Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, I mean to say Creationism. It is a theological position--not a scientific one. I can supply evidence for my claim if you are interested.Better to Say Young-Earth Creationism is untenable because of modern scientific discoveries, Creationism would happily say that God created those sciences for people to discover.
Which one do you see as fiction and which as fact then?
No, I mean to say Creationism. It is a theological position--not a scientific one. I can supply evidence for my claim if you are interested.
In which case you will be able to provide the modern scientific discoveries that make it untenable. I've never come across them.No, I mean to say Creationism. It is a theological position--not a scientific one. I can supply evidence for my claim if you are interested.
I am happy to try. If you could tell me a claim or a prediction made by Creationists (that isn't' held by evolutionary scientists) that could be falsified if wrong, it will help me narrow down an example that relates more directly to your beliefs.In which case you will be able to provide the modern scientific discoveries that make it untenable. I've never come across them.
I am happy to try. If you could tell me a claim or a prediction made by Creationists (that isn't' held by evolutionary scientists) that could be falsified if wrong, it will help me narrow down an example that relates more directly to your beliefs.
No, I mean to say Creationism. It is a theological position--not a scientific one. I can supply evidence for my claim if you are interested.
Maybe you didn't quite understand what I was asking. let me try again:That's easy -- abiogenesis is pure bunk -- that is a prediction of Creationists. In 1952 Urey and Miller attempted to artificially "simulate" what they thought abiogenesis could do to create life -- and it failed. that major fail still stands as "fail".
In fact various forms of it .. fail. It is not possible. It is not even science because there is no "property of matter" that would indicate that matter can self-organize into a living cell.
What is worse - there is no evidence or experiment that shows that an primitive earth bacteria could ever turn into a horse no matter how many billions of years you give it to try.
50,000 observed generations still make that same point.
Maybe you didn't quite understand what I was asking. let me try again:
What is a scientific prediction that could prove your hypothesis incorrect. The scientific method sets out a hypothesis and seeks to invalidate it. If the null hypothesis is overturned, the hypothesis stands.
If Moses was inspired to reveal this to his generation of Jews as a pattern, doesn't that make a really strong argument for young earth creationists, who believe in a literal Genesis? Its unusual for society to form around a cosmic pattern they don't actually, fundamentally believe in. That's their origin, their explanation that makes sense to them. I mean, what's more unbelievable; elohim made the world in six days and took a nap on the seventh, or antediluvian patriarchs living for centuries? That seems more unbelievable to me.
Genesis is not a reflection of what happened, it is a literary reflection of what people THOUGHT happened.No doubt that the Bible teaches the creation doctrine as the doctrine on origins.
No doubt that Moses was not setting up a lab, or providing a time machine so that "observations of God" would "Show God creating life on planet Earth"
Let's take them one at a time. Which one would you prefer starting with?The prediction that abiogenesis is impossible - stands.
The prediction that all humans go back to Y-chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve stands.
The prediction that the universe had a start - rather than "Stasis" eternal matter - stands.
The prediction that observation of 50,000 generations of bacteria will not show prokaryotes turning into eukaryotes over time... stands.
The prediction that biomolecules that can survive for 6000 years should still present in Dinosaur remains - stands.
Just a few things that come to mind off the top of my head.
Genesis is not a reflection of what happened,
it is a literary reflection of what people THOUGHT happened.
Maybe you didn't quite understand what I was asking. let me try again:
What is a scientific prediction that could prove your hypothesis incorrect. The scientific method sets out a hypothesis and seeks to invalidate it. If the null hypothesis is overturned, the hypothesis stands.
If Moses was inspired to reveal this to his generation of Jews as a pattern, doesn't that make a really strong argument for young earth creationists, who believe in a literal Genesis? Its unusual for society to form around a cosmic pattern they don't actually, fundamentally believe in. That's their origin, their explanation that makes sense to them. I mean, what's more unbelievable; elohim made the world in six days and took a nap on the seventh, or antediluvian patriarchs living for centuries? That seems more unbelievable to me.
Let's take them one at a time. Which one would you prefer starting with?
I don't assume the Bible is true. The Hebrew Bible is a collection of ancient books. Their claims carry no weight with me.Yes it is.
Not according to the Bible... not according to the NT writers. They state that what we read in scripture -- is what God said.
I don't assume the Bible is true.
The Hebrew Bible is a collection of ancient books. Their claims carry no weight with me.
Correction: they believe the Bible to be true.Many Christians here know the Bible to be true.
...have you ever read the Bible?
If so do you agree with the OP?
I don't share OP's understanding that "Moses was inspired."
I think the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament are products of people who believed these things were true. I think they were wrong.
Gotcha--sorry about that. I think he believed in six day creation.
That isn't even what's at stake here. If you read my post, the argument is not another creationism: fact or fiction debate. Instead, this thread is about what is meant by six day creation. Moses himself believes, if he's even the author of the pentateuch, the world was created in six days. I just quoted the verse where Moses says God made the world in six days and rested on the seventh. Pretty much everyone ignores it in these arguments. What did Moses from the text believe about his own book? He was only a man (if he lived), but I think its conclusive he believed in a six day creation story.
If you are asking if I think Moses believed the world was something like a few thousand years old and that a god created it--I'd say yes.My question for you is - do you agree with the OP statement on "what the text says".
If you are asking if I think Moses believed the world was something like a few thousand years old and that a god created it--I'd say yes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?