Once again, CREATIONISTS!

[Psudopod]

And so, Psudopod, having said this, can you then come up with an arguement for Creationism, as the OP is asking?

I say, "No, you cannot" and submit my Apple Challenge as proof.

What say you?

I totally agree there is no evidnece for 600 year / global flood / no evolution creationism. It has nothing to do with your apples, it's about looking at the world and what the evidence says. And the evidence says
a) the world is 4.6 billion years old in a universe 13.7 billion years old.

or
b)The world is 6000 years old, but God hs given it 4.6 billion years of history so we can never ever tell the difference with scenario a.

Even if we know 100% that b) is the truth, it won't help us learn anything. If you create a model of the earth assuming it's 6000 years old and has a global flood, the results you get comign out of won't tally up with reality.

Here's a hypothetical for you:
In front of you is a very sick child. Someone walks in and leaves a syringe and a piece of paper at your side. The paper says "This is a drug I created ex-nihilo. It is a one time creation and there is no evidence for its creation." You give the drug to the child and it is cured.

Then someone comes in with a second sick child. Even if you are utterly convinced that the drug was an act of ex-nihilo special creation, it won't help the second child. In order to cure the second one, you'd have to develope a cure based on the evidence you have in front of you.

Same as knowing your apple was created won't help me make a better orchard, knowing the earth is 6000 years (or created last Thursday by the IPU), won't help us learn about it. If you expect science to change to include things for which there is no evidence, it won't work as a methodolgy any more.

You don't have to study science yourself. That's fine. However don't go demanding that we take something that works and break it because you cannot see outside your own interpetation of the bible.

 

[FishFace]

By the way guys, I just created an apple ex nihilo on the desk in front of me. AV: you are being completely irrational if you don't believe me, because there's just as much evidence for the apple as there is for biblical creation.

 

[TheOutsider]

If you want evidence for creationism, simply read your Bible (if you have one)

Yes, I have a Bible and have read it several times. I don't see any reason to believe that the book of Genesis is a science textbook though.

and visit the numerous creation sites across the Internet.

I have done that countless time. I've seen them give arguments against evolution but haven't seen any evidence for Creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you belive the Bible to be a reliable source of information?

It wrote Israel's history in advance, then fulfilled it with 100% accuracy.

I asked you this one before. IIRC, you replied with something about the prophecy of the creation of Israel being fulfilled. I then asked whether you were talking about ancient or modern Israel.

Ancient Israel, modern Israel, it doesn't matter.

The Bible even fulfilled prophecies of non-Jewish individuals; like the Roman soldier who pierced Jesus' side, the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, and the occupation of Jerusalem until Armageddon.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. the scientific evidence DOESN'T point to Biblical creationism.

In my opinion it should, if interpreted correctly. The reason it doesn't is twofold:

1. Your paradigms are so ungodly - (atheistic).
2. You don't have equipment sensitive enough.

Again --- just my opinion.

 

[Nathan Poe]

In my opinion it should, if interpreted correctly. The reason it doesn't is twofold:

1. Your paradigms are so ungodly - (atheistic).
2. You don't have equipment sensitive enough.

Again --- just my opinion.

3. Your opinion is arbitrary.
4. The Bible is being interpreted wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science doesn't involve the supernatural.

Why? Because "science" recognizes that they are beyond their level of observation and shouldn't be messed with, anyway? Or because they don't exist?

Deities are supernatural.

Deities [plural]?

Therefore, science is godless.

Therefore "science" is atheistic.

But it isn't atheistic as it stays out of the supernatural.

I didn't get that.

It's not by fault that you take your "science" out of a book written thousands of years ago.

I take my science off the same clipboard you do yours. I just take it to a higher level; and thus am not satisfied with their conclusions and paradigms.

Let me give you a good example:

Suppose you were my boss at work, and you came to me and said, "AV, I want you to come up with an approximation of the depth of the dust on the moon, based on a rate of dustfall of 1/10,000 inch per year."

I would calculate it as follows:

• 1/10000 x 6100 = 0.61 inches

Now if I present that to you, and you say, "Whoa! Only 6100 years? Redo this with a 3 billion-year-old moon please."

Then I would return an answer of 25,000 feet:

• 1/10000 x 3000000000 = 300,000/12 = 25,000.

Now obviously we're both wrong; but who was closer, you or I?

Now they go to the moon and what do they find? 4 inches of dust. So how do you readjust your paradigm?

Obviously you'd have to either make the moon much younger, or the rate of dustfall much less, or both.

Even if God inspired them, who's to say that He didn't tell the writer of Genesis what we observe in nature, but he didn't understand and tried to scribe as well as he could. Quite simply, the authors were limited by their experiences.

Would you, if you were my boss and told me to dictate a letter, and I wrote it as inaccurately as you say the Bible is written, keep me employed?

Would you then, for the next 1500 years allow for the same kind of erroneous behavior?

Then preserve the writings throughout the centuries?

