Are Creationists Afraid of Debate?

Frumious Bandersnatch · Dec 30, 2007

AV1611VET said:
A lot of that (if not all of it) was answered in detail here in Post 281, which took me an hour to correlate; only to have the same questions reposted later (more than once). I have ignored him since. Frumious does the exact same thing. I'll answer his posts in great detail, only to have him come back with the exact same questions later. I have since stopped ignoring his "sons of God" question after I went into detail on Hebrew poetry, only to have him wave it away, then later start the same question over.

So it's poetry. I think Genesis 1 and 2 are also poetry. But whether they are the sons of God or angels God created them. They were part of his supposedly perfect (according to you) creation and yet their mating with mortal women produced such evil (according to you) that God was forced (according to you) to repent of his creation. This makes God out to be a blunderer rather than an omnipotent and omniscient creator. You can claim to have answered this but you have not.

AV1611VET · Dec 30, 2007

I don't know how many times we've covered this, Frumious, but let's do it yet again for the benefit of the newbies:

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
So it's poetry.

The passage in Job is poetry --- not Genesis.

[bible]Job 38:6-7[/bible]

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
I think Genesis 1 and 2 are also poetry.

I don't --- for five good reasons that another poster gave:

The literary framework of the structure of the book of Genesis indicates that the book as a whole is intended to be understood as history. Note the recurrence of the phrase "these are the generations."
The New Testament writers, as well as the Old Testament writers, clearly understand Genesis (including chapters 1 and 2) as true history.
The later chapters of Genesis are clearly intended to be taken as historical - and no distinct boundary line exists before which the author obviously means earlier chapters to be considered as non-historical. A tight genealogical continuity is given from Adam through his sons and the succeeding generations right up to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. No point can be specified where "myth" ends and "history" begins.
Within the disputed first eleven chapters of Genesis, mention is made of 64 geographical terms, 88 personal names, and some 20 identifiable cultural items (e.g. gold, onyx, brass, iron, mortar, musical instruments, and cities). In the first two chapters, such "real world" categories are found notably in Genesis 2:8-14. Such specificity is not expected in a "myth."
There is no substantial literary indication in Genesis 1 -2 that these early chapters are intended to be taken as allegory, legend, parable, poetry, or any other sort of "non-historical material." Despite the exalted tone of this section, the genre is plainly narrative prose, not poetry, as indicated by a lack of parallelism.

AV1611VET · Dec 30, 2007

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
But whether they are the sons of God or angels God created them.

They are angels.

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
They were part of his supposedly perfect (according to you) creation...

That is correct.

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
...and yet their mating with mortal women produced such evil (according to you)...

Not in Genesis 1, though. This occurred after the Fall - not before it. Just like if I was to build you the perfect car, and you wreck it, it's not my fault.

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
...that God was forced (according to you) to repent of his creation.

Again, God didn't repent --- it repented God --- and "it" is not His Genesis 1 [perfect] creation. "It" is a Luciferian-led rebellion, coupled with thousands of years of human sin, degradation, and angelic co-habitation.

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
This makes God out to be a blunderer rather than an omnipotent and omniscient creator.

Not even close. You are thousands of years off the mark.

Dannager · Dec 30, 2007

RichardT said:
Actually, we want a forum void of evolutionists because we don't want to see idiotic remarks that are so pervasive on this forum by some evolutionists, not all, when discussing evolutionism and creationism between ourselves. Usually when there is a minority group, you let them have their own space. I think the OP is ridiculous, I like to debate, but it gets really tiring when there are always certain individuals that make all evolutionists and all atheists more specifically look bad. It would be great if we could have our own closed forum to discuss things between ourselves because we get tired of those certain evolutionists who make you all look bad and get us on our nerves.

Also, having our own forum doesn't mean that I'm going to stop posting here. In fact I've been quite active with this other online Creationist only group for the past 3 years.

Oh don't you dare. If any group here should be demanding their own private hideaway to escape "idiotic" remarks, it should be the evolutionists. We get far more ignorance and outright lunacy from the other side than you do, but we don't care.

Why is this, RichardT? Why is it that we can deal with a situation many times worse than the one you and your fellow creationists put up with and never once consider asking for our own sub-forum where no one can post but us? Why do you want a quiet place all your own where your beliefs can't be challenged, and we don't?

I'll tell you what I think: I think that the majority of creationists are made uncomfortable by having their beliefs challenged or harshly criticized. Instead of doing the honest thing and examining their own beliefs with a critical eye, they run.

Dannager · Dec 30, 2007

AV1611VET said:
Not in Genesis 1, though. This occurred after the Fall - not before it. Just like if I was to build you the perfect car, and you wreck it, it's not my fault.

The perfect car would be impervious to damage. If anyone is actually able to wreck the supposedly perfect car, it is your fault.

AV1611VET · Dec 30, 2007

Dannager said:
The perfect car would be impervious to damage.

Wrong --- you're confusing perfection with omnipotence. Jesus was perfect, yet they beat Him to a pulp, driving thorns through His head, nails through his hands (or wrists) and feet, and a spear through His side.

Dannager · Dec 30, 2007

AV1611VET said:
Wrong --- you're confusing perfection with omnipotence. Jesus was perfect, yet they beat Him to a pulp, driving thorns through His head, nails through his hands (or wrists) and feet, and a spear through His side.

Jesus was perfect spiritually. Physically, however, he was just a man, subject to all the imperfections inherent in humanity.

But you weren't talking about designing the spiritually perfect car.

AV1611VET · Dec 30, 2007

Dannager said:
Jesus was perfect spiritually. Physically, however, he was just a man, subject to all the imperfections inherent in humanity.

But you weren't talking about designing the spiritually perfect car.

The point is though, you are confusing perfection with omnipotence.

thaumaturgy · Dec 30, 2007

AV1611VET said:
Wrong --- you're confusing perfection with omnipotence. Jesus was perfect, yet they beat Him to a pulp, driving thorns through His head, nails through his hands (or wrists) and feet, and a spear through His side.

See, AV, what you are doing here is putting "caveats" of some sort on "Perfection". Why? Because you KNOW that the word "Perfection" is so open as to be nearly meaningless to any single set of observers.

I know this is a subtlety of the debate that will evade you completely, even though YOU put the caveats on what the word "perfection" means in relation to a CAR.

Car perfection is quite a different thing from God-man perfection is quite a different thing from puzzle-perfection.

Cars are usually designed to resist being destroyed in a wreck. That's PART of what it means to be a car. Certainly it is quite reasonable to assume that a perfect car could not be destroyed in a wreck because resistance to destruction in a wreck IS part of car design.

So, again, if you can't keep up with your own arguments I suggest you work a bit harder.

MoonLancer · Dec 30, 2007

AV1611VET said:
Just like if I was to build you the perfect car, and you wreck it, it's not my fault.

and if every facet of reality is perfect along with all of its people, how does one wreck?

Your analogy doesn't even work if the universe was created by god, but did not create people.

Do you think a car created by a god and this god claims the car is perfect, should this car should be wreakable?

your Jesus analogy fails because a tortured and martyred Jesus was a feature, not a failure. was the fall a feature on the car as well? God caused the fall and you take the blame. Awesome deal huh.

Dannager · Dec 30, 2007

AV1611VET said:
The point is though, you are confusing perfection with omnipotence.

No, that's not the point. The car wouldn't be omnipotent. The perfect car, as I would design it, wouldn't cure cancer or broker international peace treaties. But it would never be dented, scratched, dinged or damaged in any way. At this point, though, we're arguing semantics.

EDIT: thaumaturgy put it far better than I could. Just read his post.

AV1611VET · Dec 30, 2007

thaumaturgy said:
So, again, if you can't keep up with your own arguments I suggest you work a bit harder.

