Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[PsychoSarah]

Cosmic vacuum cleaner?

As amusing as it is to imagine that black holes are god's roombas, they are terrible at their job. There are stars that orbit them and never "fall in".

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Angels are considered persons: that includeds fallen angels.

Umm.... no they aren't.
Does this look like a human to you?

(That's a seraphim, btw)

 

[Speedwell]

[2] it satisfies the intellectualism side of those who think they're reading between the lines, unlocking the special secret hidden mystery of the Genesis account that everybody else is missing.

It's not a secret or a hidden mystery, and the "everybody else" who has missed it is about a hundred million or so of you guys versus some two billion Christians worldwide.

 

[NobleMouse]

By "series of lies" do you mean the age of the Earth and/or evolution?

Because I'm still not sure what the motivation is to deliberately lie about those things.

Roughly 2/3 of scientists do not believe the God of the Christian Bible and many of today's younger adults are turning away from their faith with "science" being cited by many:

Scientists and Belief
Why America’s ‘nones’ left religion behind

Sooo.... the connection is: What if we could make the Bible say what scientists conventionally believe? This grabs the attention of those with a bent towards scientific assertions - as if to say, "See, the Bible is really saying the same thing you already believe... you just need to reinterpret what it otherwise says" then you just lead them further along until they come across Jesus - they hopefully come recognize the sins they have in their life and now that they've already started buying more into this "Christianity thing" because it jives with their beliefs from scientific intellectualism, they are more apt to accept the gospel message. That, is the motivation.

 

[Speedwell]

Sooo.... the connection is: What if we could make the Bible say what scientists conventionally believe? This grabs the attention of those with a bent towards scientific assertions - as if to say, "See, the Bible is really saying the same thing you already believe...

The Bible doesn't say very much at all about the scientific details of our origin. I don't believe that God intended it to.

...you just need to reinterpret...

Or interpret it correctly the first time.

...what it otherwise says" then you just lead them further along until they come across Jesus - they hopefully come recognize the sins they have in their life and now that they've already started buying more into this "Christianity thing" because it jives with their beliefs from scientific intellectualism, they are more apt to accept the gospel message. That, is the motivation.

I find it more productive to start with Jesus. The Genesis stories really don't come into it all that much, and a detailed exposition of them can be saved until later.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Roughly 2/3 of scientists do not believe the God of the Christian Bible and many of today's younger adults are turning away from their faith with "science" being cited by many:

Scientists and Belief
Why America’s ‘nones’ left religion behind

Sooo.... the connection is: What if we could make the Bible say what scientists conventionally believe? This grabs the attention of those with a bent towards scientific assertions - as if to say, "See, the Bible is really saying the same thing you already believe... you just need to reinterpret what it otherwise says" then you just lead them further along until they come across Jesus - they hopefully come recognize the sins they have in their life and now that they've already started buying more into this "Christianity thing" because it jives with their beliefs from scientific intellectualism, they are more apt to accept the gospel message. That, is the motivation.

-_- suggesting that you need to "make" the bible scientific is a bit of an admission that it isn't.

 

[NobleMouse]

Here is an example of just one of the assumptions that i listed above.

I suggested that soft and wet sediment, could not fracture as rocks do. And i posted the below image.

Is it so wrong to suggest that this formation in fact was hardened before it was fractured? When has anyone ever been able to replicate such a feature, using a soft material such as wet sand at a beach?

If this is what you consider a lie, or if this is what you consider a false assumption, then I will tell you that i would accept this reality, over the suggestion that wet sediment faulted like this, any day of the week.

Especially when we have this...

shearing of rock.

Wet flood deposited sediment doesnt shear, only grains that are bound together, shear.

And its not about "secret truths", its not about winning or losing souls, its not about being deceptive or conceived strategies or about lies. Its not about conspiracies, or satanic black magic or anything wild like that.

Its just about reality. Simple reality that is right in front of us.

Wet sand doesnt sheer, it doesnt fracture, it doesnt strain. In order to stretch and object, it must be bound to itself. Stretchy objects like a rubber band, must be bound to itself in order to stretch and strain like the trilobite above. Wet sand is not bound, and cannot stretch and strain, it just falls apart. It cannot fracture at precise angles because it is not bound to itself as a single large unit.

Its just reality.

Yep, it's your version of reality. I think we're all well aware of your reality since they are plastered at the bottom of your posts. I'm not even sure why you're here (this thread, in this forum), you don't accept what the Bible says, you base all of your conclusions on science, and if someone presents scientific conclusions that do not agree with your own, you simply dismiss them and reassert your own conclusions.

