Origin of God's Morality.

[Archaeopteryx]

Are you saying that there is not a general thought in the world that we are obligated to do and be good?

No, I am not. Are you saying that you haven't got a justification for your previous claims? Is this your way of finally admitting that?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Those who believe AGW is true.

You mean the scientific community?

 

[Root of Jesse]

It would seem that you do have quite a bit to reconcile given that claims of a global flood are considered dubious on the basis of both biology and geology.

To you, maybe. https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/global/worldwide-flood-evidence/

 

[Root of Jesse]

You mean the scientific community?

Some of the scientific community. There's a lot who do not believe it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

No, I am not. Are you saying that you haven't got a justification for your previous claims? Is this your way of finally admitting that?

Since you're not saying that, where do you think this comes from? Why do we all believe we should be good and do good?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

To you, maybe. https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/global/worldwide-flood-evidence/

Answers in Genesis? Really? You are aware that they are young earth creationists?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Since you're not saying that, where do you think this comes from? Why do we all believe we should be good and do good?

I've already answered this. Notice that you dodged my question, again?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Some of the scientific community. There's a lot who do not believe it.

Not really, no.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Answers in Genesis? Really? You are aware that they are young earth creationists?

But they prove geologically how the flood occurred.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

But they prove geologically how the flood occurred.

No they don't.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I've already answered this. Notice that you dodged my question, again?

So are you saying we're both dodging? I'm trying to get back on point in my conversation with you, which started about why we are obligated to do and be good. Well-being, to me, is what I do for myself. But why MUST we do good for others?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So are you saying we're both dodging? I'm trying to get back on point in my conversation with you, which started about why we are obligated to do and be good. Well-being, to me, is what I do for myself. But why MUST we do good for others?

Yes, you're trying to return to a line of questioning that bore no fruit but which allowed you to avoid having to present a case justifying your position. You're trying to repeat that again now instead of presenting anything that resembles a case, even though you claim to have a case so strong that it would be irrational not to believe.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Not really, no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yes, you're trying to return to a line of questioning that bore no fruit but which allowed you to avoid having to present a case justifying your position. You're trying to repeat that again now instead of presenting anything that resembles a case, even though you claim to have a case so strong that it would be irrational not to believe.

Then why are you even conversing with me? We have nothing in common to go on. I have charitably tried to find common ground, but you just want to play in your sandbox. Have at it, buddy.

 

[Davian]

I never said they're incompatible.

But you have depicted them as incompatible. A literal Adam and Eve are incompatible with modern biology. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth" is diametrically opposed to a universe where the Earth was formed only after billions of years of stellar nucleosynthesis.

I said they explain the same events in two different ways.

Incompatible ways.

Just as most laymen wouldn't understand Einstein explaining his theory of relativity or Hawking explaining his thoughts.

We are not talking of a lack of understanding, but of incompatibility.

To me, it proves that there could have been a worldwide flood.

...and it also 'proves' plate tectonic theory, in the absence of a global flood.

No, I put it on popcorn.

I love popcorn.

I don't believe life began with Adam and Eve. Neither does Genesis 1 say so.

Right. They arrived a few days later. So what was first? Grass? Trees? What was our universal common ancestor?

 

[Davian]

Then why are you even conversing with me? We have nothing in common to go on. I have charitably tried to find common ground, but you just want to play in your sandbox. Have at it, buddy.

Is not the purpose of this forum for individuals such as yourself to demonstrate that you are not the one simply "playing in your sandbox"?

 

[Davian]

Snark
Snark

Name them, please,

Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..."

Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."

Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."

Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

and tell me what kind of book they exist in?

From all the evidence I have at hand, a book of fiction.

I, and you, for that matter, do not know for sure how long a time the process from then to now took. We can speculate, and I personally believe it's been billions of years. So did Lemaitre.
For the record, it does seem like you try to pit those who believe in young earth creationism against those who believe in the Big Bang. As if there is a dichotomy between the Genesis account of creation and the scientific account of how it all began.

The dichotomy goes beyond the time scales involved.

I don't see any dichotomy at all. They, even, the YECreationists might believe there's a dichotomy. But there isn't.

Except for the dichotomy you create with your requirement for a literal Adam and Eve and the biblical global flood.

 

[Root of Jesse]

But you have depicted them as incompatible. A literal Adam and Eve are incompatible with modern biology. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth" is diametrically opposed to a universe where the Earth was formed only after billions of years of stellar nucleosynthesis.

You think so, in fact, lotsa Christians think so, which is why they reject the theory(s) of evolution. I don't think it's diametrically opposed or incompatible with biology.

Incompatible ways.

You think so, I don't.

We are not talking of a lack of understanding, but of incompatibility.

Call it what you want. It ends the same. We disagree.

...and it also 'proves' plate tectonic theory, in the absence of a global flood.

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm
https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/global/worldwide-flood-evidence/

I love popcorn.

Right. They arrived a few days later. So what was first? Grass? Trees? What was our universal common ancestor?

Depends on what a day is...don't you think? If the account is allegorical, which many believe, it doesn't mean "24-hour time period. Besides for there to be a day, there has to be a sun and stars, oh wait, the Big Bang!

 

[Davian]

Myth. But myth doesn't entail falsehood. Myth conveys truth, much as a fable or a parable does.

That little?

Already done.

Myth it is then.

There is only one Truth.

I do not know what you mean by that capitonym. Does it equate with your "religious opinion"?

Pot, meet kettle.

It is not my beliefs that are on the table.

I also accept the Big Bang theory as truth.

I don't. But I see no reason to reject it.

Can't prove it.

I can't prove that the Earth orbits the Sun.

I also accept some theory of evolution, but can't prove it.

By "theory" are you implying a scientific explanation for the diversity of biology on this planet that includes a literal Adam and Eve and a global biblical flood? This I would like to see.

Neither can you. What's "mainstream science", to you?

As per wiki:

Philosophers of science have suggested a number of criteria, including the Karl Popper's controversial falsifiability criterion, to help them differentiate scientific endeavors from a non-scientific ones. Validity, accuracy, and social mechanisms ensuring quality control, such as peer review and repeatability of findings, are amongst the most respected criteria in present-day global scientific community.

Anthropomorphic Global Warming?

Why not? That link you provided made a clear case for it.

The Catechism doesn't throw out any science.

You appear to.

I don't think there's a theory of evolution, which is unprovable, that can be compatible with Adam and Eve. When one does, I'll take a look.

So you are starting with your conclusion, and working back from there.

I've already proven, to my satisfaction, the global flood.

Yes, the salt. I guess not all of us are prepared to lower the evidential bar to such an extent.

I don't have to reconcile them, either. They speak of the beginning of the universe from different points of view.

Incompatible points of view.

That explains it all.

How so? All you have done is to declare your view right, and others wrong.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..."

Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."

Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."

Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

From all the evidence I have at hand, a book of fiction.

Poetry and prophecy. Your quote of Isaiah is one translation, but here's another:
For thus says the LORD,
The creator of the heavens,
who is God,
The designer and maker of the earth
who established it,
Not as an empty waste* did he create it,
but designing it to be lived in:
I am the LORD, and there is no other.

The dichotomy goes beyond the time scales involved.

Except for the dichotomy you create with your requirement for a literal Adam and Eve and the biblical global flood.

And yet, we know in our hearts that they're both true. It may be that God gave a soul to Adam and Eve. But plate tectonics show that the earth was flatter than it is today, and could have been flooded. Geology, to some who believe in God, shows them that it's true.