth" as well.

If your truth is mine, why don't I see it as such? Why are you so much more than I?

Should I start saying, "I think the Flood happened because the Bible says it, and I have faith in the Bible"?

YES! That is precisely what your claim consists of. It has no imperative to those who do not read the Bible literally in all aspects.

It's just so much easier to say, "The Flood happened," than it is to be so loquacious.

Well, it's easy to say "Jesus didn't exist or if he existed he was just a regular guy in Judea."

Do you find that in any way "compelling" as an argument?

 

[juvenissun]

That's techno - claustro - phobic.

As in --- when there is more science than Truth --- I start to get that stuffy the-room-is-closing-in-on-me feeling; and it's time for me to go to pasture.

As I always said (in fact, taught by the Scripture), you are so blessed from being bothered by science. Good for you.

 

[Chalnoth]

Alright, you obviously do not consider my answers provided to you as answers. If so, how did the conversation continue? Exactly because of this attitude, I will NOT provide you any of my comment until the question is specific. A good education is a two-way communication after all.

I'm honestly flabbergasted that you think you've provided any explanations.

What if I simply say that water is need for lubrication? How would you respond? Is that a good explanation? I bet you have no idea on what is the next question to ask.

It's not a good explanation, but it's at least an attempt at one, which is more than you've provided before. To actually make it into a good explanation, however, you'd need to do what thaumaturgy did here, which is to not only present that water is necessary for lubrication, but president evidence that this is the case. You didn't even go that far, however. You just baldly asserted that the hydrological cycle is essential for plate tectonics. You didn't present even a ghost of an argument as to why this would be the case, not even the one-liner you have above.

But I still object that water content in the upper mantle/crust isn't necessarily related to the hydrological cycle. I will agree that it seems plausible, perhaps even likely, that water is necessary for plate tectonics, but not that the hydrological cycle is.

Regardless, however, this is a side issue. Since it seems we're on the subject of the flood now, why not pick one of these reasons why a global flood is impossible, and actually explain why it's not a valid objection to a global flood?

1. Not enough water.
2. No global flood layer.
3. How did any fish (or other water animals) survive?
4. How did the extant species fit on the ark?
5. How were they able to survive with such small genetic diversity?
6. Why don't we see a massive genetic bottleneck in all species that traces back tot he same (recent) time?
7. Why are there many species unique to the Americas? To Australia?

Each of these conclusively demonstrates that a flood is impossible given current evidence, I claim. So, which one do you think you can actually present an argument against, and show why a global flood is indeed possible?

 

[consol]

AV is in a world of HIS own, HIS religion and HIS God all conform to HIS way of thinking,
it's the final stage of religious nuttiness, it happens to them all in the end,
they all end up the same, praying to their settee or coffee table,
(and they get the same responce as they did from their God, none)

 

[Chalnoth]

Why don't you try to find a teaching job? It is fun and rewarding. Today's student (undergrad or grad) is not qualified to be taught by the way you described. Too bad.

I probably will, at some point. But I have been a teacher's aide, which involved, at times, teaching lab/discussion sections. The primary focus in these courses was always understanding, not simple lists of facts. Students were actively discouraged from attempting to memorize their way through the course work (as physics just doesn't work that way).

 

[AV1611VET]

Because science is currently hostile [but obedient] to God...

How do you know this?

Do a simple comparision, Thaumaturgy:

Genesis 1:

1. The order of creation.
2. No suffering or death.
3. The Godhead speaking.

Science:

1. The order of the creation is wrong.
2. Survival of the Fittest.
3. God does not exist.

Now tell me that that second list is not hostile to the first one.

 

[AV1611VET]

As I always said (in fact, taught by the Scripture), you are so blessed from being bothered by science. Good for you.

Thank you, Juvenissun --- praise the Lord!

Paul said it best:

For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

And as John Wesley puts it:

V. 2. I determined not to know anything -To wave all my other knowledge, and not to preach anything, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified - That is, what he did, suffered, taught. A part is put for the whole.

 

[Chalnoth]

Do a simple comparision, Thaumaturgy:

Genesis 1:

1. The order of creation.
2. No suffering or death.
3. The Godhead speaking.

Science:

1. The order of the creation is wrong.
2. Survival of the Fittest.
3. God does not exist.

Now tell me that that second list is not hostile to the first one.

Why did you choose those three things for that second list? Sure, science does say that the order (among many other things) of creation in the first chapter of Genesis is incorrect. The survival of the fittest, however, is a tautology and is basically true by definition. And it also does say that it is highly unlikely that there is such a thing as a god. But science says a hell of a lot of other things as well. Why did you select those three?

 

[AV1611VET]

they all end up the same, praying to their settee or coffee table,

I'll [briefly] consider that when Ethan Allen comes back from the grave with my name in his book of life.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Do a simple comparision, Thaumaturgy:

Genesis 1:

1. The order of creation.
2. No suffering or death.
3. The Godhead speaking.

Science:

1. The order of the creation is wrong.
2. Survival of the Fittest.
3. God does not exist.

Now tell me that that second list is not hostile to the first one.

You are quite correct, the two lists you have presented are indeed hostile to one another.

HOWEVER, what you've really established is that "science is hostile to a literal interpretation of Genesis", not that Science is hostile to God.

You have yet to establish that Genesis is a literal account of history. IF you can establish three simple things then you will have some powerful ammunition for the debate.

Here's all you have to do:

1. Establish the existence of God to the satisfaction of a majority of objective, unbiased, observers.

2. The God you establish in #1 is the God discussed in Genesis and the rest of the Bible.

3. Establish Genesis as more likely Literally true than allegorical or myth.


Once you've established those three simple points then we will know that indeed science is hostile to Genesis 1 as literal account and that Science is, obviously, hostile to God.

Easy-as-pie.

 

[thaumaturgy]

As I always said (in fact, taught by the Scripture), you are so blessed from being bothered by science. Good for you.

Ignorance is bliss.

That is a blessing for AV, however, AV's ignorance presented as a discussion against what he is ignorant of is hardly a blessing to science.

AV is "blessing" us with his ignorance of science, so why should it be a one-way street?

Luke 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

 

[MoonLancer]

As long as you guys keep thinking this, you're not going to believe a word I say. "My Truth" is "Your Truth" as well.

How so? this is a very arrogant comment. to claim the Truth with no evidence is a very bold indeed.

I hate it when I say the Flood happened --- and someone comes back with --- that's your interpretation.

I find you have major issues reconciling your belief against others. Its common for people to tell themselves that their belief is the correct one because its true. you should never confuse belief with truth. I have used the T word before as well, but i try to do so conservatively, but we all make mistakes.

Everyone likes to think that they arrived at their conclusion because its true. So if everyone thinks they are true, most are going to be wrong. Its just that simple. Its those that are objective that realize it could be them.

Should I start saying, "I think the Flood happened because the Bible says it, and I have faith in the Bible"?

something like that. "X happened because" its a good start to a intellectual debate rather then zingy one liners. Honestly where does a debate go after someone says "X is true" without providing any real explanations.

It's just so much easier to say, "The Flood happened," than it is to be so loquacious.

if you say the flood happened, and I say it diden't, where are we? at some point we are going to need to break it down.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's all you have to do:

1. Establish the existence of God to the satisfaction of a majority of objective, unbiased, observers.

2. The God you establish in #1 is the God discussed in Genesis and the rest of the Bible.

3. Establish Genesis as more likely Literally true than allegorical or myth.

That's it, huh? That's all I have to do? Then you'll be a believer?

Well --- I have news for you, Thaumaturgy --- if God Himself shouted a clear sentence from Heaven --- according to the Scriptures, you will probably say it thundered.

The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.

 

[Washington]

To your benefit, if you do not understand, then humble yourself and start to ask some basic questions. One of the purpose for me to hang around here is to educate.

Okay.

What does, "The earth is 'created' with the water cycle in function." mean?

Why is "created" in quotation marks?

