...Do you even believe in Evolution in the first palce?

AV1611VET · Jun 13, 2013

durangodawood said:
I dont think there's really any choice but to view the specific details of the creation story as mythical.

And that's what I won't do ... on principle.

AV1611VET · Jun 13, 2013

TLK Valentine said:
sets of facts -- those would be hypotheses.

Thank you.

TLK Valentine said:
And would you kindly point out where in any of them it says that God is not responsible?

I can't ... it's not in there.

TLK Valentine · Jun 13, 2013

AV1611VET said:
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Right -- I don't see anything there about them being adults. or are you going to concoct a new theology that only adults are made in God's image?

So He could've made them infants -- And, if we're to believe the "no death before the Fall" trope, there'd be no reason not to -- the Earth couldn't have been safer if it was created out of Nerf.

TLK Valentine · Jun 13, 2013

AV1611VET said:
Thank you.

I can't ... it's not in there.

So those sets of facts don't exclude God after all, do they?

TLK Valentine · Jun 13, 2013

AV1611VET said:
And that's what I won't do ... on principle.

Which brings me back to my question: is it "principle," or "insecurity"?

TLK Valentine · Jun 13, 2013

durangodawood said:
I dont think there's really any choice but to view the specific details of the creation story as mythical.

Mythical is not the same as false. Its just a different way a finding meaning in the text.
.

Indeed -- I've always thought of "mythical" as meaning there's a layer of truth just beneath, and far more important, than the literal one.

I teach a lot about myths, and when my students ask "is it true?" I tell them the closest thing to a correct response is usually "does it matter?"

Because the more it matters to you, the more likely you've missed the point.

Loudmouth · Jun 13, 2013

KWCrazy said:
So should we base our existence on your knowledge, or should we presume that there are things you don't know?

Q. If God created all living things as newborn babies, how many of them would survive.
A. Very few.

If God created meteors with no argon how would this impact the survival of life on Earth?

If God created zircons with no Pb in them, how would this impact the survival of life on Earth?

If God created a universe with no stars further out than 1,000 light years, how would this impact the survival of life on Earth?

If God created granite without uranium radiohaloes, how would this impact the survival of life on Earth?

If life did not fall into a nested hierarchy, how would this affect the survival of life on Earth?

IOW, the history that we see in the history has nothing to do with the survival of life in a new creation.

TLK Valentine · Jun 13, 2013

KWCrazy said:
So should we base our existence on your knowledge, or should we presume that there are things you don't know?

Q. If God created all living things as newborn babies, how many of them would survive.
A. Very few.

Sorry, the correct answer is:

B. All of them

No death before the Fall, remember?

AV1611VET · Jun 13, 2013

TLK Valentine said:
Right -- I don't see anything there about them being adults.

I do.

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Cheeky Monkey · Jun 13, 2013

KWCrazy said:
So should we base our existence on your knowledge, or should we presume that there are things you don't know?

I would say you can be pretty certain that there's loads of things I don't know. So show me the evidence and I'll assess it.

Q. If God created all living things as newborn babies, how many of them would survive.
A. Very few.

Most babies need an adult mother to help them survive until they can fend for themselves. Man is no exception. If you've ever looked around, you might have noticed that the world is populated by adults and children who are becomming adults. The role of children is to grow into adults. The role of adults is to raise their families and serve God.

A simple reading of Genesis will reveal that everything God created was in its mature state, including trees bearing fruit and not seedlings in the dirt. Maturity, then, was part of the design. Adam was a mature adult, the animals were created in their maturiy, the trees were created in their maturity and the planet was created in its maturity. To the ignorant, this may seem like God is intending to decieve us. Actually, I think He intends for us to read His Word. The question of the appearance of age is quite easily answered when you read about the creation and all things being created in their mature state. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to comprehend that if everything else was created in its mature state then the Earth was as well.

A mature state doesn't necessitate a fake history. The evidence is that there is a far longer history than your interpretation of this particular myth will allow.

We constantly read the words of atheists who attempt to put retrictions on a God in whom they do not believe. It's actually quite comedic at times. "If the earth only looks old than your God is a liar." Really? That you aren't smart enough to comprehend His creation is not a possibility? I find the combination of ignorance and pomposity to be an amusing distraction, but not something particularly worthy of a significant time investment.

God created a mature world. Deal with it.

Sure, then why the fake deep history?

TLK Valentine · Jun 13, 2013

AV1611VET said:
I do.

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Still not seeing it -- unless you're claiming that God was commanding them to do all that right that very moment.

Impatient little God, isn't He?

Really -- stop adding to the Bible; it'll be completely unrecognizable by the time you're through.

TLK Valentine · Jun 13, 2013

AV1611VET said:
Satan can always use a Sherlock Holmes on his side, can't he?

Seems like God already has the genuine article:

Sherlock Holmes and the Needle's Eye: The World's Greatest Detective Tackles the Bible's Ultimate Mysteries: Len Bailey: 9780849964831: Amazon.com: Books

I've only started reading this; I'll let you know if it's any good.

AV1611VET · Jun 13, 2013

TLK Valentine said:
Still not seeing it --

Alright.

Do you want me to respect your lack of sight?

TLK Valentine · Jun 13, 2013

AV1611VET said:
Alright.

Do you want me to respect your lack of sight?

As much as I respect your hallucinations.

In situ · Jun 13, 2013

Split Rock said:
I have been trying to convince AVET that there is a history on this planet longer than 6,100 years, and this is a good example of that.

Why not as ask AV to explain what is wrong with physics. Because if Earth is only a few thousand years old our current understanding of physics tells us that Earth must have exploded in thermonuclear reaction similar to a supernova explosion, but it haven't! That requires an explanation; why haven't Earth exploded in a huge fireball and what is wrong with out current understanding of physics to prevent this from happening?

AV1611VET · Jun 13, 2013

In situ said:
Why not as ask AV to explain what is wrong with physics.

It is applied under two incorrect assumptions:

deep time
uninterrupted (uniformitarian) processing

Cheeky Monkey · Jun 13, 2013

AV1611VET said:
It is applied under two incorrect assumptions:

deep time

uninterrupted (uniformitarian) processing

Number one isn't an assumption it's a measurement and number two can be and has been tested against observation. But in truth the heat problem doesn't rely on either but instead is based on the same old physics you use to boil a kettle.

HitchSlap · Jun 13, 2013

AV1611VET said:
Do you want me to respect your lack of sight?

"I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miiiiiiiiiiiiiles.....

... oh yeah."

HitchSlap · Jun 13, 2013

AV1611VET said:
It is applied under two incorrect assumptions:

deep time

uninterrupted (uniformitarian) processing

You're really not qualified to make that assertion, are you?

In fact, you'd better have a really good reason for us to believe you over general scientific consensus.

Well, do you?

AV1611VET · Jun 13, 2013

HitchSlap said:
You're really not qualified to make that assertion, are you?

My Bible is, though.

HitchSlap said:
In fact, you'd better have a really good reason for us to believe you over general scientific consensus.

General scientific consensus can take a hike.

HitchSlap said:
Well, do you?

The Bible.

...Do you even believe in Evolution in the first palce?

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

I've already read the books you want burned.

I've already read the books you want burned.

I've already read the books you want burned.

I've already read the books you want burned.

Contributor

I've already read the books you want burned.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

I've already read the books you want burned.

I've already read the books you want burned.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

I've already read the books you want burned.

in vivo veritas

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

PROUDLY PRIMATE

PROUDLY PRIMATE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency