My Reconciliation Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Methinks atomweaver was suggesting creationists to go after the plank in their own theory's eye before they go after the mote in evolutionary theory's.

Then "me" better thinks again.

All of those you mentioned:

• Young Earth
• Old Earth
• Gap
• Ruin and restoration

--- have one thing in common that all of us brothers and sisters in Christ agree on:

• ex nihilo creation

What happened after that, is a matter of interpretation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes. Yes, God can do that. God can do anything.

Which means the God Hypothesis is exactly and wholly useless.

God can make all my reactions run counter to every law of Thermodynamics next Tuesday.

God can make things appear as they are not to the trained eye.

God can make verbs nouns and nouns verbs and can alter all meaning of all terms at his will.

God can make every word in your sentence mean just the opposite for the next 10 seconds and then switch it back.

God can do anything.

Now make some sense of the world using that information.

Did you want to address this with the correct parallels, Thaumaturgy?

What you're describing is the manipulation of something already in existence.

 

[AV1611VET]

In so doing you will often see the Fundamentalists on this board make broad claims, often founded on their own ignorance of the science that would gainsay it, and then they will never brook the concept of self examination.

You mean "broach"?

 

[AV1611VET]

Here are two related questions:

1. Can God make a square circle

Absolutely --- so can you, if you have the right equipment:

• Take a square and spin it so fast that the four corners occupy 1/4 of an arc simultaneously.

 

[Loudmouth]

Absolutely --- so can you, if you have the right equipment:

• Take a square and spin it so fast that the four corners occupy 1/4 of an arc simultaneously.

If it has velocity then it can't, by definition, be everywhere simultaneously.

 

[TheManeki]

Then "me" better thinks again.

All of those you mentioned:

• Young Earth
• Old Earth
• Gap
• Ruin and restoration

--- have one thing in common that all of us brothers and sisters in Christ agree on:

• ex nihilo creation

What happened after that, is a matter of interpretation.

Except throughout the 20th century, the promoters of all these various interpretations tended to claim divine inspiration for their pet interpretation and dismissed the others as diabolically inspired.

Creationists really need to get their own house in order.

And your assertion that all Christians are creationists is equally priceless.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Absolutely --- so can you, if you have the right equipment:

• Take a square and spin it so fast that the four corners occupy 1/4 of an arc simultaneously.

Sorry but Fish didn't ask about making a square appear circular.

There's a difference. But then, based on the whole "Embedded History" gambit, this subtlety may have slipped past.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You mean "broach"?

Have you not yet learned not to question me in language usage?

Brook: S: (v) digest, endure, stick out, stomach, bear, stand, tolerate, support, brook, abide, suffer, put up (put up with something or somebody unpleasant)
(SOURCE)

Puh-leeze!

 

[thaumaturgy]

Did you want to address this with the correct parallels, Thaumaturgy?

What you're describing is the manipulation of something already in existence.

Nope, while you may wish the debate to center solely around ex nihilo creation, the point was made can God do something "supralogical". And I merely responded that God can do anything, he's GOD.

And because of that, as scientists, it is a non-explanatory hypothesis.

If it can do ANYTHING then it serves no value to explain anything, unless you just want all of humanity to devolve down to sitting around letting God do to and with us whatever he wants.

No reason to study anything, no reason to do anything, no reason for anything.

It is all just as God wishes.

If that is what "life" is supposed to be, then I fear it is far more pointless than the worst atheistic imaginings you can postulate.

 

[Braunwyn]

Have you not yet learned not to question me in language usage?

Brook: S: (v) digest, endure, stick out, stomach, bear, stand, tolerate, support, brook, abide, suffer, put up (put up with something or somebody unpleasant)
(SOURCE)

Puh-leeze!

ahh, well there ya go. You guys are a bright bunch.

 

[thaumaturgy]

ahh, well there ya go. You guys are a bright bunch.

There is very little I do well, but I do have a whole arsenal of seldom-used english words that I like.

I'm not even much of a grammarian, but if the government ever came through and demanded the U.S. population pass the SAT's language skills test in order to save their lives, well, let's just say I'm prepare for that eventuality.

 

[Braunwyn]

There is very little I do well,

I doubt that.

but I do have a whole arsenal of seldom-used english words that I like.

I'm not even much of a grammarian, but if the government ever came through and demanded the U.S. population pass the SAT's language skills test in order to save their lives, well, let's just say I'm prepare for that eventuality.

I wish I shared your language skills but I'm pretty challenged in that department.

 

[Skaloop]

How would you reconcile these two statements w/o being disrespectful to either one:

1. This rock has been in existence for 6100 years.
2. This rock is 4.57 billion years old.

If I had to, I'd say that for (1), the rock has been in its current form for 6100 years, whereas for (2), the materials forming the rock are 4.57 billion years old.

 

[atomweaver]

This matter is for anyone, and my OP doesn't target a non-Christian audience.

Did you intend the double negative there?

So it's okay for you to respond, but you don't think anyone else should unless they're a Christian?

Note, I didn't accept your challenge. My 'response' was only to point you in the right direction for your most relevant answers (your fellow Christians... many of whom find your 6000 y.o. number to be absolute bunk, based on their interpretation of the same Good Book you are citing. Some of even them call themselves Old Earth Creationists.)
My point is, nevermind the EACs here in the evo debate for a sec, you can't even find an OEC that will take your "embedded age" line, and they're supposedly on the same side of this debate as you..! Why is it that you've got more opponents on your own side, than there are EA biologists in the NIH? See the Clergy Letter quote I offered in my first reply... they suggest that its just so much Biblical charlatanism.

 

[TheOutsider]

How would you reconcile these two statements w/o being disrespectful to either one:

1. This rock has been in existence for 6100 years.
2. This rock is 4.57 billion years old.

Two contradictory statements. No way to logically reconcile them (unless you do the trick of adding "at least" to the first statement). I wonder what response you would get in the Creationism subforum.

 

[us38]

Here's a question for all you guys that think it can't logically be done:

• Can God do it, employing supralogical means?

There's no point in arguing with someone who outright rejects logic. You do realize that by making this challenge and this ammendment to it that you are saying god is irrational, right?

 

[FishFace]

Absolutely --- so can you, if you have the right equipment

What would it look like? And what colour would that pure gold bar made of pure silver look like?

Take a square and spin it so fast that the four corners occupy 1/4 of an arc simultaneously.

If its four corners occupy 1/4 of an arc simultaneously, then it's no longer a square.

 

[RevCowboy]

How would you reconcile these two statements w/o being disrespectful to either one:

1. This rock has been in existence for 6100 years.
2. This rock is 4.57 billion years old.

As a Christian, as a clergy person, and as person who is almost finished his Masters degree in theology, I want to ask where you got the number 6100? Its not biblical, but if you can show me that the Bible somehow indicates that number I would happy to reconcile that statement for you. Otherwise, I must conclude that you are a heretic.

 

[Split Rock]

As a Christian, as a clergy person, and as person who is almost finished his Masters degree in theology, I want to ask where you got the number 6100? Its not biblical, but if you can show me that the Bible somehow indicates that number I would happy to reconcile that statement for you. Otherwise, I must conclude that you are a heretic.

I believe the number comes from adding up all the genealogies between Adam and Jesus in Genesis.

 

[Nathan Poe]

How would you reconcile these two statements w/o being disrespectful to either one:

1. This rock has been in existence for 6100 years.
2. This rock is 4.57 billion years old.

I'd use a third statement:

3. If whoever said statements 1 and 2 is referring to the same rock, that person is clearly off their meds.