What does "in function" mean?

AND, exactly what is meant by "the earth IS created" "Is" is the present tense of "was," which is how the creation is normally referred to: in the past. (I assume you're referring to Biblical creation when you used "created"). Using "is" you imply this creation is now going on.


Please educate me in Juvenissun-Speak.

Thank You.

 

[MoonLancer]

All I have to say is this last point is bunk:

I agree but the point about the wind moving the rocks when the mud is soft seems to be the best explination i could find

No. Just no. Understanding is always more interesting than lack of understanding. And besides, it's not as if there's a dearth of things we don't understand.

The end of the article is kind of a cop out, but the middle is good.

P.S.
Your = possessive.
You're = you are.

I would appreciate it if you would not make fun of my learning disability. I am well aware that my spelling is D level. Its something i have struggled with all my life. They still don't know why my reading comprehension is high but my spelling ability is almost null. I am just glad you diden't criticize my spelling in place of a rebuttal. that gets a annoying.

 

[BananaSlug]

Do a simple comparision, Thaumaturgy:

Genesis 1:

1. The order of creation.
2. No suffering or death.
3. The Godhead speaking.

Science:

1. The order of the creation is wrong.
2. Survival of the Fittest.
3. God does not exist.

Now tell me that that second list is not hostile to the first one.

I've decided to clear things up a bit.

What Fundamentalists tell us:
1. There is no evolution... well, after the fall... well, there is microevolution... well, hyperevolution after the flood...
2. No physical death. Death implies an unmerciful God (2 Kings 2:23-24, Hosea 9:11-16, Ezekiel 9:5-7, Exodus 12:29-30, Leviticus 26:21-22, Isaiah 13:15-18, 1 Samuel 15:2-3, Exodus 32:26-29).
3. God speaking. He seemed a lot more talkative back then...

What Genesis 1 tells us:
1. The main point is that God is the creator of all things in particular. This, as opposed to the many polytheistic religions at the time where each one of these categories would be created by a separate god. And the 7th day shows that God isn't bound to creating things. He isn't simply a creation machine, but can sit back and enjoy His creation, which attributes human characteristics to Him - He isn't impersonal.
2. No spiritual death (would it make sense for God to tell Adam and Eve they would die if they had never witnessed physical death?)
3. Adam and Eve represented the Human Race, much as Israel is refered to as a single person yet is a representation of the nation of Israel.

What Science tells us:
1. The literal interpretation of the creation story is wrong.
2. Heritable variations lead to differential reproductive success. Whether is this how God created, science cannot say but we have the evidence to show it happened(s)
3. God may/may not exist, we cannot test it.

The debate over Genesis is not really a debate about science versus the Bible, for the God of the Bible is also the God of science. Rather it is a debate over how to properly interpret Genesis. Much of Genesis only conflicts with science if you demand certain interpretations.

What if, for example, you took the prophetic interpretation. Genesis 1 is not written in the first person, rather it is as if someone is seeing and hearing what's happening (say, for example, Moses), and is recording what he sees and hears. Suppose that God reveals Genesis 1 to the prophet for a week. Each day of that week God shows him a new thing that He did. What if the phrase "And there was evening, and there was morning" which is repeated each day was referring to the actual evenings and mornings which the prophet experience. He went to bed. He got up. And then God gave him another vision, and repeated this for each day.

Youth Earth Creationists demand a certain interpretation of Genesis 1, even though it contradicts what can be inferred from the available evidence and refuse to consider other possible interpretations that are more consistent with the evidence.

Is it all that different when the Catholic Church threatened to kill Galileo simply because his scientific observations contradicted their interpretation of scripture? Yet it is not that they blindly read the Bible and ignore extra-Biblical information, for when they read Revelation, they don't interpret it in the same manner as they do in Genesis 1. If you don't hold to what they refer to as a "literal" interpretation of Genesis 1, it seems you're a heretic, but if you don't hold to a "literal" interpretation of Revelation, that doesn't matter. Why?

In interpreting the "What Actually Happened?" questions in the Bible, there is, of course, only one correct interpretation, though it may have many applications. But it is often not sufficient just to assume that the Bible is true. For many people who assume the Bible is true might still read it in different ways. For example, if your understanding of certain words is different, you may come to a different conclusion. For example in Acts 2:5 it says "Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven."

Really! This implies that there were Jews in every nation in the world, and that they made the long trek from Mongolia, Australia, and South America just to come to the feast of the Pentecost! And if history teaches otherwise, then to hell with history, that's what the Bible says!

As foolish as it sounds, arguments over Genesis often go like that. The error being made here is using a 20th century English interpretation of a phrase that was written in ancient Greek 2000 years ago. So is it possible we might misunderstand certain words written in ancient Hebrew 3500 years ago?

Then there is also the sense in which it is written. Much of the Old Testament uses oriental styles of expression, incorporating symbols, analogies, allegories. Even Jesus spoke in this style with parables and symbols ("Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days") Yet taken literally or assuming a western style of expression, these could be misunderstood. Genesis 1 could have been written in such a fashion, as has been noted with the prophectic interpretation.

Use your noodle...

 

[thaumaturgy]

One of the purpose for me to hang around here is to educate.

Couple things:

1. In all my 11 years as a university student and my subsequent years teaching geology at the university level I never met a "teacher" who acts as Juvenissun does here. He couches his "points" (accurate and inaccurate alike) in opaque one-liners with almost no detail.

2. I have never in my years as a student and teacher met a teacher who could "shut off" the teaching instinct as effectively as Juvenissun must be able to do here because he almost never actually teaches.

3. Never been able to understand how someone can simlutaneously be so disrespectful of others' education and skill and have such attrocious grammar.

His approach appears to be:

Make a statement without evidence or back-up, citation or reference.

Someone else (like me) who is curious begs for details but is denied.

Then I (or others like me) go out in search of something about this point. Sometimes we find stuff that corresponds somehow to his point, sometimes we find him to be wrong. But at no point did Juvenissun provide the path, the information or the means to acquire greater knowledge.

In the present case there does appear to be a role of water in plate tectonics as evidenced by the articles which I found with no input whatsoever from Juvenissun other than his unsubstantiated claims of this role.

Now I've been around the block several times. I've worked in and around science since 1982 when I went to college. And I can say that this is not how a scientist or a science educator acts.

While there is a role for someone to force the learner to do some work (learning is an active, not passive endeavor), but in the past year I've almost never seen Juvenissun willingly provide details, evidence or support for his positions. IF he ever does, it is usually only under extremes of duress after repeated askings.

This leads me to believe that Juvenissun either doesn't actually himself understand his points or he considers himself so far above everyone he merely needs speak and all will bow.

I have admitted that Juvenissun occasionally hits on a correct idea, and I've seen him bomb horribly (as in the "definition of mountain" from several months back). So I cannot in all honesty say he is always wrong any more than I can say he is "infallible", ergo I would expect him to show some of the humility he exhorts others to show and, when called upon to act like a science teacher to act like a science teacher. Not an officious, self-important academic onanist.

 

[Chalnoth]

I agree but the point about the wind moving the rocks when the mud is soft seems to be the best explination i could find

The end of the article is kind of a cop out, but the middle is good.

I agree. Sorry that I didn't specify this.

I would appreciate it if you would not make fun of my learning disability. I am well aware that my spelling is D level. Its something i have struggled with all my life. They still don't know why my reading comprehension is high but my spelling ability is almost null. I am just glad you diden't criticize my spelling in place of a rebuttal. that gets a annoying.

I wasn't trying to make fun of it. Nor was it attempted as a rebuttal. I was just annoyed at that last phrase.

P.S. For some reason, misspelling doesn't annoy me as much as misusing certain words (typically the homonyms, you're/your, their/they're/there are the most common). But if you want to fix the spelling issue, an easy way is to just use Firefox or Google Chrome. They both have built-in spell checkers (though for some reason Firefox's broke support for contractions recently...don't know what's going on there).