Creation/Evolution Fundamental Assumptions

[sabercroft]

Okay -- are we going to play games, here?

Can you not vent for just one post, please?

1. You said the Bible isn't being true.

2. I said your reply relies on you being omniscient.

3. You reply further that your reply relies on you not being a "gullible idiot".

Do you want to address my point, please, without the venting, or shall I just take your point with a grain of salt?

His point was that we don't need to be omniscient before we can know that the Bible is wrong. There's already a wide array of evidence that tells us just that.

 

[VehementisDominus]

Okay -- are we going to play games, here?

Can you not vent for just one post, please?

1. You said the Bible isn't being true.

2. I said your reply relies on you being omniscient.

3. You reply further that your reply relies on you not being a "gullible idiot".

Do you want to address my point, please, without the venting, or shall I just take your point with a grain of salt?

I did:

You don't need to be omniscient to realise that the Bible is hooey.

bearing this in mind, your "reasons" are no more valid than a Legoland driving license.

 

[VehementisDominus]

His point was that we don't need to be omniscient before we can know that the Bible is wrong. There's already a wide array of evidence that tells us just that.

'Sactly.

However, let me save AV the bother:

"Evidence can take a hike.".

This forum needs a "Rolleyes" smiley.

 

[AV1611VET]

bearing this in mind, your "reasons" are no more valid than a Legoland driving license.

Not valid to whom? you?

I'm thankful the Bible doesn't need to check for your approval beforehand.

 

[VehementisDominus]

Not valid to whom? you?

I'm thankful the Bible doesn't need to check for your approval beforehand.

Not valid to anyone with a grain of intellectual honesty.

 

[AV1611VET]

'Sactly.

However, let me save AV the bother:

"Evidence can take a hike.".

This forum needs a "Rolleyes" smiley.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not valid to anyone with a grain of intellectual honesty.

Suit yourself -- but using my replies to just keep venting against the Bible isn't making a very good impression.

 

[VehementisDominus]

Unfortunately for you, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

So if evidence can take a hike, so can the Bible.

 

[sabercroft]

Not valid to whom? you?

I'm thankful the Bible doesn't need to check for your approval beforehand.

The fact that you keep running back to your Bible proves that all you're doing here is essentially the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers into your ears and going "NUH-UH NANANANANA!"

The Bible is wrong, at least when it comes to the origins of the universe. Science - which is the byproduct of logic, reasoning, and evidence - has proven that beyond a shadow of doubt. The basis behind your worldview is the Bible, and your worldview is completely wrong because your basis is wrong. That's what we're trying to tell you here, and given your behavior of constantly running back to the Bible for authority and reassurance, that's what you're adamantly refusing to understand.

 

[VehementisDominus]

Suit yourself -- but using my replies to just keep venting against the Bible isn't making a very good impression.

I'm neither venting nor trying to make an impression.

I'm using your replies to show the ridiculousness of your position.

I believe I'm doing a pretty good job of it, too.

 

[AV1611VET]

The fact that you keep running back to your Bible proves that all you're doing here is essentially the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers into your ears and going "NUH-UH NANANANANA!"

Is there anyway I can disagree on principle, without being equated with someone having an immature temper tantrum?

The Bible is wrong, at least when it comes to the origins of the universe.

That is not an option I can accept, without being disobedient to the Scriptures.

Romans 3:4a God forbid: yea, let God be true...

And if you want me to just jettison the Scriptures in favor of your option, then you'd better do a LOT more than ridicule and insult.

Science - which is the byproduct of logic, reasoning, and evidence - has proven that beyond a shadow of doubt.

Not quite -- the Creation event is not -- and did not use -- science.

The basis behind your worldview is the Bible, and your worldview is completely wrong because your basis is wrong.

As I said, if you are trying to deconvert me, that is not the way to do it.

That's what we're trying to tell you here...

You have a funny way of stating it.

... and given your behavior of constantly running back to the Bible for authority and reassurance, that's what you're adamantly refusing to understand.

That's because I know which side my Bread is buttered on.

John 6:48 I am that bread of life.

 

[sabercroft]

Is there anyway I can disagree on principle, without being equated with someone having an immature temper tantrum?

Yes, absolutely. Provide evidence to support your position and discredit the "other" side. I hope that your question means that you're interested in trying to argue your position without resorting to circular logic, and I encourage you to do so.

That is not an option I can accept, without being disobedient to the Scriptures.

Romans 3:4a God forbid: yea, let God be true...

And if you want me to just jettison the Scriptures in favor of your option, then you'd better do a LOT more than ridicule and insult.

I didn't mean to ridicule and insult you, and I apologize if it came off that way. All the same, it was difficult to know whether you were intellectually engaged with the discussion at all, seeing how our position is that the Bible is wrong, and what you were doing is constantly running back to the Bible and using the Bible to tell us that the Bible is right.

Imagine this mother-daughter conversation. "No sweetie, that man isn't going to give you candy, he just wants to trick you into going into his room with him alone." "But mom, the man says he isn't lying, so that means he's telling the truth!"

Do you get my point now?

Not quite -- the Creation event is not -- and did not use -- science.

No, it's not. The Bible tries to make scientific claims without first going through the scientific process, ergo it's not science. With that said, the Bible still tries to make scientific claims nonetheless, so it's entirely valid to use real science to prove the Bible wrong.

 

[VehementisDominus]

Is there anyway I can disagree on principle, without being equated with someone having an immature temper tantrum?

Yes, there is. Provide evidence to support your position.

That is not an option I can accept, without being disobedient to the Scriptures.

Romans 3:4a God forbid: yea, let God be true...

Then disobey the scriptures. You can obey them as much as you like, but so long as you do you'll always be wrong.

Not quite -- the Creation event is not -- and did not use -- science.

Then what did it use?

As I said, if you are trying to deconvert me, that is not the way to do it.

He realises you're far to set in your ways to be deconverted, and I doubt that's his intention.

On a side note - what would it take to deconvert you?

That's because I know which side my Bread is buttered on.

John 6:48 I am that bread of life.

Unfortunately, your bread is ~2000 years past its sell-by date.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible tries to make scientific claims without first going through the scientific process, ergo it's not science.

Trying to use the Bible as a science book is like trying to use Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual.

And if you think there should be evidence for how God created the universe according to the way He documented it in His Diary, then I invite you to answer this challenge to satisfaction: 1

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, there is. Provide evidence to support your position.

And that's not going to happen.

You should know by now that I'm second-to-none here claiming that there is no evidence to support the Creation event, because the Creation event did not generate any evidence.

The Creation event is a one-time event, and belongs in history class, not science.

 

[sabercroft]

Trying to use the Bible as a science book is like trying to use Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual.

We're not talking about using the Bible as a science book. The Bible is obviously not a science book. As has been our point right from the very beginning, the Bible tries to tell us fake science!

The origin of life and the universe is a scientific question. A scientific question which the Bible attempts to provide a wrong answer for. Which is why we draw upon real science to counter the Bible's inaccuracies. I don't know how to explain it any better.

And if you think there should be evidence for how God created the universe according to the way He documented it in His Diary, then I invite you to answer this challenge to satisfaction: 1

Simple: I'd ask you to do it again in front of my friend.

Jokes aside, if the Bible account of creation is true, here's what we'd expect to find: that the universe isn't billions of years old, that the earth is not younger than the sun, zero evidence of evolution, a fossil record that is consistent with the creation order, that signs of human civilization and intelligence started only ~7000 years ago with Adam and Eve, etc. We have found none of this. On the other hand, we have found mountains of evidence to the contrary.

 

[VehementisDominus]

And that's not going to happen.

You should know by now that I'm second-to-none here claiming that there is no evidence to support the Creation event, because the Creation event did not generate any evidence.

The Creation event is a one-time event, and belongs in history class, not science.

Then you're always going to be "equated with someone having an immature temper tantrum?"

I asked 2 more questions in that post:

Then what did it use?

On a side note - what would it take to deconvert you?

Also, Bill Gates' diary wouldn't be a computer manual, but it would certainly contain a lot of demonstrably accurate information on computers and programming. It's not too much of a stretch to say you could probably build your own computer from it.

If I were to write a diary, I'd include how I painted my Tyranid Trygon - enough information for someone else to read it and paint a Trygon to the same standard.

"Today I undercoated my Trygon in skeleton bone and washed it with gryphonne sepia. I also painted the carapace and the claws black, ready to feather with scab red."

"This morning I feathered the scab red and highlighted it with mechrite red, leaving a nice blend from the scab red to the mechrite red. I also painted the poison sacs on his tail with an orkhide shade basecoat and scorpion green highlights."

You get the idea.

 

[sabercroft]

And that's not going to happen.

You should know by now that I'm second-to-none here claiming that there is no evidence to support the Creation event, because the Creation event did not generate any evidence.

The Creation event is a one-time event, and belongs in history class, not science.

Okay, that's cool.

So we have two contradictory, mutually exclusive fields of thought (and possibly a number of others, but let's just focus on two for now). One has - according to you - zero evidence behind it, while the second is extensively researched, extensively documented, and extensively proven to be true.

Now tell me again why is it that you pick the first one?

 

[AV1611VET]

We're not talking about using the Bible as a science book. The Bible is obviously not a science book. As has been our point right from the very beginning, the Bible tries to tell us fake science!

And yet again, let me point out, there was no science involved whatsoever in the creation of the universe -- not even the laws of thermodynamics existed as yet.

In fact, the amount of energy (as we know it) in existence started out at zero, then was raised to its current level over a period of six days.

Jokes aside, if the Bible account of creation is true, here's what we'd expect to find: that the universe isn't billions of years old, that the earth is not younger than the sun, zero evidence of evolution, a fossil record that is consistent with the creation order, that signs of human civilization and intelligence started only ~7000 years ago with Adam and Eve, etc. We have found none of this. On the other hand, we have found mountains of evidence to the contrary.

1. Why not? couldn't God embed age into His creation?

2. Yes, the earth is younger than the sun, because God gave it less age than He gave the sun; BUT the earth has been around a tad longer -- three days to be exact.

3. I believe in limited evolution -- what some call microevolution; but God is a God of boundaries, and He has set boundaries that nature cannot cross; and besides, it gets back to how much time has been in existence, and usiong the Bible, we calculate only about 6015 years.

4. Show me fossils in Genesis 1.

5. Jesus said an evil generation seeks after a sign, and there will be no signs forthcoming.

6. That doesn't surprise me, and fits in neatly with Scripture.

 

[sabercroft]

And yet again, let me point out, there was no science involved whatsoever in the creation of the universe -- not even the laws of thermodynamics existed as yet.

In fact, the amount of energy (as we know it) in existence started out at zero, then was raised to its current level over a period of six days.

The act of X creating Y may have been history, but the process through which X created Y is science. A science that the Bible gets completely wrong. Even if you insist on categorizing creation as purely history, it's also a wrong version of history, as studying the history of earth and the cosmos via astrophysics, geology, and paleontology would tell you.

And if you have no clue whatsoever about thermodynamics: please, leave it out of the discussion. All you accomplished was to make yourself look even more ignorant than you already are.

1. Why not? couldn't God embed age into His creation?

If you're a YEC, then you're even more wrong than the average creationist. There are numerous human cultures and settlements - the Australian aboriginals, for instance - who have an unbroken historical track record stretching back tens of thousands of years. Before God created the heavens and earth according to the YECs, there were already people living on the face of a formed Earth.

So, first off, you're wrong, and the earth is far older than ~7000 years. Secondly, why would God do that? He's basically erasing evidence of Himself and putting us in a position where we cannot logically find Him.

2. Yes, the earth is younger than the sun, because God gave it less age than He gave the sun; BUT the earth has been around a tad longer -- three days to be exact.

Wait. Let me get you straight. So the earth has existed longer than the sun, but it's younger than the sun.

How the f*** does that work, exactly?

Besides, those are claim, not evidence. When I asked you to provide evidence, I didn't mean to repeat myths from the Bible with no proof to back them up.

3. I believe in limited evolution -- what some call microevolution; but God is a God of boundaries, and He has set boundaries that nature cannot cross; and besides, it gets back to how much time has been in existence, and usiong the Bible, we calculate only about 6015 years.

So let me get this straight; you not only have wrong assumptions about microevolution, you justify those wrong assumptions using another wrong assumption that the earth is only about 6015 years old?

It's clearly obvious by now that what you believe is of no use whatsoever if we're going to stick to talking about facts. If you're ignorant about the science behind evolution, then go and educate yourself about it, or please don't try to discuss something you know nothing about.

4. Show me fossils in Genesis 1.

Show me God embedding age into His creation in Genesis 1.

Sarcasm aside, the fossils to not exist in Genesis, because - please try to get this into your head - Genesis is wrong. The fossils exist in the actual real world, not in the Bible, which is one if the pieces of evidence that the Bible presents a wrong account of creation - it's something we see in the real world that the Bible knows nothing about and talks as though they don't exist when we know they in fact do!

Or do you not believe that fossils are preserved remains of once-living materials, and they're just rocks that God hid in the dirt to test your faith because, you know, the Bible makes no mention of them, and hence they cannot possibly exist?

I'll admit I'm completely, utterly flummoxed by your lack of ability to follow even the simplest train of logic. Why is what I've told you so difficult to understand? Have you been so stuck in your world of religion for so long that you're just completely disconnected from reality and are unable to perceive it anymore without filtering it through your book of fables first?