EVERYBODY:
If you believe that the word of God is true regarding creation, do not waste your time debating with @KomatiiteBIF (and probably most others here who would disagree with you)... nobody here, who doesn't already believe so, is looking to be convinced that God completed creation in 6 days or that God blotted out all living things on the face of the earth with a flood - we've all thoroughly rationalized our positions. Mine is on the basis of God's word, the contrary is on the basis of conventional scientific assertions.

The vice that will forever remain a snare though for the OEC's and TE's: Like @KomatiiteBIF, you can claim you belief "is just reality", but you'll never find this positively affirmed by God's word. And your counterpart, whom you feel foolishly believes in a recent creation, they'll always be able to turn to God's word, open up Genesis and find everything they believe - and they can see these events affirmed by other books and authors both throughout the OT and NT.

The discussion is going good, keep kicking it around...

 

[PsychoSarah]

The Bible doesn't say very much at all about the scientific details of our origin. I don't believe that God intended it tr interpret it correctly the first time.
I find it more productive to start with Jesus. The Genesis stories really don't come into it all that much, and a detailed exposition of them can be saved until later.

-_- yes, sure, make sure people get all of the verses about the dangers of doubt first before getting to the parts that'll really challenge their capacity to believe.

I'm pretty sure there is a reason I've never met a person that was first exposed to Christianity by reading the bible unguided that became a believer as a result.

 

[NobleMouse]

-_- suggesting that you need to "make" the bible scientific is a bit of an admission that it isn't.

You are correct, it is not a science book. But among other things, it IS a history book, and the events contained therein did happen, whether we find scientific evidence supporting or not.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yep, it's your version of reality. I think we're all well aware of your reality since they are plastered at the bottom of your posts. I'm not even sure why you're here (this thread, in this forum), you don't accept what the Bible says, you base all of your conclusions on science, and if someone presents scientific conclusions that do not agree with your own, you simply dismiss them and reassert your own conclusions.

EVERYBODY:
If you believe that the word of God is true regarding creation, do not waste your time debating with @KomatiiteBIF (and probably most others here who would disagree with you)... nobody here, who doesn't already believe so, is looking to be convinced that God completed creation in 6 days or that God blotted out all living things on the face of the earth with a flood - we've all thoroughly rationalized our positions. Mine is on the basis of God's word, the contrary is on the basis of conventional scientific assertions.

The vice that will forever remain a snare though for the OEC's and TE's: Like @KomatiiteBIF, you can claim you belief "is just reality", but you'll never find this positively affirmed by God's word. And your counterpart, whom you feel foolishly believes in a recent creation, they'll always be able to turn to God's word, open up Genesis and find everything they believe - and they can see these events affirmed by other books and authors both throughout the OT and NT.

The discussion is going good, keep kicking it around...

If you have evidence outside of the bible itself for the events, etc. described in its pages, I am all ears. If not, then what makes you believe it over the Hindu Vedas?

 

[PsychoSarah]

You are correct, it is not a science book. But among other things, it IS a history book, and the events contained therein did happen, whether we find scientific evidence supporting or not.

-_- what about when the bible disagrees with itself? It is a book with many authors throughout time that weren't even aware of each other necessarily, so it shouldn't be shocking that some portions of it describe things in a contradictory manner in terms of a normal book, but it is pretty damaging to it in terms of claims people make that suggest it is 100% correct. For example, there are two different creations, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, which don't even seem to acknowledge each other.

 

[NobleMouse]

The Bible doesn't say very much at all about the scientific details of our origin. I don't believe that God intended it tr interpret it correctly the first time.
I find it more productive to start with Jesus. The Genesis stories really don't come into it all that much, and a detailed exposition of them can be saved until later.

I guarantee if you interpret Genesis as not being days, and Exodus 20:11 as not affirming days, then it is because you are being motivated by some other belief. It would be inane to read days with morning and evening to not be days unless you believe it should have taken much much longer. Likewise, if I told you I was 42, would not assume I am not, in fact, 42?? You can either take my word for it or try to infer my age through some indirect means to try to ascertain my age.

 

[pitabread]

Sooo.... the connection is: What if we could make the Bible say what scientists conventionally believe? This grabs the attention of those with a bent towards scientific assertions - as if to say, "See, the Bible is really saying the same thing you already believe... you just need to reinterpret what it otherwise says" then you just lead them further along until they come across Jesus - they hopefully come recognize the sins they have in their life and now that they've already started buying more into this "Christianity thing" because it jives with their beliefs from scientific intellectualism, they are more apt to accept the gospel message. That, is the motivation.

Let's back up a step:

You said, "Interesting that through a series of lies one would be brought to the truth".

What "series of lies" are you referring to?

 

[NobleMouse]

-_- what about when the bible disagrees with itself? It is a book with many authors throughout time that weren't even aware of each other necessarily, so it shouldn't be shocking that some portions of it describe things in a contradictory manner in terms of a normal book, but it is pretty damaging to it in terms of claims people make that suggest it is 100% correct. For example, there are two different creations, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, which don't even seem to acknowledge each other.

The Bible does not disagree with itself - if you believe it does, then then this is probably an error in exegesis. Your reference to Gen 1 and Gen 2 being two separate creations, case in point.

 

[Speedwell]

I guarantee if you interpret Genesis as not being days, and Exodus 20:11 as not affirming days, then it is because you are being motivated by some other belief. It would be inane to read days with morning and evening to not be days unless you believe it should have taken much much longer. Likewise, if I told you I was 42, would not assume I am not, in fact, 42?? You can either take my word for it or try to infer my age through some indirect means to try to ascertain my age.

No doubt that within the context of the story, it says days and means days. "Day-age" creationists are missing the point.

 

[NobleMouse]

Let's back up a step:

You said, "Interesting that through a series of lies one would be brought to the truth".

What "series of lies" are you referring to?

Lie 1: That God did not create life on days 3, 5, & 6 of creation... or that these days were not days. This lie is to help propagate evolutionary beliefs.

Lie 2: That God did not blot out all living flesh on the face of the earth at the time of Noah. This lie is to help propagate old ages conventionally believed within geology.

There is more twisting/manipulating that will occur, but these are two key areas.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The Bible does not disagree with itself - if you believe it does, then then this is probably an error in exegesis. Your reference to Gen 1 and Gen 2 being two separate creations, case in point.

-_- they have to be, because the creation order is different in each. Also, it would be extremely weird to just get through the creation story, and then immediately go through the same one again. If they match, shouldn't one of them be removed because of redundancy?

 

[NobleMouse]

If you have evidence outside of the bible itself for the events, etc. described in its pages, I am all ears. If not, then what makes you believe it over the Hindu Vedas?

Faith comes from the hearing of the word of God... I believe no other religion can make that claim, including Hindu. It's not just words on a page like a science book is words on a page or the Vedas are just words on a page, every word of the Bible is breathed out by God and we are made are of its truth by the power of the Holy Spirit. I think that is a significant distinction.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Lie 1: That God did not create life on days 3, 5, & 6 of creation... or that these days were not days. This lie is to help propagate evolutionary beliefs.

Nah, evolution as a process could still exist even if the world was only 6 thousand years old, it just wouldn't explain how the variety of species we see today came to be in a complete way. That is, even if one doesn't consider evolution to be the process by which, say, wolves and deer came to be, there is no reason to think that the process could not result in populations of wolves and deer changing and differentiating into different species, genera, etc. with sufficient time. Just because you think the world is relatively young doesn't mean that it is even close to how old it will get.

Lie 2: That God did not blot out all living flesh on the face of the earth at the time of Noah. This lie is to help propagate old ages conventionally believed within geology.

Pretty sure even creationists like you don't believe the flood killed off all sea creatures, otherwise that ark would have been even more crowded. Also, geology isn't the only scientific field that disagrees with the belief of a global flood. Physics and genetics come to mind. For example, the amount of water currently on Earth is not even close to enough to flood all land masses, even if all underground water sources were raised and the ocean raised such that the bottom was not covered in water and all moisture in the atmosphere rained down. The animals listed as clean and birds (7 of each "kind" on the ark") are not more genetically diverse than the unclean ones (2 of each on the ark).

Also, the dimensions of the ark are detailed well enough in the bible that we know the exact size of it, and it turns out to be insufficient for holding all the necessary animals even if Noah had pokeballs to put all of the animals larger than pokeballs into.

 

[NobleMouse]

-_- they have to be, because the creation order is different in each. Also, it would be extremely weird to just get through the creation story, and then immediately go through the same one again. If they match, shouldn't one of them be removed because of redundancy?

You must be basing this on either very limited research, or only reading viewpoints that agree with this position... be assured there are volumes of research, articles, resources, etc... that do not support Genesis 1 & 2 being contradictory creation accounts. I'm not going to do the legwork myself, but will cite one online article to get you started:

Why are there two different Creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1-2?