 

[Patashu]

The scientific consensus never pointed to a rate of moon dust accumulation that high, AV.

 

[AV1611VET]

I wrote it. without evidence, I have no reason to believe it happened.

Perhaps I should've put "one-time event" in quotes before?

It's still wrong --- but at least you changed it from "none" to "I have no reason to believe it happened."

In my Apple Challenge, for instance, I clearly created the apple ex nihilo, but because there's no evidence, you, the apple-holder would deny it happened?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you saying an apple is not made from its constituent molecules? And those molecules are not made from atoms? And those atoms are not made from electrons and protons and neutrons? And those particles are not made from quarks of all different flavors?

I don't care what latin name you give it there AV... there simply is no way to create an apple from nothing without creating the apple. The molecular structure must be arranged just so in order for it to BE an apple. In my hand is an apple. It just appeared there. How do I convince someone that you made it ex nihilo? You tell me the process by which you did it. That's the evidence. HOW AV? Not, "there is the apple." I get that. HOW did you create it from nothing? In this answer is the evidence that will answer your apple challenge. No omniscience required. Your challenge is met, dispatched and this several month-long charade is over.

Um --- I think I'll let the readers decide if my Apple Challenge is "met and dispatched" based on this post.

 

[AV1611VET]

By the way AV... any luck finding the words ex nihilo in the Bible?

Ya --- in between "Bible" and "Rapture."

 

[AV1611VET]

The scientific consensus never pointed to a rate of moon dust accumulation that high, AV.

I understand that --- it was just an example.

 

[MattTheAgnostic]

AV I was just wondering, what's the objective of your apple challenge? I was just looking for some clarification.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV I was just wondering, what's the objective of your apple challenge? I was just looking for some clarification.

To get you (plural) to admit yourselves that ex nihilo creation (of anything) leaves no evidence behind --- and hopefully that will put a stop to people asking for evidence of Creation.

 

[MattTheAgnostic]

To get you (plural) to admit yourselves that ex nihilo creation (of anything) leaves no evidence behind --- and hopefully that will put a stop to people asking for evidence of Creation.

If there is no evidence then why do you believe it occured?

 

[AV1611VET]

If there is no evidence then why do you believe it occured?

The Bible says He did; q.v. the "and God said" phrases of Genesis 1.

 

[h2whoa]

To get you (plural) to admit yourselves that ex nihilo creation (of anything) leaves no evidence behind --- and hopefully that will put a stop to people asking for evidence of Creation.

But that's not true. The poorly named Big Bang has left evidence behind such as expansion and radiation etc.

 

[FishFace]

It wrote Israel's history in advance, then fulfilled it with 100% accuracy.

The Bible even fulfilled prophecies of non-Jewish individuals; like the Roman soldier who pierced Jesus' side, the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, and the occupation of Jerusalem until Armageddon.

This, folks, is AV's sole reason for believing that the whole of modern geology, and a large part of modern biology, is wrong.
He thinks that a vague passage which could be interpreted as prophecy, and a vague "fulfillment" of that passage, plus some more specific prophecies, and their alleged fulfillment in the same text as that which makes the prophecy is enough to mark the text (and his interpretation of it) as 100% accurate.

This is surely irrational. One vague prophecy, with no timescale specified, fulfilled after 2,000 years. Then some more specific prophecies which were said to be fulfilled by people who knew of the prophecies or could even have added the prophecies in at a later date.

AV, there's a basic piece of logic that you should be aware of. If you are to claim 100% confidence in something, then you must have 100% confidence in every piece of reasoning that you used to justify your confidence.

So, let us take it that you justify your 100% confidence in the Bible with appeal to prophecy that the Roman soldiers would gamble for Jesus' clothes.
Well, that justification is reliant on the claim that whoever wrote down that the soldiers gambled for his clothes didn't just make it up, since he would have been aware of the prophecy in the first place.
It is also reliant on the claim that whoever wrote it down didn't write the prophecy itself, so that what he observed would look as if it had been predicted.

Do you also have 100% confidence in these? If so, what's your justification for them? And so on for every single prophecy you claim the Bible makes and fulfills.

 

[AV1611VET]

But that's not true. The poorly named Big Bang has left evidence behind such as expansion and radiation etc.

I understand that the Big Bang is poorly named, as some call it the Big Expansion; but isn't that the point that Isaiah and others make in the Bible when they say things like:

[bible]Isaiah 40:22[/bible]
[bible]Psalm 104:2[/bible]

 

[Blayz]

I understand that the Big Bang is poorly named, as some call it the Big Expansion; but isn't that the point that Isaiah and others make in the Bible when they say things like:

[bible]Isaiah 40:22[/bible]
[bible]Psalm 104:2[/bible]

I think we can all agree the bible says nothing about the big bang/expansion AV1. Not quite sure why you'd bring up two of all of the verses that say nothing about it. Why not just quote some commandments? they are just as irrelevant to the topic as these versus.