Creation: Genesis contradictions? - by Don Batten

OzSpen · Mar 11, 2016

HitchSlap said:
Judging by my last exchange with him, I'm not sure he's aware of this.

Why don't you interact with me on this issue, instead of behind my back?

Subduction Zone · Mar 11, 2016

OzSpen said:
That's a red herring. You still have not provided evidence that the creation narrative is a myth. All you did was spin off into what you wanted to discuss, i.e. 'all the scientific evidence' supports evolution.

You mentioned not a word about how the scientific evidence could develop methodology that would test how a supernatural being could create ex nihilo. Not a word was stated by you about the scientific evidence for the Big Bang, etc.

You conveniently leave out what doesn't fit your paradigm.

Oz

You don't seem to understand. If people want to claim that the creation myth is true the burden of proof is upon them. I can show the evidence that supports the theory of evolution. Do you want the scientific evidence for the Big Bang? You do know that it started with the observation that all distant galaxies appear to be moving away from us, and that the further away that they are the faster away from us that they are moving. That was the first evidence for the Big Bang.

This is also the second time that I have seen you use a logical argument incorrectly. My claim was not a red herring. You really need to work on your logic skills just a tad.

Subduction Zone · Mar 11, 2016

AV1611VET said:
Um ... are you aware that theistic evolutionists believe all this too?

(I do so wish a TE would chime in here. Why are you guys being silent?)

You do not seem to understand the difference between "believe" and "know". Knowledge is demonstrable. The problem with TE is that they have no evidence for the existence or actions of a God. Properly speaking it is not a theory.

HitchSlap · Mar 11, 2016

AV1611VET said:
Nice try.

I already let you off the hook and stopped badgering you for an answer.

Quit squirming please.

Do TE's believe in your creation myth as literal fact, or as allegory?

HitchSlap · Mar 11, 2016

OzSpen said:
Why don't you interact with me on this issue, instead of behind my back?

Sure thing.

What makes your creation myth more prescient than any other creation myth?

AV1611VET · Mar 11, 2016

Subduction Zone said:
You do not seem to understand the difference between "believe" and "know". Knowledge is demonstrable. The problem with TE is that they have no evidence for the existence or actions of a God. Properly speaking it is not a theory.

What in the WORLD are you talking about?

Theistic evolutionists use the SAME evidence as you do to come to the SAME conclusion as you do that the universe is configured the way it is due to natural processes.

Therefore, I can't imagine a theistic evolutionist sitting idle here while others call their beliefs a "myth."

HitchSlap · Mar 11, 2016

AV1611VET said:
What in the WORLD are you talking about?

Theistic evolutionists use the SAME evidence as you do to come to the SAME conclusion as you do that the universe is configured the way it is due to natural processes.

Therefore, I can't imagine a theistic evolutionist sitting idle here while others call their beliefs a "myth."

Well, they don't believe in myths, then, do they.

Hoghead1 · Mar 11, 2016

That is not true, AV1611. I do not view the universe as configured exactly the same way by the exact same processes as all the scientists do. Maybe some others into theistic evolution, but not myself.

Hoghead1 · Mar 11, 2016

For me, it is a myth, OzSpen, because it does not concur with modern science, was not intended to be a scientific witness in the first place, and offers two highly contradictory account of creation by two different authors from two different time periods with two different goals in mind.

Hoghead1 · Mar 11, 2016

I've already told you about Gen. 1,AV1611. What are you talking about here?

Hoghead1 · Mar 11, 2016

That is not at all accurate about theistic evolution, -57. For one thing, the Bible is not a work in systematic theology or metaphysics. For another, I and many other theologians believe the Bible is in support of key features of our model of God. That is a long story. I'll get into it only if you ask for more information.

Subduction Zone · Mar 11, 2016

AV1611VET said:
What in the WORLD are you talking about?

Theistic evolutionists use the SAME evidence as you do to come to the SAME conclusion as you do that the universe is configured the way it is due to natural processes.

Therefore, I can't imagine a theistic evolutionist sitting idle here while others call their beliefs a "myth."

You do not understand evidence either I see. Again, if they have no testable theories or hypotheses, and I have yet to see one, then by definition they do not have any scientific evidence. This is not that hard of a concept to understand.

Hoghead1 · Mar 11, 2016

No, at least I do not , AV1611. Science sees no direction to the evolutionary process. I do. I see it as moving from the simple to the complex, from the less sensitive to the more sensitive. Science generally thinks in terms of passive, inert, dead matter. I do not. I hold matter and mind are one. Consequently, I I am a panpsychist. I believe the basic building blocks are not dead atoms, but momentary unities of live experience. I view God as omnipresent throughout the universe and therefore picture the universe as the body of God.

Hoghead1 · Mar 11, 2016

P.S. Also, I rely heavily on philosophical arguments for the existence of God, such as the ontological argument, argument from design, argument from creativity, argument for the meaningfulness of life, argument from the principle of relativity (Whitehead, not Einstein), argument from creativity, argument from actualize requiring potentiality, etc. So no, I do not use the exact same evidence as does science.

OzSpen · Mar 12, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
For me, it is a myth, OzSpen, because it does not concur with modern science, was not intended to be a scientific witness in the first place, and offers two highly contradictory account of creation by two different authors from two different time periods with two different goals in mind.

So modern science is your normative god?

Subduction Zone · Mar 12, 2016

OzSpen said:
So modern science is your normative god?

That is a bit of an insult. Hoghead1 is a Christian, as you are.

OzSpen · Mar 12, 2016

Subduction Zone said:
That is a bit of an insult. Hoghead1 is a Christian, as you are.

Hoghead1 has given his designation as Protestant. He has not stated his designation as Christian. Protestant doesn't automatically mean Christian.

If you don't believe me, drop into your nearest Protestant modernist or postmodernist church as ask, 'Would you please tell me how to become a Christian?' Then go to Scripture to find the answer. My experience is that the answers are poles apart.

I'm not making a disparaging comment about Hoghead1 but I'm acknowledging an issue of truth. One can be called a Protestant and not be a Christian, by biblical designation.

Oz

AV1611VET · Mar 12, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
That is not true, AV1611. I do not view the universe as configured exactly the same way by the exact same processes as all the scientists do. Maybe some others into theistic evolution, but not myself.

Fine.

Then take over this conversation and show HitchSlap the error of his ways.

I don't consider myself a very effective apologetic for theistic evolution.

AV1611VET · Mar 12, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
I view God as omnipresent throughout the universe and therefore picture the universe as the body of God.

Then the body of God is going to hightail it at the Great White Throne Judgment ...

Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

... just before God sets Himself on fire.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

HitchSlap · Mar 12, 2016

OzSpen said:
How do you determine the creation narrative in Genesis 1-2 is a myth?

It has all the earmarks of any ancient culture attempting to describe their origins. The Hebrew account is no exception.

Add modern science to our understanding of human origins and cosmology, and it becomes patently obvious that all creation stories were primitive attempts at making sense of the world.

The difference now is, we have science on our side.

Creation: Genesis contradictions? - by Don Batten

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

PROUDLY PRIMATE

PROUDLY PRIMATE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency