The Creationist Explanaton

Just, NO!

Brightmoon said:

I’m still waiting for a coherent creationist explanation of natural phenomena

Click to expand...

* explanation given *

Brightmoon said:

Just, NO!

Click to expand...

This is why I came up with the term "Suskind" to describe people who fulfil Matthew 7:6.

It's less derogatory and more scientific.

"Linnean," you might even say.

You’ve Bible thumped and given no information about how to fit your incoherent creation “science”ideas into nature. You haven’t answered the question.

( David Susskind would probably laugh)

And since pigs are Artiodactyla and not Primates it’s not Linnaean either

Brightmoon said:

You’ve Bible thumped and given no information about how to fit your incoherent creation “science”ideas into nature.

Click to expand...

Sorry you can't see it.

Nature does what nature does until God tells her to perform a specific task for Him.

Then she obeys, performs it, then goes back to doing what she does.

Psalm 83:15 So persecute them with thy tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm.

( sigh) where’s your evidence that the Bible version(s) is correct?

Brightmoon said:

( sigh) where’s your evidence that the Bible version(s) is correct?

Click to expand...

AV1611VET has stated in the past that there is no (scientific) evidence to support his views of Biblical origins.

Brightmoon said:

( sigh) where’s your evidence that the Bible version(s) is correct?

Click to expand...

Are you serious?

First you say:

I’m still waiting for a coherent creationist explanation of natural phenomena.

Click to expand...

Then, when someone gives you one, you come back with:

( sigh) where’s your evidence that the Bible version(s) is correct?

Click to expand...

It's the same version that made me a creationist in the first place.

Why aren't you asking about that version?

But no ... you'll wait until someone answers your conundrum first, then express wonderment at his credentials, won't you?

You don't care what made him a creationist ... you're more concerned with what made him answer your challenge.

That's one thing about academians:

They don't like their questions answered.

pitabread said:

AV1611VET has stated in the past that there is no (scientific) evidence to support his views of Biblical origins.

Click to expand...

I think he's whining about the verse in Psalms I presented to him -- not Genesis.

Who knows?

He probably has a college degree in something.

Brightmoon said:

And since pigs are Artiodactyla and not Primates it’s not Linnaean either

Click to expand...

Suskind = Sus kind = Sus genus = swine.

Matthew 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Brightmoon said:

( sigh) where’s your evidence that the Bible version(s) is correct?

Click to expand...

Hey, Episcopalian, what version do you use?

Let's look Psalm 83:15 up in your version then.

Fair enough?

I promise I won't challenge it; like you did mine.

Brightmoon said:

If the Bible says x and science says y, I go with y . Because at that point there’s evidence that the Bible is wrong ( usually dead wrong!

Click to expand...

Awful dangerous thing to take mans word, his conclusions/opinions over the word of God...very dangerous

Kenny'sID said:

Awful dangerous thing to take mans word, his conclusions/opinions over the word of God...very dangerous

Click to expand...

Correct. That is why it is necessary to study the Bible thoroughly, rather than than to just assume that God meant the Genesis creation stories to be taken as accurate literal history.

The IbanezerScrooge said:

Man, this thread is just off the rails.

So, it is safe to say that creationism does not offer an explicit explanation for specific biological cases. That neither creationism nor ID have any chance whatsoever of supplanting evolutionary theory as the best explanation of biological diversity we have?

Case closed? Anything else relevant to add?

Click to expand...

i actually still waiting for your answers to my reply here:

The Creationist Explanaton

Speedwell said:

Correct. That is why it is necessary to study the Bible thoroughly, rather than than to just assume that God meant the Genesis creation stories to be taken as accurate literal history.

Click to expand...

You are assuming it's a story, as in fictitious, I am not. Think I'll take Gods word as just that and not read anything into it.

Actually now that I recall, you said you don't know one way or the other which is true, evolution or Creation, while you more than indicate evolution is true. Entirely too confusing arguing with someone who has no solid stance, because in essence, they have no idea what they are arguing for or against.

Kenny'sID said:

You are assuming it's a story, as in fictitious, I am not. Think I'll take Gods word as just that and not read anything into it.

Click to expand...

There is quite a wide range of possibilities between 100% accurate literal history (which nobody wrote back then nor would they be expecting it) and "fictitious." Are those the only two forms of literature that you know about? In any case, if God decided to tell me a story I would value it and study it carefully, not denounce God's word as "fictitious."

Actually now that I recall, you said you don't know one way or the other which is true, evolution or Creation, while you more than indicate evolution is true. Entirely too confusing arguing with someone who has no solid stance, because in essence, they have no idea what they are arguing for or against.

Click to expand...

No, I didn't say anything like that. What I did say boils down to this: I don't take the theory of evolution to be absolute truth because science doesn't do absolute truth--only provisional explanations. On the other hand, I reject "biblical" creationism on theological grounds which have nothing to do with science. If the theory of evolution fails, then I will wait for another scientific explanation--not take up with biblical creationism. I don't regard the two as being alternatives.

Speedwell said:

There is quite a wide range of possibilities between 100% accurate literal history (which nobody wrote back then nor would they be expecting it) and "fictitious." Are those the only two forms of literature that you know about? In any case, if God decided to tell me a story I would value it and study it carefully, not denounce God's word as "fictitious."

No, I didn't say anything like that. What I did say boils down to this: I don't take the theory of evolution to be absolute truth because science doesn't do absolute truth--only provisional explanations. On the other hand, I reject "biblical" creationism on theological grounds which have nothing to do with science. If the theory of evolution fails, then I will wait for another scientific explanation--not take up with biblical creationism. I don't regard the two as being alternatives.

Click to expand...

Yep, "possibilities" if you choose to create them.

Where you say you "didn't say anything like that", you clearly recall the post, can you please show me where it is, so I can refresh my memory. I'd find it myself but I think you are likely to recall more than I do about it and it would be much easier for you to search...thanks.

Kenny'sID said:

Yep, "possibilities" if you choose to create them.

Where you say you "didn't say anything like that", you clearly recall the post, can you please show me where it is, so I can refresh my memory. I'd find it myself but I think you are likely to recall more than I do about it and it would be much easier for you to search...thanks.

Click to expand...

Speedwell said:

What makes you think I am "undecided?" I accept the theory of evolution as a plausible and well-evidenced explanation for the diversity of life. I accept it with the provisionality which is built into all scientific theories. I am not "convinced" of its "truth" because in the end it may prove to be wrong, just like any other scientific theory.

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

Sorry you can't see it.

Nature does what nature does until God tells her to perform a specific task for Him.

Then she obeys, performs it, then goes back to doing what she does.

Psalm 83:15 So persecute them with thy tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm.

Click to expand...

That's so cute. Now nature is intelligent.

Kenny'sID said:

You are assuming it's a story, as in fictitious, I am not. Think I'll take Gods word as just that and not read anything into it.

Actually now that I recall, you said you don't know one way or the other which is true, evolution or Creation, while you more than indicate evolution is true. Entirely too confusing arguing with someone who has no solid stance, because in essence, they have no idea what they are arguing for or against.

Click to expand...

If it's not fictitious why are there two separate and different versions? Genesis 1 and Genesis 2? They are different. Contradictory. And when you have a contradiction both statements cannot be correct. I'm sorry, based upon the actual reading of the Bible I'm taking them as at absolute best allegorical and most likely some bronze-age people doing their best to make sense of the world. These are not the words of a god.

As to evolution, again... evolution is both a fact and a theory. Just like gravity. We observe that objects fall. We also have a theory of how those objects fall. We have observed that life evolves. We also have a theory as to how life evolves. Even if the theory were completely wrong life would still be evolving.

So you go ahead and take the Bible as a literal description of how the world was created. I just can't imagine how you can.

Phred said:

That's so cute. Now nature is intelligent.

Click to expand...

Imagine that!