As AV wrote, if it contradicts the bible, it's wrong.

[consol]

So forget the evidence against creationism, it doesn't matter, they are just not interested,
you can bring in any amount of evidence you like, get it to a point where they can not deny it,
and if they are unable to deny it, they will walk away, and carry on producing their junk pamphlets as if nothing had happened,
when the evidence is presented again, the same thing will happen,
they have been trained to ignore everything, if the evidence is ignored, it will go away, it won't,
but they know if they ignore it, it will give them sufficient time to spread there lies a little further, before they need to ignore it again,
(it's called, smoke screening) because they know there are plenty of idiots out there to get at, in fact the supply is endless.

So you can all stop researching answers, because they will be ignored, no matter how convincing.

Don't believe me? if someone believes in 'Embedded age', are they really going to listen to anyone else?
(for a start, how are you going to get them down from cloud cuckoo land?)

You tried, and failed, it's time to think of something else to combat this zombie threat.

 

[TheManeki]

This is why I'm very interested in why people like AV and LittleNipper believe the beginning of Genesis must be interpreted as some form of creationism.

It seems to me that theistic evolution would supply their requisite "Goddidit" but have the added bonus of meshing with science, but for some reason they believe this interpretation of Genesis cannot be true. I don't know why -- it seems like it wouldn't impact anything else theologically.

 

[thaumaturgy]

This is why I'm very interested in why people like AV and LittleNipper believe the beginning of Genesis must be interpreted as some form of creationism.

It seems to me that theistic evolution would supply their requisite "Goddidit" but have the added bonus of meshing with science, but for some reason they believe this interpretation of Genesis cannot be true. I don't know why -- it seems like it wouldn't impact anything else theologically.

The standard argument I"ve heard on here is that Jesus apparently believed Genesis to be literal (although considering his penchant for allegory in the form of parables I can't see how they arrive at that conclusion). My fundamentalist cousin also pointed out that if you deny any part from Jesus you call into question your whoel commitment and, if I recall correctly, that is why he was a biblical literalist. It was an all-or-nothing sort of thing.

I'm working on vague memories of a conversation about 10 years ago, though so I could have misinterpreted what he meant.

 

[thaumaturgy]

So forget the evidence against creationism, it doesn't matter, they are just not interested,
you can bring in any amount of evidence you like, get it to a point where they can not deny it,
and if they are unable to deny it, they will walk away, and carry on producing their junk pamphlets as if nothing had happened,
when the evidence is presented again, the same thing will happen,
they have been trained to ignore everything, if the evidence is ignored, it will go away, it won't,
but they know if they ignore it, it will give them sufficient time to spread there lies a little further, before they need to ignore it again,
(it's called, smoke screening) because they know there are plenty of idiots out there to get at, in fact the supply is endless.

So you can all stop researching answers, because they will be ignored, no matter how convincing.

Don't believe me? if someone believes in 'Embedded age', are they really going to listen to anyone else?
(for a start, how are you going to get them down from cloud cuckoo land?)

You tried, and failed, it's time to think of something else to combat this zombie threat.

To some extent you are quite correct. But in the case of "Embedded Age" it isn't that it is so bizarre as it is unfalsifiable. The claim is a needless redefinition of words, but if you grant the premise that God can do this, then you have a claim that is unfalsifiable presented as a valid claim.

What AV fails to understand is, that means it, by definition, isn't a meaningful claim to a scientist.

Note how he still relies on "evidence" for this claim. His only evidence is "the Bible", but evidence it still is. So he realizes the importance of not just "making up a claim", but he can't follow through and prove the requisite:

1. This is not a deceptive act of God
2. The Bible is an accurate "documentation" of God's actions

He will, again, attempt to muster "evidence" for his claims (the famous prophecy counts, for instance), so again he betrays the weakness of his argument. He realizes the importance of evidentiary support, but he will not allow that his evidence is anything but "marginal", and when pushed by scientists will revert to "If it disagrees with the KJV then it's wrong!"

So AV drops the ball coming and going. He can't muster enough evidence, but he knows he has to muster some, and ultimately his evidence is marginal and predicated largely on wholesale redefinition of some terms.

The latter being doubly ironic for someone who cleaves to a hyper-literal interpretation of the Bible.

It is as if he simply can't construct a defensible argument without gutting the foundations of his own arguments!

 

[consol]

To some extent you are quite correct. But in the case of "Embedded Age" it isn't that it is so bizarre as it is unfalsifiable. The claim is a needless redefinition of words, but if you grant the premise that God can do this, then you have a claim that is unfalsifiable presented as a valid claim.

What AV fails to understand is, that means it, by definition, isn't a meaningful claim to a scientist.

Note how he still relies on "evidence" for this claim. His only evidence is "the Bible", but evidence it still is. So he realizes the importance of not just "making up a claim", but he can't follow through and prove the requisite:

1. This is not a deceptive act of God
2. The Bible is an accurate "documentation" of God's actions

He will, again, attempt to muster "evidence" for his claims (the famous prophecy counts, for instance), so again he betrays the weakness of his argument. He realizes the importance of evidentiary support, but he will not allow that his evidence is anything but "marginal", and when pushed by scientists will revert to "If it disagrees with the KJV then it's wrong!"

So AV drops the ball coming and going. He can't muster enough evidence, but he knows he has to muster some, and ultimately his evidence is marginal and predicated largely on wholesale redefinition of some terms.

The latter being doubly ironic for someone who cleaves to a hyper-literal interpretation of the Bible.

It is as if he simply can't construct a defensible argument without gutting the foundations of his own arguments!

If I understood what you meant by the above post thaumaturgy, I would most likely agree with you,
but I don't know if you are making excuses for him or defending his crazy ideas, or what,
however, that aside, I think AV and Little nipper are just misguided fools, unwilling fools perhaps,
but fools none the less, but they are not children, they know how to think for themselves,
I'm sure if they were given a problem to solve they could work it out without any help whatsoever,
so why are they incapable of working out that creationism is ludicrous in the extreme?
it has everything going against it, and absolutely nothing going for it, even a rocket scientists can see that.

This is true,
when man first went into space someone said to me, it's one thing to break out of the atmosphere,
but how are they going to find the hole to get back in? ( I was gobsmacked )
that person did not understand what was happening, and knew nothing about the earth around him,
needless to say I felt sorry for him, as I do with creationists,
we all know that what they believe has nothing to do with them, they were not given a choice,
but it's maddening why they won't ask questions of their religion, not one, not once,
surly that's the first thing anyone does if they are going to believe something,
you don't just believe because someone told you it was true, even if it was your parents.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is why I'm very interested in why people like AV and LittleNipper believe the beginning of Genesis must be interpreted as some form of creationism.

We know blueprints when we see them --- and Genesis 1 is a perfect set of blueprints.

It seems to me that theistic evolution would supply their requisite "Goddidit" but have the added bonus of meshing with science, but for some reason they believe this interpretation of Genesis cannot be true.

[bible]James 4:4[/bible]

I don't know why -- it seems like it wouldn't impact anything else theologically.

Like Original Sin, the Protevangelium, the Flood, Noah's prophecies (extremely important in world history), Pangaea, and the Tower of Babel?

Remove the first 11 chapters of Genesis, and the rest of the Bible makes no sense.

 

[Washington]

So forget the evidence against creationism, it doesn't matter, they are just not interested,
you can bring in any amount of evidence you like, get it to a point where they can not deny it,
and if they are unable to deny it, they will walk away, and carry on producing their junk pamphlets as if nothing had happened,
when the evidence is presented again, the same thing will happen,
they have been trained to ignore everything, if the evidence is ignored, it will go away, it won't,
but they know if they ignore it, it will give them sufficient time to spread there lies a little further, before they need to ignore it again,
(it's called, smoke screening) because they know there are plenty of idiots out there to get at, in fact the supply is endless.

So you can all stop researching answers, because they will be ignored, no matter how convincing.

Don't believe me? if someone believes in 'Embedded age', are they really going to listen to anyone else?
(for a start, how are you going to get them down from cloud cuckoo land?)

You tried, and failed, it's time to think of something else to combat this zombie threat.

You're quite right. It's all a game. They pretend evidence is important, but don't really care. Of course those in the creation biz make a fair dollar from their web sites, products, and speaking engagements by riding on the back of such a pretense, so it's understandable why they maintain it. As for the rest, however, such as the creationists who post here, I believe they have been duped into thinking the "evidence" does matter. Hence their ongoing defense of it. They would be better off just going to the root of their position: "The Bible says it's so and that's all that's important. Case closed."

 

[thaumaturgy]

...

 

[tanzanos]

This is why I'm very interested in why people like AV and LittleNipper believe the beginning of Genesis must be interpreted as some form of creationism.

You think those two are bad? You should see DAD. Yes he is back and with a vengeance!

 

[Patashu]

Stop me if I'm wrong, but if
a. reality indicates that genesis is not true
and
b. christianity requires genesis to be true

the logical conclusion should be to drop Christianity?

 

[TheKingOfImmortality]

Remove the first 11 chapters of Genesis, and the rest of the Bible makes no sense.

and your veiws of the Frist 11 makes more sences why?

 

[TheKingOfImmortality]

Remove the first 11 chapters of Genesis, and the rest of the Bible makes no sense.

 

[AV1611VET]

Stop me if I'm wrong, but if
a. reality indicates that genesis is not true...

! STOP !​

 

[Vene]

! STOP !​

HAMMERTIME!

*Couldn't resist*

There is just one problem with your thinking AV, unfounded assumptions. How do we know that the Bible is 100% literally true? And how do we know that the KJV is the purest version? (is that the right wording?)

 

[TheKingOfImmortality]

! STOP !​

Why?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Stop me if I'm wrong, but if
a. reality indicates that genesis is not true

! STOP !​

If I understand Pantashu correctly you are asked about the validity of the argument (Given X and Y, then Z). Disagreeing with the soundness (i.e. the correctness of the premises Y and/or Z) doesn't really answer the question.

More to the point, disagreeing with the statement "reality indicates that genesis is not true" does not answer the question if, were the statement true, the conclusion would follow or not.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is just one problem with your thinking AV, unfounded assumptions. How do we know that the Bible is 100% literally true? And how do we know that the KJV is the purest version? (is that the right wording?)

Who's "we"?

 

[BrainHertz]

Who's "we"?

Just for me, I'd say up to you; pick whatever definition you like and then state your assumptions in answering the question.

 

[Vainglorious]

Here is the Young Earth mindset at its finest. These images are from the Answers in Genesis' Museum which, we would assume, offers the best in Creation Science.

..... because if you start thinking you will reach a different conclusion (Edit: Note the creation explanation does not make sense ie the dinosaur gets "flooded" twice.)

Sources:
http://crazytalk.typepad.com/bluegrassroots/2007/06/fun_at_the_crea.html
http://scalzi.com/whatever/?p=121

 

[AV1611VET]

Just for me, I'd say up to you; pick whatever definition you like and then state your assumptions in answering the question.

What question? These two?

How do we know that the Bible is 100% literally true? And how do we know that the KJV is the purest version?

So let me get this straight --- you want to know why I know that you know the Bible is 100% accurate; and why you know that the KJV is the purest version?

I don't know why you know that --- you tell me.