My Day One Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Once again, you have created a thread on the science board, with only the thinnest connection to anything related to science.

I disagree.

Your "thinnest connection" still assumes there was science involved in Genesis 1:1.

And when I say "science can take a hike," I don't mean for any of it to be hanging around.

 

[AV1611VET]

The sciences you list apply to the real world. Not the mythical world of Genesis 1.

I take it you're voting NONE OF THE ABOVE?

 

[AV1611VET]

You will probably have some success in your safe space a.k.a. you church or Sunday school.

I'm asking educated, college students this as well.

They don't get off the hook.

In fact, this challenge is taylor made.

But once you apply Genesis 1 to the physical world or try to apply good sciences to Genesis 1, what you write turns into nonsense.

Then I won't apply "good sciences to Genesis 1."

That's your job -- assuming you can.

But I don't think you can.

You see, here's the difference.

We both agree that science doesn't apply here, but I'm saying it doesn't apply ON PRINCIPLE, and you're saying it doesn't apply because it DOESN'T FIT.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let me warn you educated people about something:

Any attempt in this thread to drag me outside of Genesis 1:1, so you can beat me to death with modern science is going to be met with stern resistance.

Just saying.

My advice is not to waste your time here.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I disagree.

Your "thinnest connection" still assumes there was science involved in Genesis 1:1.

And when I say "science can take a hike," I don't mean for any of it to be hanging around.

Then why are ya hangin' out in the science section? Creatin' this thread literally in that section?

If you don't want any science in your genesis discussion, then why not go to a theology section? (I know, it's because you actually want to denigrate science because no interpretation of that sentence or anything that comes in the next 2 pages has any backing by science, and it is rather the opposite.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why are ya hangin' out in the science section? Creatin' this thread literally in that section?

Post 59 please.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Post 59 please.

59

 

[Kylie]

Who's ignoring more? you or I?

Irrelevant.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Here is the Earth during a segment of Day One of the Creation Week:

A mass of sea water in the hollow of God's hand.

Isaiah 40:12 Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand,

Genesis 1:2a And the earth was without form, and void;

Which do not apply, in your opinion:

1. astronomy
2. biology
3. geology
4. all the above
5. none of the above

Reality time.
This is a glass marble. And a person striving to make a collection of old stories explain more than just the crude morality of one tribal group that has long since vanished.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is a glass marble.

Someone else thinks it's an ice cube (Post 3).

Anything to keep from having to understand ... right?

That's why I call them "challenges".

 

[Mr Laurier]

Someone else thinks it's an ice cube (Post 3).

Anything to keep from having to understand ... right?

Wrong. We are not all you.
Just because YOU resort to elaborate mental gymnastics to make yourself not understand the screamingly obvious, does not mean that I share this habit.

That's why I call them "challenges".

You should stop that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just because YOU resort to elaborate mental gymnastics to make yourself not understand the screamingly obvious, does not mean that I share this habit.

If YOU can find a better picture to use that exemplifies my point, then go right ahead.

Use your scientific research skills that you guys preach we should be using and find a better one.

But I'm going to go out on a limb and say you can't.

Because you don't have a clue as to what I or the Bible is saying.

Therefore, to you, it's either an ice cube or a glass marble.

Tell your scientific mindset to take a momentary hike, and MAYBE you'll see what I see.

 

[Mr Laurier]

If YOU can find a better picture to use that exemplifies my point, then go right ahead.

The problem is, that you do not have a point.

Use your scientific research skills that you guys preach we should be using and find a better one.

And you have a very wild fantasy here.

But I'm going to go out on a limb and say you can't.

you finally get something right

Because you don't have a clue as to what I or the Bible is saying.

And back to being wrong again.

Therefore, to you, it's either an ice cube or a glass marble.

Go with the evidence.

Tell your scientific mindset to take a momentary hike, and MAYBE you'll see what I see.

What do you see?
Elaborate conspiracies that make no sense?

 

[AV1611VET]

Because you don't have a clue as to what I or the Bible is saying.

What do you see?
Elaborate conspiracies that make no sense?

Thanks for the QED.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Let me warn you educated people about something:

Any attempt in this thread to drag me outside of Genesis 1:1, so you can beat me to death with modern science is going to be met with stern resistance.

The OP doesn't mention Genesis 1:1. Genesis 1:1 is first mentioned by a different poster in post #9. Your first mention of it is post #31.

Just saying.

Backatcha.

My advice is not to waste your time here.

Well, I fell for it. Oops.

 

[Sheila Davis]

Here is the Earth during a segment of Day One of the Creation Week:

A mass of sea water in the hollow of God's hand.

Isaiah 40:12 Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand,

Genesis 1:2a And the earth was without form, and void;

Which do not apply, in your opinion:

1. astronomy
2. biology
3. geology
4. all the above
5. none of the above

Not quite understanding the purpose - but isn't biology the study of animals and humans.
Life forms doesn't have anything to do with what you have listed and the waters and the earth existed before the life forms.

According to some scientific theories the Earth was once a water world. And the water of the Earth is older than both Earth and sun.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not quite understanding the purpose - but isn't biology the study of animals and humans.

Yes.

The point is, biology didn't exist on Day One, so pointing to plants and animals as some kind of argument against instant creation doesn't apply.

Life forms doesn't have anything to do with what you have listed and the waters and the earth existed before the life forms.

Absolutely correct.

According to some scientific theories the Earth was once a water world.

Yes -- but the Bible said it first.

And the water of the Earth is older than both Earth and sun.

If by Earth you mean the landmass, that is correct.

The landmass came on Day Three of the Creation Week, and the sun came on Day Four.

 

[durangodawood]

Here is the Earth during a segment of Day One of the Creation Week:

A mass of sea water in the hollow of God's hand.

Isaiah 40:12 Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand,

Genesis 1:2a And the earth was without form, and void;

Which do not apply, in your opinion:

1. astronomy
2. biology
3. geology
4. all the above
5. none of the above

#5

The sciences dont really apply to myths.

 

[AV1611VET]

The sciences don't really apply to myths.

Do you think scientists tend to relegate things that don't really apply to them to myth status to save face?

If so, do you think they're a little "trigger happy" with that stratagem?

 

[durangodawood]

Do you think scientists tend to relegate things that don't really apply to them to myth status to save face?

If so, do you think they're a little "trigger happy" with that stratagem?

I do think scientists are quite conservative about what they admit into the body of "knowledge". Sometimes overly so.

But I think most of them are rather sensible about how we should regard all the worlds various creation myths.