I take it you're not going to take my Perfect Car Challenge?

Dannager · Dec 30, 2007

AV1611VET said:
I take it you're not going to take my Perfect Car Challenge?

Don't duck the responses, AV1611VET. Your Perfect Car Challenge was over with the first reply. Now you have to deal with the problem in this thread, too.

AV1611VET · Dec 30, 2007

Dannager said:
The car wouldn't be omnipotent.

No kidding, Dannager? And God didn't create an omnipotent universe, either; He created a perfect universe; which was wrecked after Genesis 1; and therefore, wasn't His fault.

Dannager · Dec 30, 2007

AV1611VET said:
No kidding, Dannager? And God didn't create an omnipotent universe, either; He created a perfect universe; which was wrecked after Genesis 1; and therefore, wasn't His fault.

Please respond to entire posts instead of picking one sentence out of context and pretending you have an argument.

AV1611VET · Dec 30, 2007

Dannager said:
Don't duck the responses, AV1611VET. Your Perfect Car Challenge was over with the first reply. Now you have to deal with the problem in this thread, too.

I'm not ducking anything, Dannager. If you want to address anything I'm saying, go ahead, but I challenge you or anyone to take my challenge and then show how God created this universe any other way than perfecft.

BrainHertz · Dec 30, 2007

AV1611VET said:
Just like if I was to build you the perfect car, and you wreck it, it's not my fault.

Not again...

Your analogy is rather inappropriate, since it considers man to be an agency independent of God's creation. A more apt analogy would be:

If I build a perfect car, and a robot to drive it, and the robot crashes the car, whose fault is it? Assuming that I chose to design the robot to have some kind of "free will", wouldn't that mean it was my choices that led to the result?

AV1611VET · Dec 30, 2007

Dannager said:
Please respond to entire posts instead of picking one sentence out of context and pretending you have an argument.

I guarantee you there's no valid argument to this, but to placate:

Dannager said:
No, that's not the point.

Yes, it is the point. You're trying to show that God created this universe with imperfection, and He did not.

Dannager said:
The car wouldn't be omnipotent.

I agree --- as I have stated --- the car is "perfect."

Dannager said:
The perfect car, as I would design it, wouldn't cure cancer or broker international peace treaties.

I'm sure it wouldn't be expected to.

Dannager said:
But it would never be dented, scratched, dinged or damaged in any way.

Okie - doke --- then I'm assuming you're "perfect car" is one that is omnipotent? I thought you just said above it wasn't?

Dannager said:
At this point, though, we're arguing semantics.

You are the one adding to what I said, not I. I like the way you guys always add to what I say, then pout about semantics.

Dannager said:
EDIT: thaumaturgy put it far better than I could. Just read his post.

I read his post, just like I have read yours, and neither one of you are making a "dent" in what I'm saying.

AV1611VET · Dec 30, 2007

BrainHertz said:
Not again...

Your analogy is rather inappropriate, since it considers man to be an agency independent of God's creation. A more apt analogy would be:

If I build a perfect car, and a robot to drive it, and the robot crashes the car, whose fault is it? Assuming that I chose to design the robot to have some kind of "free will", wouldn't that mean it was my choices that led to the result?

Could we please leave robots out of my challenge? The only two people mentioned in my challenge are you and me. Please don't add to it, then claim it's somehow "rather inappropriate," okay?

p.s. And I built the car --- not you.

MemeBuster · Dec 30, 2007

Are Creationists Afraid of Debate?

I don't believe so, but I have an interesting observation which I like share. It seems an increasing number of believers answer the question of their view on the origin of life with vague statements (e.g. "God created Stuff...", "God as the first cause", "Theistic Evolution", and etc.) in their public profiles. Or they do not answer it at all! I think this is a good sign.

MB.

Are Creationists Afraid of Debate?

Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Back in Town

Back in Town

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Back in Town

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

Back in Town

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Back in Town

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Back in Town

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency