My Lunar Challenge

AV1611VET · Sep 17, 2009

dewaddict84 said:
No AV. I'm really REALLY not getting the picture. I'm just letting you know that was a poor analogy. At least I'm hoping that's a bad analogy.

Sorry --- I'll simplify it into probably the only theology you guys truly understand:

God did it.

azmurath · Sep 17, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Sorry --- I'll simplify it into probably the only theology you guys truly understand:

God did it.

You keep forgetting that God isnt real

Silly AV.

Wedjat · Sep 17, 2009

Of course that's always the answer if you can't be bothered to actually do research and learn the real reason behind something... God did it.

And if something looks like God didn't do it, well God did it anyway.

And what proof do you have of this? Well God is God, so he must have done it.

Honestly, and you wonder why half these threads are just people making fun of you.

Aggie · Sep 17, 2009

Are you going to answer my question, AV? At this point, I dont really expect to be able to get you to change your interpretation of the Bible, but I still think it would be beneficial if you could have a worldview thats at least consistent with the physical evidence, even if its not a parsimonious one.

Other than evolution, I think the Oomphalos hypothesis is the only thing that can explain this, but there are several possible versions of it. One is just embedded ERVs that mimic what evolution would have produced, the same way embedded age mimics what it would look like if the earth had actually existed for billions of years. You could also say that God left this evidence behind in order to test our faithor that Satan did, if you dont like the idea of God having deliberately deceived us, and you think its acceptable to believe that Satan could control the genomes of animals when God created them.

A third possibility is that God was aware ahead of time how many humanitarian and environmental benefits the theory of evolution would produce, and created evidence that would convince us of evolution for this reason. In this case God would be deliberately deceiving us also, but for our own benefit, since He would have known that humanity is better off with the theory of evolution than without it. If youre looking for an explanation for this evidence thats consistent with a literal interpretation of Genesis, this is the best one that I can think of.

Of course, none of these ideas have the elegant simplicity of the idea that evolution happened, and that Genesis is intended to be non-literal. But at least with one of these ideas youd have a belief system that takes the physical evidence into account.

AV1611VET · Sep 18, 2009

Aggie said:
Are you going to answer my question, AV?

I'll respectfully pass.

azmurath · Sep 18, 2009

AV1611VET said:
I'll respectfully pass.

AV, you are the most dishonest person I have ever met.

[serious] · Sep 18, 2009

azmurath said:
AV, you are the most dishonest person I have ever met.

nonsense, he's at least being honest that he isn't going to answer and is clearly upfront about his view that any logical inconsistancies are explained by saying, "a wizard, I mean, God did it"

it might not be a logical or even valid argument, I would say it is at least an honest one.

Aggie · Sep 18, 2009

I agree he isnt being dishonest, but he isnt exactly saying God did it either. Saying God did it would be going with one of the Oomphalos hypotheses that I suggested. In this case, he isnt saying much of anything.

AV1611VET said:
I'll respectfully pass.

Well, I hope youre at least thinking about this. I also hope youve been thinking about what we discussed here (and on the next several pages), about how it isnt possible to trust the Bible more than the physical world. I wanted to discuss that topic more than we did, but you seemed to lose interest in it after my last reply on November 20th.

I think youre probably aware that at the moment, there are aspects of your viewpoint that arent consistent, both with one another and with the physical world. Rectifying this problem wont require that you stop being a Christian, or even that you stop being a creationist, but it will require some thinking and learning.

Belk · Sep 18, 2009

Aggie said:
Cant we just answer his question? Hes not asking whether theres any evidence against it having been created ex nihilo, hes asking whether theres any evidence that it was.

The answer is that there isnt any evidence of ex nihilo creation. Why cant we just tell him that?

Not to be pedantic, but wouldn't a better answer be "We know of no evidence of ex nihilo creation"? Saying there is no evidence assumes knowledge of a negative.

azmurath · Sep 18, 2009

Belk said:
Not to be pedantic, but wouldn't a better answer be "We know of no evidence of ex nihilo creation"? Saying there is no evidence assumes knowledge of a negative.

I find this post shallow and pedantic.

Belk · Sep 18, 2009

azmurath said:
I find this post shallow and pedantic.

Could be worse I guess. At least you didn't find it annoying.

AV1611VET · Sep 18, 2009

Aggie said:
Well, I hope you’re at least thinking about this.

I don't suppose you would consider Adam not having ERVs at all, would you?

At least in Genesis 1?

I have a feeling viruses [of any kind] didn't exist in Genesis 1.

Cabal · Sep 18, 2009

AV1611VET said:
I don't suppose you would consider Adam not having ERVs at all, would you?

At least in Genesis 1?

I have a feeling viruses [of any kind] didn't exist in Genesis 1.

When was all the deceitful embedding meant to have happened again?

TheManeki · Sep 18, 2009

AV1611VET said:
The Bible says otherwise:

The same Bible that says the moon shines its own light in Genesis 1?

AV1611VET · Sep 18, 2009

Cabal said:
When was all the deceitful embedding meant to have happened again?

I'd say it's a little hard to call God deceitful when He told us --- in Writing --- what He did, how He did it, where He did it, when He did it, why He did it, what order He did it in, and even who the eyewitnesses were.

Aggie · Sep 18, 2009

Belk said:
Not to be pedantic, but wouldn't a better answer be "We know of no evidence of ex nihilo creation"? Saying there is no evidence assumes knowledge of a negative.

I guess thats true, but usually when the word evidence is used in this context, it implies evidence that we actually possess.

So for example, most people would say that at this point, there isnt any evidence of intelligent life on other planets. Obviously if intelligent life exists on other planets, those other planets would contain evidence for it. But since none of that evidence is available to us on earth, the common way of describing something like this is just to say that there isnt any.

AV1611VET said:
I don't suppose you would consider Adam not having ERVs at all, would you?

At least in Genesis 1?

I have a feeling viruses [of any kind] didn't exist in Genesis 1.

If youre going to come up with a version of YEC that doesnt directly contradict the physical evidence, I think youd have to say that Adam was created with these ERVs. It would have required a specific decision on Gods part to give him the exact selection of ERVs that evolution would have predicted; this isnt something that could have happened by accident or chance.

If these were Oomphalos-style embedded ERVs, they wouldnt have come from actual viruses, even though they would have been identical to the kind of ERVs that actual viruses produce. If viruses didnt exist yet at this point, I guess God would have had to model these embedded ERVs on his plan for how viruses would behave whenever he eventually created them.

Cabal · Sep 18, 2009

AV1611VET said:
I'd say it's a little hard to call God deceitful when He told us --- in Writing --- what He did, how He did it, where He did it, when He did it, why He did it, what order He did it in, and even who the eyewitnesses were.

No, embedded age is all your own idea, extrapolated from your own interpretations.

And you haven't answered the question - when did God insert all these genetic sequences that made it look like we inherited them over many more generations than his documentation said?

Skaloop · Sep 18, 2009

AV1611VET said:
I'd say it's a little hard to call God deceitful when He told us --- in Writing --- what He did, how He did it, where He did it, when He did it, why He did it, what order He did it in, and even who the eyewitnesses were.

So if you told your child to clean his room, and an hour later you check in and find a note saying "I put all my toys away, vaccuumed the floor, folded my clothes, dusted the shelves, and made my bed, all in the last hour" but the room is filthy, would you take that written testimony as fact, and that this is some sort of embedded filth that cme about only after he left, or would you realize that whoever wrote that note was being deceitful?

AV1611VET · Sep 18, 2009

Cabal said:
No, embedded age is all your own idea, extrapolated from your own interpretations.

Embedded Age reconciles science with Scripture, and is not a sola scriptura concept.

What's the matter, Cabal --- no room for anything sacred in the laboratory?

Cabal · Sep 18, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Embedded Age reconciles science with Scripture, and is not a sola scriptura concept.

Only in your mind, AV. You claim no history is embedded and yet there is, and you always refuse to acknowledge as such. But either way, nice to know you abandon your standards when it suits.

What's the matter, Cabal --- no room for anything sacred in the laboratory?

Nope, but trust me - none of your ideas encroach on it.

My Lunar Challenge

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Spirited Apostate

Soldier of Knowledge

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Soldier of Knowledge

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Christian Humanist

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Soldier of Knowledge

Well-Known Member

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency