...Do you even believe in Evolution in the first palce?

[Cheeky Monkey]

so could you - but you choose not to .. thus far ,
if you did so -you would see the other reality .the eternal one .
but you don't want to - so you see only what you have chosen to see .
which returns us to my first point .
argument on it is pointless - you will only see that which you have determined in your heart to see .

Objective reality is less forgiving. If I ignore it I get hit by a car.

 

[TLK Valentine]

And if you met Adam, and he told you he was one day old, would you think he was a candidate for Belleview?

No, because he'd be right. He might appear to be a mature adult, but appearances can be deceiving.

He'd only been in existence for a day, so he'd only be a day old.

 

[TLK Valentine]

So I should interpret the Resurrection in accordance with "objective reality"?

Couldn't hurt you to try -- first time's always the hardest.

 

[CabVet]

Get to know Brinny, Split Rock, and CabVet ... they're nice people.

(I'm not saying the others aren't though. )

Haha, thanks AV, you are nice too!

 

[AV1611VET]

Haha, thanks AV, you are nice too!

Thank you, sir!

 

[durangodawood]

This new/old dress thing is like asking if God can make a white dress thats totally black.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

This new/old dress thing is like asking if God can make a white dress thats totally black.

To me it seems like asking, can god make a dress that looks black? Can god make a dress that looks old and tatty? Can god make a dress that looks like a cake? Sure.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can God create a dress tomorrow so old, it falls apart with age the next day?

This new/old dress thing is like asking if God can make a white dress thats totally black.

But dresses can [and do] fall apart with age, do they not?

I believe it is because the bonds between the atoms weaken over time.

 

[Loudmouth]

all wasted argument

any and every person will only ever see that which they have determined in their heart to see .
thus the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God
i have determined in my heart to see it that way and none shall convince me otherwise .
many evolutionists have come and are now Gone
yet still God is... I have determined in my heart to see it this way .

So are gravity and atoms also foolishness? Do you reject all of science because it is foolishness?

 

[Loudmouth]

So I should interpret the Resurrection in accordance with "objective reality"?

Should you interpret the actions of Vishnu in accordance to objective reality?

 

[Loudmouth]

Can God create a dress tomorrow so old, it falls apart with age the next day?

Could God have created the universe yesterday, complete with a fake history and fake memories?

 

[AV1611VET]

Should you interpret the actions of Vishnu in accordance to objective reality?

Ask Shoko Asahara.

 

[durangodawood]

But dresses can [and do] fall apart with age, do they not?

I believe it is because the bonds between the atoms weaken over time.

This reminds me of a builder I talked to who had to install a door in Ralph Lauren's house. Now Ralph likes everything to have a patina of age, and not look shiny-new. I think the builder got a bunch of people to beat the door with metal chains for 20 minutes or so. Something like that.

And as for old dresses falling apart, it has nothing to do with atomic bonds. Its more macro-level structural changes of thread strands getting damaged by the stress of use.

Anyway, I think an all powerful God could create a brand new world that looks old to us. But it seems like a silly thing to do. My sense is that the world looks old, under every sort of scrutiny, because..... it IS old.

 

[AV1611VET]

My sense is that the world looks old, under every sort of scrutiny, because..... it IS old.

I agree -- but it didn't grow old, it came into existence old.

 

[durangodawood]

I agree -- but it didn't grow old, it came into existence old.

Have you ever looked into dendrochronology? Continuous tree-ring patterns have been mapped back as far as 11,000 years.

It just seems ridiculous that its all real until 6,000 years ago, and then prior to that it was all contrived.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

But dresses can [and do] fall apart with age, do they not?

I believe it is because the bonds between the atoms weaken over time.

Actually they just make different bonds and break old ones. Chemical bonds don't weaken with time. They either are or they aren't.

 

[KWCrazy]

Sure. As far as i can tell no one ever came into existence already an adult.

So should we base our existence on your knowledge, or should we presume that there are things you don't know?

Q. If God created all living things as newborn babies, how many of them would survive.
A. Very few.

Most babies need an adult mother to help them survive until they can fend for themselves. Man is no exception. If you've ever looked around, you might have noticed that the world is populated by adults and children who are becomming adults. The role of children is to grow into adults. The role of adults is to raise their families and serve God.

A simple reading of Genesis will reveal that everything God created was in its mature state, including trees bearing fruit and not seedlings in the dirt. Maturity, then, was part of the design. Adam was a mature adult, the animals were created in their maturiy, the trees were created in their maturity and the planet was created in its maturity. To the ignorant, this may seem like God is intending to decieve us. Actually, I think He intends for us to read His Word. The question of the appearance of age is quite easily answered when you read about the creation and all things being created in their mature state. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to comprehend that if everything else was created in its mature state then the Earth was as well.

We constantly read the words of atheists who attempt to put retrictions on a God in whom they do not believe. It's actually quite comedic at times. "If the earth only looks old than your God is a liar." Really? That you aren't smart enough to comprehend His creation is not a possibility? I find the combination of ignorance and pomposity to be an amusing distraction, but not something particularly worthy of a significant time investment.

God created a mature world. Deal with it.

 

[Strathos]

Nor is reality obligated to follow the laws of physics. The laws is based on human collected experience and observations not on a "truth" about the universe.

By "laws of physics" I mean the operating principles of the universe as they truly are, not just limited to the ones we understand.

But it wont.

Something can at most be classified as a mystery, i.e. we don't know the causes for it, but not a miracle. If one defines a miracle as something we cannot explain the causes for then the basic function of our computers, smartphones, microwaves, TV set, wash machines and almost anything you can find in a normal household is based on miracles.

It's true that via scientific investigation it would not really be possible to determine if something was a miracle or not, unless you had complete scientific knowledge of the universe and how it works. However I was saying that if someone like AV was going to classify something as a miracle, then by definition it couldn't be used to challenge or disprove any scientific theories, as miracles are violations/exceptions to science.

Yes, but miracles are impossible....

Obviously an atheist like you would not believe that miracles occur, but I'm talking about a situation where one would classify a certain event as a miracle, and what implications that would have.

I'm not trying to prove to you that miracles happen.

The laws of physics does not tell the universe how it must operate and that is the reason why we require theories to be falsified. Therefore these theories does not state it cannot happen, they just state that they cannot explain such events. The laws of physics is the human collected knowledge about the universe. They universe does just as it please and don't care about how we think it should works.

See above.

The laws still applies but the laws we have now does not include such events, at best one can say such event is not possible to explained with current laws of physics.

Let say, as far we know it is highly unlikely that such thing ever happen and it safe to assume it is a myth only. But if the Sun and the Moon now and then stopped their traversal of the sky, we might had a theory that explain that as well, but the Sun and the Moon does not behave like this so their is no need for our current theories to include such events. In other words; their is no such event that requires to be explained. Therefor it is not a miracle but an, singular, unexplained phenomena that most likely is a made up story; you may say an urban myth of those days that still persist today. However scientific theories are not obligated to explain every urban myth in their theories and that is why it not an explained phenomena but that does not make it a miracle...

You seem to be missing my point.

If the sun and moon stood still in the sky for a day today, and scientists couldn't explain it, then it would indicate that the laws governing the motion of objects in space would probably need to be revised/amended.

However, if this act was classified as a miracle, and we somehow knew it was a miracle, then our current scientific understanding wouldn't need to be changed at all, since miracles are not part of science and science does not apply to them.

So what I am saying is that if you consider something to be a miracle, then it can't be used to disprove/overturn established science, as miracles are exceptions that don't conform to the laws of science.

 

[Split Rock]

So should we base our existence on your knowledge, or should we presume that there are things you don't know?

Q. If God created all living things as newborn babies, how many of them would survive.
A. Very few.

Most babies need an adult mother to help them survive until they can fend for themselves. Man is no exception. If you've ever looked around, you might have noticed that the world is populated by adults and children who are becomming adults. The role of children is to grow into adults. The role of adults is to raise their families and serve God.

A simple reading of Genesis will reveal that everything God created was in its mature state, including trees bearing fruit and not seedlings in the dirt. Maturity, then, was part of the design. Adam was a mature adult, the animals were created in their maturiy, the trees were created in their maturity and the planet was created in its maturity. To the ignorant, this may seem like God is intending to decieve us. Actually, I think He intends for us to read His Word. The question of the appearance of age is quite easily answered when you read about the creation and all things being created in their mature state. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to comprehend that if everything else was created in its mature state then the Earth was as well.

We constantly read the words of atheists who attempt to put retrictions on a God in whom they do not believe. It's actually quite comedic at times. "If the earth only looks old than your God is a liar." Really? That you aren't smart enough to comprehend His creation is not a possibility? I find the combination of ignorance and pomposity to be an amusing distraction, but not something particularly worthy of a significant time investment.

God created a mature world. Deal with it.

Of course God didn't create a world of newborn babies. If he created anything, he created a universe which developed everything on its own, without God having to tinker with it constantly. Therefore, the whole "create mature" problem is irrelevant. GEN2 is a very human story, told as a human would create... not an all-powerful god would.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course God didn't create a world of newborn babies. If he created anything, he created a universe which developed everything on its own, without God having to tinker with it constantly.

That, by definition is deism; and we're not deists.