Creationism - Lazy Man's science?

[OdwinOddball]

No, the problem is that people who are not interested in what I believe keep wanting to waste my time. I am here to share the truth with people. If people are not interested in learning, they should still have enough respect for others not to belittle them and not to waste their time. I could be using my time in a more productive way to help people that do want and need help. For example, I could be up at the church teaching the young people there about creationism. Or I could be getting ready for a mission trip overseas to help the people there. The last thing I need to be doing is wasting my time with people that have no interest in what I have to offer. If they just want to fight and argue, then maybe they are in the wrong place for that.

Or perhaps since the central theme in all of this is you, it is your approach that is the problem.

Care to step up the plate and give us that evidence you claim to have?

 

[Beastt]

(cont.)

We are to be lead by God in our understanding of the Bible, not man.

The Bible was written by men, John; not God. You might not like that and may choose to blindly accept their claim that they were divinely influenced. But the evidence of what happened is in the Bible and that's what I'm showing you. And unlike you, I'm using the actual wording of the Bible rather than changing it.

Even Jesus warns us to be careful of the traditions of men.

Then heed the warning and recognize that the Bible is saturated with human cultural traditions, accredited to the will of God rather than the men from which they came.

So we even need to be carefull of the traditions when it comes to understanding the Bible.

Yes we do. And we need to be objective enough to spot these cultural traditions when they show themselves. And they show themselves at almost every turn. The culture of the Old Testament believed it was a good thing to rejoice at the death of their enemies. They believed that pillaging their homes, kidnapping their wives and daughters and raping them was perfectly moral and acceptable. They saw nothing wrong with stoning someone to death for an infraction as small as gathering firewood on the sabbath. And they wrote these cultural beliefs and traditions into their Bible but attributed them not to their culture, but to their God. We today don't subscribe to such levels of barbarity. But those who wish to believe in the Bible as God's word simply pass this off as being God's "Old laws" and state that we're now under God's "New laws". And yet, the Bible claims the Christian God to be unchanging. Clearly you can't have Old laws with standards of barbarity and New laws demonstrating a greater degree of civility and not change. So if we take your advice, we recognize this as being of the Bible authors and not of any unchanging supreme entity.

At any rate, your not argueing against the Bible, you are arguing over a drawing that someone made up.

And you're not arguing over the word of God. You're arguing over a book someone made up. It just so happens the drawing I'm utilizing to demonstrate my claims was drawn based upon the statements in the book you're arguing for. And yet, when we see the depiction of the solar system, based upon that book, we find it to be wholly unlike the true configuration of the solar system. If God exists and created the solar system, one might think he could have influenced the authors of the Bible to produce a credible depiction.

Just like the evos make up drawing all the time. I am all for an arguement against a drawing of this sort, because they do not reflect reality.

You are correct. Drawings unlike reality don't change reality any more than does the book those drawings are based on. The Bible clearly offers an invalid and incorrect depiction of the solar system and therefore, could not have been produced or influenced by any all-powerful creator of the universe.

This was after God created the atmosphere along with it's green house effect to hold the heat in and melt the ice.

Again, the greenhouse effect doesn't produce heat. It only increases the insulative efficiency of the atmosphere. No sun - no heat. And the Bible never talks about ice or the melting of that ice. You're just adding that because if you don't, you're without an argument. But in so doing, you're not arguing in defense of the Bible. You're arguing in defense of what you're making up as you go along. The Bible doesn't say any of the things you're attempting to support.

Whatever God did, He did it in the firmament.

According to Genesis One, he first created the firmament, then created the sun and moon within that firmament. But we know that there isn't any way to put either the sun or the moon within the firmament. And the sun and moon haven't been created at the point where plants are said to be growing on Earth. It can't happen, John. I know you don't want to believe that and you'll do almost anything rather than accept that this is what the Bible says. You'll twist it, add your own concepts and change the words. But the Bible still says what it says no matter how much you'd have it say other than what it says. You can't grow plants on the early Earth without a sun.

"Indisputable"? What a joke that is. You build five little wooden indians and knock down your own indians. All of your arguement are strawman arguements.

Is that why in order to even attempt a rebuttal you had to change so much of what the Bible says? If you can't defend the Bible based on what it says, then you can't defend the Bible. "Could be"s, replacing water with ice, melting it with an effect which doesn't produce any heat of its own and doing all of this despite the fact that the Bible doesn't mention any of these things simply isn't a defense of the Bible. If you're going to defend the Bible you'll have to do so based upon what it actually says rather than what would be more convenient for it to say.

You do not understand the Bible at all.

That's a pretty difficult statement to defend when all of your attempts at refutations rely upon changing what the Bible says into something it doesn't say. When one considers that I've relied upon what the book actually says as well as depictions based on what the original Hebrew says and all of your arguments rely upon conjectures and arguments about things the Bible never says, it's a more credible statement to say that you are the one displaying a lack of knowledge where the Bible is concerned. All you've done is demonstrate how completely unbelievable the Bible is if taken for what it says. The only way to defend it is to suggest that it says other than what is written.

I do not know where you got your "ideas" from, it was mostly just a cut and paste job from somewhere.

I resent that, John. Everything I posted was put together from my own observations. If you want to defend such a fallacious claim then you'd better be ready to present some evidence. Of course you always claim to have evidence, but you never present any. That's called lying, John and it's not something in which I engage.

You should try to find someone who can help you to understand the meaning and the lesson for us today in the Word of God.

Someone as unbiased and objective as you?

There is no lack of people who do not want to live right before God that will try to lead you astray from the truth contained in the word, to their own destruction.

You keep overlooking the obvious simply because you can't bear to consider that it's a possibility. Perhaps the Bible contains little or no truth. It certainly can't defend a position of presenting truth. You can't even defend what it says as truth. You continually make changes and arbitrarily toss in claims of your own making when attempting to defend it. If it had any truth to offer, that truth should be demonstrable as such. It isn't and there's a good reason for that. Cultural tales, traditional rituals and barbaric standards of morality will never be demonstrable as truth.

But there are people who can help you to find the truth. So you do not have to live your life any longer in deception.

I've found a truth that makes sense without constant word substitutions, random changes and pleas to continually elusive writing styles, John. Your truth isn't even something you can defend without putting yourself in the position of chief editor. If you want to defend the book, John, do so based upon the actual words. Defend what the book actually says. Otherwise, you're simply not defending the book. And if you're an example of someone who has found this supposed "truth", then I'll enthusiastically pass. I prefer to live in a world of reason and logic where I'm not told that my logical assertions, based on quoted wording is less credible than someone else's random conjecture and word games.

 

[Beastt]

It is a lot better then the nonsense interpretation of the Bible that you came up with. It is as if you do not want to know the truth. If you do not want to know, then why should anyone take the time or the trouble to try to offer you want your not interested in and what you don't want?

You seem not to understand that all of the same comments can be directed toward you and can be done so with support based upon the actual words of the Bible. That's more than you can offer.

Your not going to convert me to your way of thinking, so what is the use of all this, what is the purpose of this conversation?

Perhaps you're not who I hope to reach, John. There are those who haven't sewn their eyelids tightly over their eyes, closed their ears to the truth and buried their heads in the sand, trembling in fear that their enternal paradise might not actually exist. Those people might still have a chance of making a credible evaluation based on evidence from both sides. Were I undecided and looked at your arguments, you'd likely do more to convince me that the Bible isn't God's word than anything I could have written simply because you'll stop at nothing to try to defend an indefensible position. You trade words around, make up circumstances never mentioned in the Bible and even resort to unsupportable accusations of plagarism. In many ways your arguments are perhaps some of the best demonstrations against Christianity any atheist could hope for.

Exactly, don't try to tell you, because your not interested, and you don't want to know.

Don't try to tell me the Bible doesn't say that God created the sun in day four when the Bible clearly says; "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night"
It's simply pointless for you to proclaim the Bible doesn't say what it says. So why waste your time writing lies which are so easily exposed to be utter untruths?

I just wonder why your here if your not interested in learning the Bible and discovering the truth that we find in the Bible.

Then perhaps you should search out any one of the half-dozen or so threads where that question has been the focus of the O.P. I've answered that question so many times that anyone paying attention should have a very good idea why most atheists are here. But since you don't seem to seek out answers for your own questions I'll provide you with a brief version. I see the damage done to people by such beliefs. You're a prime example. I don't believe there is any good which can come from such programming and there is much to be gained from exercizing the ability to practice reason, even in the face of popular tradition. Your beliefs lead to massive cruelty, suffering and death around the world, John. That's simply something I can't condone.

 

[philadiddle]

Thank you. I do wonder though, what exactly being a Theistic Evolutionist has to with this. Evolution doesn't address the formation of the universe, Earth or life.

Every evolutionist i know of believes in the big bang. I thought that was a given. It mean I subscribe to an old universe. I guess I should have said i was a "big bangist" so you wouldn't have to think too hard about it. You read ppls posts like you read the bible, you don't put much thought into it to see the meaning, you just read word for word and come up with your own meaning.

Having said that I still wish to welcome you to a world view more subject to reason and less to superstition and blind acceptance. I can remember when you subscribed to views more consistent with YECs and it is my opinion that you've gravitated to a much more reasonable stance. I don't think your journey is over as I see there is more to learn and more to see. I hope your journey will continue to be fruitful for you.

It has been very fruitful thus far thanks. For God to have engineered the big bang, the formation of life from reproducing chemicals, to the mechanism of biological evolution that created us is awe inspiring. What an awesome God I worship.

Does it hold the water down now? An atmosphere performs several functions. Among those are to filter the suns rays, to act as a thermal blanket and to provide an envelope under which the hydrological cycle proceeds. It also acts as a pressure blanket around the Earth. The gases which make up the atmosphere are lighter than the solid materials that make up the Earth. But they're not without weight. The gravity of the Earth acts to hold these gases around the Earth. In doing so, these gases exert about 14.7 pound of force, (at sea level), for every square inch of Earth's surface. It is this force exerted upon the Earth which keeps water liquid. Without the atmosphere applying pressure to the water, the water would convert to vapor. And just as with an atmosphere, once converted to a heated vapor, it would rise away from the planet. But without a pressurized atmosphere in which to cool, form clouds and return as precipitation, it would simply drift off into space. Gravity can only play its part on water vapor if the medium in which the water vapor exists has a greater vapor density than that of the water vapor itself.

Didn't the atmosphere form from gases coming from the earths surface? They didn't escape into space (well, a small percentage would have). I'm not asking to argue, i really want to know.

You're appealing to the authority of others, apparently without understanding from where that authority comes. Certainly you must realize that there are people who have spent great portions of their lives examining the bibles of different beliefs. And for any popular religious belief, you can find people with vast religious educations who subscribe to their particular belief. You seem to assert that if someone with a doctorate in study of the Christian God accepts the Christian God as real, then those with lesser educations on the topic couldn't possibly be correct in assessing the Christian God to not exist.

No, I don't think someone with lesser education couldn't possibly be right. I think it's foolish for anyone to think they are right, beyond the shadow of a doubt.

But what of those who have studied the Qur'an and accept Allah as the only one and true god? Does that mean that Christianity couldn't be correct? Does it mean that if you haven't put as much study into the Holy Bible as they have into the Qur'an that your observations, no matter how reasonable and logical can't possibly be valid?

I like to study other religions so that if i need to discuss them i don't sound as ignorant as you do. I haven't looked into the qur'an yet so i couldn't comment.

You need to understand that rarely does anyone enroll in Bible college if they don't believe in God. They have almost always formed their beliefs long before choosing to dedicate much of their life to such studies. So by the time they begin to earn a degree, they're not looking for evidence to sway them one way or another. They've already made up their mind. At that point, they're interested in instruments to be used for confirmation bias. If one believes the heart to be the center of spiritual thought, do you suppose they would enroll in medical school where they will be taught, with full and conclusive demonstrations, that the heart is a muscle, designed to pump blood around the body? Or will they instead enroll in some sort of religiously based education in order to pursue further support for the ideas they have already accepted?

i don't know what your point is, there are Christians who enroll in medical school, and do very well. I don't know of any adults who believe in spirituality who don't know the natural purpose for the heart. When we say love and spirituality is in the heart it is an expression. That expression is used on valentines day by many athiests too. Again, you fail to examine the meaning to ppls words and instead argue the face value meaning of an expression.

Higher education doesn't remove bias. Bias is more often the motivational agent for higher education.

You use the word "bias" when u should be using "personal view". Ppls personal views are often the motive for higher education.

This is the reason I included the reproduction of ancient Hebrew etchings. I often see this type of claim. But as pointed out above, if one chooses to accept the unevidenced theology of those who have chosen, through their bias to study and teach theology, one will gain mostly the subjective opinions of their instructors. If you want to know what the original Hebrew claims, then look to the depictions drawn upon the early Hebrew, by those to whom Hebrew was the native language. And that is what I have done. In doing so, I find that the early Hebrew, as concerns configuration of the Earth and universe, reads very much like the KJV. If you look at the etching as you read the KJV, you'll find remarkable consistency. Yet I'm constantly assured by those who don't read Hebrew that the original Hebrew offers no such depiction.

I guess you really don't understand the educational system in theology. It does just what u are saying, looks at the original hebrew and greek text and reads it by the meaning of those words, also taking into account the cultural meaning. You look more and more ignorant on the subject the more you talk about it. Try this simple exercise and post the results. Find your nearest Christian university/college and find a prof with a PhD in theology, majoring in old testament theology. Ask him if he has ever looked into the original hebrew meaings. If you do this your journey may become more fruitful as some of the bias opinions you have of educated Christians will start to dissolve away.

An alternative would be to learn Hebrew and obtain the original Hebrew text. But we today are incapable of reading the text without coloring it from the understanding we already hold for such things as the configuration of our solar system. This is why it's so fascinating to look upon the depictions of those who held no such knowledge, as they applied the statements of the Bible, devoid of any preconceived bias.

Yes you are right. It had to be written in a way that everyone could understand the THEOLOGICAL points made in the Genesis story. That God made everything and is the only one worthy of praise. There was a really good post by Shernren in the Christians only section about this, i'll try to find it, it was a few months ago though.

If you were to learn about the Qur'an, find its inconsistencies and contradictions and offer then to one who holds a belief in Allah, would you expect them to accept what you've offered or would you expect that they would appeal to translational errors, contexts and scholars who have studied the Qur'an and still hold belief that it is the message of Allah -- the one and only true god?

I could expect that if the Christian God is real then the Holy Spirit could move in their "heart" and they could enter a relationship with the real God.

They'll do the same thing Christians do. And in debating numerous points, numerous times, across numerous threads, I always encounter claims of translational errors, appeals to the original Hebrew and proclamations of contextual error. Perhaps not so unexpectedly, it's very rare that the proposed substitutions or contexts are the same. Christians themselves can't agree on these despite the fact that they are so quick to tell non-believers that their readings are indicative of vast ignorance.

what proposed substitutions and contexts are different? Christians can't agree on minor points that are irrelevant to the relationship we have with Jesus.

When engaging in a discussion concerning the fallacious claims of the Bible and the demonstrable errors, it is not at all irrelevant to examine the beliefs of the authors. When it is demonstrated that their level of knowledge is what is claimed in the Bible, it's pretty difficult to continue proclaiming that the Bible holds the knowledge of an all-knowing god, rather than only the beliefs of the men known to have done the writing.

If God explained the big bang to a prescientific culture they would not understand. The way God chose to do it seems to have worked just fine, despite the fundys toting their literalist approach.

Again you are appealing to others whom you believe to have a greater understanding than that which you hold, as defense for the beliefs you hold. Are you so certain that its wise to appeal to ideas you either don't comprehend or aren't familiar with, based only on the belief of others?

I try to become more and more familiar with these things.

And if this is a credible practice, why do you appeal only to the authority of those who have studied Christianity?

It's not a credible practice to just assume someone is right, like i said, i try to learn more and more.

Why not appeal to the knowledge of those who have studied and hold a belief in other religions Can you not see that you can no more appeal to their level of study and acceptance of the material they have been offered than you can any opposing or differing belief?

i do study other religions.

Religious study is based in part, upon subjective belief. This is where it contrasts with study of the sciences which are founded upon evidence rather than opinion or even educated opinion. When studying Greek mythology, you will likely come away with a much better understanding of the Greek culture, their beliefs and the basis for those beliefs. But mostly you will come away with an understanding of the Greek opinion which was, as with your religious beliefs, based almost entirely on subjectivity.

ok, i don't disagree with that. But just because we can study the natural means to the beginning of the universe doesn't mean God didn't make it all happen.

 

[Beastt]

John, John John. No, you don't get an answer. You have never had the courtesy to ever answer the opposite question when put to you, so no one need answer you now. It is up to you to proof your case, which without evidence is not going to happen.

Unless you are ready to actually pony up this evidence you have so often claimed to have?

You nailed it. Until he can either present the evidence he repeatedly claims to have or admit that he over-stated his position, he has no right to ask anything of anyone.

 

[Beastt]

Every evolutionist i know of believes in the big bang. I thought that was a given. It mean I subscribe to an old universe. I guess I should have said i was a "big bangist" so you wouldn't have to think too hard about it. You read ppls posts like you read the bible, you don't put much thought into it to see the meaning, you just read word for word and come up with your own meaning.

I was hoping we could continue this without becoming insulting. But since you've decided to become so pointed in your accusations, perhaps it's appropriate that I straighten out a few things for you. The Theory of Evolution, Big Bang Theory and Theory of Abiogenesis are all distinctly separate theories. Nowhere do any overlap onto the others. The universe could have been brought into existence either through the uttered *poofing* of God or via the Big Bang and it has no effect upon Evolution. Life could have been poofed into existence or planted here as a seed by aliens and it doesn't affect the origin of the universe. And of course, abiogenesis is independent of the mechanisms by which the universe came to be and of the process of evolution which begins only after the first life appeared.

You're accusing me of placing too little thought into what I read only because I closely examine what I read. You simply assume that evolution, origin of the universe and abiogenesis are all rolled into TE but this is an assumption on your part which is not only incorrect but can lead to sizeable misunderstandings. I tend to avoid undue assumptions because assumptions are open to one's subjective beliefs and separate from observation. Assumption is the first step in believing any book to be of any god. They're all written by men. But because you subscribe to assumption, you blindly accept the claims of the Bible's authors despite the fact that the evidence they left in their writings betrays the true source of the claims in the Bible.

I suggest you not attempt to judge others who practice objectivity applied to reason and instead begin to understand your own practices and why they are failing you. There are those on the forum from which I can learn more critical thought processes. But with comments like you've made here, after the claims you've posted in other posts on this thread, I can openly state that you're not among them nor do I see any evidence which compels me to believe that you're in any position to criticize.

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

Every evolutionist i know of believes in the big bang.

I don't.

 

[Nathan Poe]

No, the problem is that people who are not interested in what I believe keep wanting to waste my time.

Perhaps your time is better spent elsewhere?

I am here to share the truth with people.

Truth you claim to have, but never actually share to anyone's satisfaction, except your own.

If people are not interested in learning, they should still have enough respect for others not to belittle them and not to waste their time.

And why should anyone be interested in learning from you? I ask this not to belittle, but I honestly wish to know what you bring to the table...

I could be using my time in a more productive way to help people that do want and need help. For example, I could be up at the church teaching the young people there about creationism.

I'm sure you would be welcome there.

Or I could be getting ready for a mission trip overseas to help the people there. The last thing I need to be doing is wasting my time with people that have no interest in what I have to offer.

If you really feel that way, Via con Dios.

If they just want to fight and argue, then maybe they are in the wrong place for that.

Or maybe you're the one in the wrong place. You've already mentioned all the places where your wisdom would be welcomed, so why not kick the dust off your feet and move on?

 

[Beastt]

It has been very fruitful thus far thanks. For God to have engineered the big bang, the formation of life from reproducing chemicals, to the mechanism of biological evolution that created us is awe inspiring. What an awesome God I worship.

All you're doing here is observing the demonstrability of the discoveries of science and then stacking your concept of God on top.

This is a violation of the principle of Occam's Razor which is utilized in science not only because it complies with reason, but also because it has repeatedly demonstrated itself to be extremely productive. Stacking a god on top of mechanisms which, by themselves, adequately explain events is simply an avoidance of the demonstrations of the mechanisms themselves.

You've decided you want to believe in a god to worship so you simply stack him on top of processes and mechanisms which are fully complete by themselves. One could do exactly the same thing with Allah, the Invisible Pink Unicorn or a magic popcorn kernel and be no less inappropriate.

Didn't the atmosphere form from gases coming from the earths surface? They didn't escape into space (well, a small percentage would have). I'm not asking to argue, i really want to know.

Some of the gases likely came from Earth. Others have come from space as the Earth travels through its orbit. The Earth's gravity will present an attraction for the molecules of any gas encountered in space. If the gases are close enough to be caught by Earth's gravity, they'll be added to the existing atmosphere. But much of our atmosphere today is the product of life processes, (as well as industrial), carried out on the planet's surface.

What will remain within the atmosphere and what will be lost into space is a matter of vapor densities. We do lose a tiny bit of water to space, but only at the magnetic poles. And we gain far more than we lose because of comets which routinely collide with the Earth's atmosphere. Most are composed largely of ice and that ice sublimates into the atmosphere to become a part of the hydrologic cycle.

No, I don't think someone with lesser education couldn't possibly be right. I think it's foolish for anyone to think they are right, beyond the shadow of a doubt.

I would agree. But I think it's possible to reach a point where that doubt is so incredibly small as to not be considered reasonable. We could conceivably find purely naturalistic means by which every known particle was formed and every observable event can be explained and still not rule out the existence of the Christian God. But by the same token, we can't rule out the magic popcorn kernel as the creator of the universe either.

I like to study other religions so that if i need to discuss them i don't sound as ignorant as you do. I haven't looked into the qur'an yet so i couldn't comment.

I wouldn't say that I've studied it but I've given some of the prophecies a good once-over. They're remarkably like those in the Bible. In fact, most religious books make many of the same claims, with each attributing specific works to the particular god being promoted. The Bible is very much one among many.

And since you've so far, failed to demonstrate any superior understanding of any portion of the topic, perhaps it would be appropriate for you to discontinue implying that I sound ignorant. The fact is, my views disagree with those you hold and you hold yours to be representative of truth. So you subjectively assess my views to be less well informed and therefore, ignorant. But that's a purely subjective observation on your part and not one you're going to be able to support. So perhaps you should practice a bit of discretion and begin to realize that you're not in a position to represent any kind of intellectual intimidation.

i don't know what your point is, there are Christians who enroll in medical school, and do very well. I don't know of any adults who believe in spirituality who don't know the natural purpose for the heart. When we say love and spirituality is in the heart it is an expression. That expression is used on valentines day by many athiests too. Again, you fail to examine the meaning to ppls words and instead argue the face value meaning of an expression.

If you don't get my meaning then perhaps you should consider the possibility that you're the one failing to examine people's words. My point is two-fold. Firstly, most people adopt a belief first, and only then pursue continued study and education in accordance with that belief. They don't first go to Bible college and then decide they believe in the Bible. One doesn't go to Bible college to learn why the Bible isn't what it claims to be. The purpose of a Bible College is to promote the Bible as the word of God. So it's a purely biased system of education, based largely on subjective analysis. It's not proper to appeal to advanced education in any field as an indication of the validity of claims made in regard to that field when the education system is, by its very nature, both biased and subjective.

Christians tend to appeal to the heart when they recognize that logical thought and reason will speak against what they're hoping to promote rather than for it. So instead, they suggest that one "examine it with their heart" or "think not just with the mind, but also with the heart". Certainly it's figurative but if one wants to understand what is really being said, a cursory examination will reveal that they're making pleas to emotional evaluation. Most people realize that suggesting anyone make a purely subjective and emotional decision isn't particularly good advice. So they substitute the word "heart" because it sounds more noble and objective than making appeals to emotion. Most of us realize that emotions are not a good foundation upon which to build any decision.

You use the word "bias" when u should be using "personal view". Ppls personal views are often the motive for higher education.

Semantics, don't you think? And when it comes to religion, there isn't any credible evidence so the word "bias" is perfectly functional as well as accurate.

I guess you really don't understand the educational system in theology. It does just what u are saying, looks at the original hebrew and greek text and reads it by the meaning of those words, also taking into account the cultural meaning. You look more and more ignorant on the subject the more you talk about it. Try this simple exercise and post the results. Find your nearest Christian university/college and find a prof with a PhD in theology, majoring in old testament theology. Ask him if he has ever looked into the original hebrew meaings. If you do this your journey may become more fruitful as some of the bias opinions you have of educated Christians will start to dissolve away.

Have you ever noticed that people tend to label those things for which they have a decided lack of interest or an inability to understand as "stupid" or "ignorant"? I see people here almost every day who think Einstein's ideas are "stupid". Most of the time a bit of discussion will reveal the truth; they simply lack the intelligence to understand them. In any group of subjects with average intelligence, an individual of markedly above average intelligence will likely be evaluated as "ignorant" or "stupid" simply because their ideas are so far above the comprehension of the masses, that the masses are unable to properly evaluate them.

You're again suggesting that I go to someone with a decided Christian bias and ask them to present me with the subjective opinions they were offered during the process of their chosen education. Why do you not suggest that I go to a Muslim educational institution? Is it because you realize that they hold the same kind of bias and the same level of subjectivity and will direct me away from Christianity even though they might well have an equal or higher level of theological education?

There is some validity to the assertion that ancient cultures used language and literature somewhat differently than we do today. And in studying and understanding their methods, one can gain greater insight into the ideas they're attempting to convey. But little of that really applies to the kinds of claims I'm presenting from the Bible. They're quite clear in what they are attempting to convey. And despite the fact that I'm constantly told that without exposure to theological institutions with a decided Christian bias, I'm unable to know what it is I'm reading, I continue to find that where the concepts grasped by those well versed in reading ancient Hebrew literature are offered through depictions, they agree with what I find the Bible to be saying. You can plead and object and demonstrate all you wish. The evidence is there for anyone to see. The Bible offers a markedly inaccurate depiction of the world and the solar system.

(to be continued)

 

[And-U-Say]

Does it hold the water down now? An atmosphere performs several functions. Among those are to filter the suns rays, to act as a thermal blanket and to provide an envelope under which the hydrological cycle proceeds. It also acts as a pressure blanket around the Earth. The gases which make up the atmosphere are lighter than the solid materials that make up the Earth. But they're not without weight. The gravity of the Earth acts to hold these gases around the Earth. In doing so, these gases exert about 14.7 pound of force, (at sea level), for every square inch of Earth's surface. It is this force exerted upon the Earth which keeps water liquid. Without the atmosphere applying pressure to the water, the water would convert to vapor. And just as with an atmosphere, once converted to a heated vapor, it would rise away from the planet. But without a pressurized atmosphere in which to cool, form clouds and return as precipitation, it would simply drift off into space. Gravity can only play its part on water vapor if the medium in which the water vapor exists has a greater vapor density than that of the water vapor itself.

Just to be a jerk, it is not the force of 14.7 psi that keeps water liquid on the face of the earth. If we were to remove all of the oxygen, nitrogen, argon, and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the oceans would not boil nor even simmer (although life would be in big trouble). It is water vapor in equilibrium with the liquid water that keeps water in the liquid form, so to speak (that and temperature). A glass of water is perfectly content to remain calm and liquid in an appropriate atmosphere of water vapor alone.

Ideal gas law and all.

 

[JohnR7]

Perhaps your time is better spent elsewhere?

Oh, there are people here that are interested in the truth and seeking after God and His love for lost humanity. I just want people here who are not interested in God or the truth to leave me alone.

John 3:19-20
And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. [20] For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

The Bible makes it very clear that there are people who love the darkness because what they do is evil. This has nothing to do with science and evolution, this has to do with them wanting to walk in darkness so that their deeds should not be exposed.

If they want to walk in darkness and deception, then let them walk in darkness and deception. They just need to go off and do it by themselves and don't involve me in it. I need to spend my time trying to help the people who want to know more about God. Not dealing with scoffers, skeptics and infidels that have no desire for the truth, their only desire is to try and justify their sin and deceive themselves into thinking that their deeds are not evil.

 

[Beastt]

Just to be a jerk, it is not the force of 14.7 psi that keeps water liquid on the face of the earth. If we were to remove all of the oxygen, nitrogen, argon, and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the oceans would not boil nor even simmer (although life would be in big trouble). It is water vapor in equilibrium with the liquid water that keeps water in the liquid form, so to speak (that and temperature). A glass of water is perfectly content to remain calm and liquid in an appropriate atmosphere of water vapor alone.

Ideal gas law and all.

Admittedly, I'm not well versed enough to present a complete challenge to this idea. But I will say that a review of phase diagrams across a range of temperatures and pressures, sufficient to present triple-points for water, would tend to suggest that there is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning.

One of the barriers to boiling and vaporization of water is atmospheric pressure. This is why as we gain altitude, (and lose pressure), the boiling point of water drops. Boiling point is roughly defined as the temperature where saturated vapor pressure equals the surrounding atmospheric pressure. So as the atmospheric pressure is released, the vapor density of the water begins to exceed that of the atmospheric pressure. It seems reasonable that this is why a man in space, without a pressurized suit, would experience boiling of his blood even though he is not subjected to high temperatures.

I may be overlooking or misunderstanding some part of this. If so, I welcome some clarification.

 

[JohnR7]

who think Einstein's ideas are "stupid".

You may want to lay low with Einstein right now. He has gotten himself into a bit of a scandal.

 

[Beastt]

You may want to lay low with Einstein right now. He has gotten himself into a bit of a scandal.

Einstein's ideas weren't perfect, John. But that doesn't mean he was stupid or that you have any bearing upon which to make any assessments of his work. The man was brilliant and you've shown nothing to qualify yourself to be in a position of judgement.

At least Einstein worked from evidence and didn't fail to demonstrate that evidence after declaring that it existed.

 

[OdwinOddball]

Oh, there are people here that are interested in the truth and seeking after God and His love for lost humanity. I just want people here who are not interested in God or the truth to leave me alone.

Then stop posting unsubstantiated opinions on a public forum. This forum is to discuss Creationism and Evolution. If you do not wish to hear from proponents of evolution, why are you posting here and not the OT->Creationism forums?

Your actions reveal your true motives, no matter how much you deny them.

John 3:19-20
And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. [20] For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

The Bible makes it very clear that there are people who love the darkness because what they do is evil. This has nothing to do with science and evolution, this has to do with them wanting to walk in darkness so that their deeds should not be exposed.

So now you are saying we are evil? Is this anyone who disagrees with you? Or just those of us that insist you actually back up what you say, and won't let you get away with presenting opinion as fact?

If they want to walk in darkness and deception, then let them walk in darkness and deception. They just need to go off and do it by themselves and don't involve me in it. I need to spend my time trying to help the people who want to know more about God. Not dealing with scoffers, skeptics and infidels that have no desire for the truth, their only desire is to try and justify their sin and deceive themselves into thinking that their deeds are not evil.

Public forum John, if you don't like what we have to say in response to your opinions, then you can either learn to ignore us, or go somewhere else. We are not leaving. Fighting against those that push opinion and ignorance as fact and truth is what many of us are here for.



John, you have no truth to offer,,just what you believe to be truth. You cannot substantiate it, thus your refusal to back up what you say. Whatever you want to say to Nathan privately, I am sure we would all love to hear as well.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If they want to walk in darkness and deception, then let them walk in darkness and deception. They just need to go off and do it by themselves and don't involve me in it. I need to spend my time trying to help the people who want to know more about God. Not dealing with scoffers, skeptics and infidels that have no desire for the truth, their only desire is to try and justify their sin and deceive themselves into thinking that their deeds are not evil.



I'm not sure what to call this phenomena. I think of it as the radical moralization of knowledge, or the confusion of epistemology and ethics. It is a constant thread in discussions with YECists that if you think certain thoughts then you are morally corrupt. In particular, here, if you think that evolution is a good scientific theory with substantial evidence demonstrating it then you are deceived and walk in darkness.

But science, including TofE has no real ethical component. Certainly scientists have ethics but there is no scientific way to draw ethical conclusions out of science, when people do so they are philosophizing not doing science. This is the naturalist's fallacy, to tie what is to what ought to be.

I can understand how to believe certain ethical things is either good or bad. If you believe that it is good to kill the weak or poor, i have no trouble labelling that an evil thought. But it is from the start an ethical idea. But to label the idea that Darwin's finches evolve beak size and strength with respect to the size, hardness and availability of seeds to eat, seems to me to have no ethical component that you can label good or evil. It is just a statement of fact. If you wish to draw out of this statement ideas about societies culling out the weak and the poor thus justifying your morality by appealing to this fact, then i say you are well exceeding the grasp of your science and doing metaphysics. And in doing metaphysics i have every right to criticize it with my metaphysics.

but to push metaphysics, the ethical ideas of right and wrong down into the factuality of science seems like just a stupid thing to do. it is a radical confusion of the levels in the discussion and makes holding ideas far too religious and ethical.

how can my understanding of the beak population relative percentages changing over time in response to weather conditions have anything to do with ethics and morality as this quote above so strongly proports?

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

You may want to lay low with Einstein right now. He has gotten himself into a bit of a scandal.

Oh, and what scandal is this, would you care to back that statement up with some evidence?

Nah, you wouldn't do that, it is not in keeping with the creationist tactic of assert falsehood and run.

 

[JohnR7]

Oh, and what scandal is this, would you care to back that statement up with some evidence?

I am talking about the recent artical in Time magazine in regards to his love letters.
It seems among other thing he was interested in a mother and her daughter at the same time.

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1211594,00.html

 

[Jase]

I am talking about the recent artical in Time magazine in regards to his love letters.
It seems among other thing he was interested in a mother and her daughter at the same time.

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1211594,00.html

And what bearing would that have on his scientific or mathematical contributions?

 

[kangitanka]

So I was reading through this thread and noticed an interesting exchange regarding Genesis 1
I'll give the salient points of the conversation here-

The Bible says nothing about "liquid" water. Why you added the word "liquid" I have no idea. Perhaps so you could argue against the word you added.

Perhaps because the word for solid, (frozen) water, is "ice". The Bible doesn't say "ice". It says water. Therefore, it's talking about liquid water which is what I said.

How much ice do you find in Egypt? They had a word for frost, but there was no word for ice. There are only about 5,000 Hebrew words used in the Bible. So it is common for words to have multiple meaning.

The word used in Genesis 1 is mayim {mah'-yim}.
It is not 'ice', 'frost' or any other sort of solidified water.
The hebrew word for 'ice' and 'frost' is qerach {keh'-rakh} or qorach {ko'-rakh}, and is specifically mentioned in Job6, Job 38, and Psalms 147. Additionally, snow (another form of solidified water) is likewise mentioned, and it is (in the Hebrew) sheleg {sheh'-leg}. Again, not mayim.
So, beastt has some valid claim in stating that Genesis is speaking of liquid water. JohnR7, on the other hand, conflates mayim with qerach and sheleg.

In a nutshell, Genesis is not speaking of solidified water, and the language bears this out