Solution to the creation/evolution debate...?

[FullMoon]

Life on Earth is in a constant state of change. New species rise, grow and adapt, while old species die out and go extinct. This planet has had five such extinction events in its past, and is currently in the middle of the sixth, arguably caused by... us.

The entire universe is ever-growing and changing. Stars, solar systems, entire galaxies, trillions in number, of which we are but the tiniest most insignificant speck in the biggest of all big pictures, are at this moment, being born, forming, going through predictable life cycles, and fizzling out on a time scale one would need a scientific calculator to even get a grip on..

False human knowledge.

Eden, The Flood, Babel... God's hopping from one foot to the next, slapping quick fixes on problems that an office temp would've seen coming a mile away.

The result of man's choices; there is free will you know.

Weren't you stumbling with explaining helium balloons not too long ago?

In what way? Helium has a lower density than the surrounding air, so the balloon is pushed up by the air as the air tries to displace the balloons original position. I'm pretty sure the original question was to why there is a "preference" for low dense things to "favor" higher altitudes, and high dense things to "favor" lower altitudes. My answer was to that point when disregarding "gravity", or did you miss that?

He didn't; it was poetic license. Easy.

You are too far gone. Even the enemies of the Messiah did not deny his miracles.

1. Neither of these miracle stories are *necessary* to the basic theological conclusions of Christianity. Christianity could be completely true even if these were not.

This is not about its "necessity" but its truthfulness. Christianity is not just the new testament, it includes the old testament as well; including creation. The Messiah's coming is a fulfillment of many old testament prophesies, and he himself confirms the truthfulness of the old testament. Furthermore, without the resurrection of the Messiah, there would be no Christianity, so the resurrection is "necessary". Then use today's "knowledge" to explain it.

To reiterate: We have no need to explain every miraculous or supernatural claim in the bible or any other scripture, especially when there is no reason to think that they actually happened as written.

My point is the inability for human "knowledge" to explain any miracle. So why use this knowledge to explain creation? Just because you didn't see it yourself, don't think it didn't happen, especially when many confirm its occurrence. Do you think the Israelites, or the Jews are mistaken when they say their ancestors walked on dry land through the Red Sea? I think the existence of the nation of Israel is enough reason to think the miracles actually happened. How about the faith of the many Christians insisting on the resurrection of the Messiah. Is that not enough reason? The empty tomb?

 

[Shemjaza]

In what way? Helium has a lower density than the surrounding air, so the balloon is pushed up by the air as the air tries to displace the balloons original position. I'm pretty sure the original question was to why there is a "preference" for low dense things to "favor" higher altitudes, and high dense things to "favor" lower altitudes. My answer was to that point when disregarding "gravity", or did you miss that?

Remember when you couldn't answer why lower density things went up?

Without gravity the less dense would be just as likely to go down.

Remember we've measured gravity in vacuum chambers and you had no explanation for that.


As a general rule, if a model can't explain sunrises or seasons... it's going to fail as a description of the universe.

 

[FullMoon]

Remember when you couldn't answer why lower density things went up?

Without gravity the less dense would be just as likely to go down.

Remember we've measured gravity in vacuum chambers and you had no explanation for that.

A vacuum would have a density of zero, so anything in such an environment would be more dense, and so would go down. The constant rate of fall with everything in such an environment is because of the lack of force to resist its downwards movement.

*** opinion; could have stated it before, but thought best to go with "don't know" ***
As to why less dense things prefer the higher altitudes, or rather, why more dense things prefer the lower altitudes, and this is just an opinion; could be spiritual in nature. I suggest that more dense things are more "physical" and less "spiritual", and so move away from heaven, whereas, the less dense things are more "spiritual" than "physical". Our world is both physical and spiritual, so wouldn't be surprising if some of the natural occurrences stem from the spiritual. How we are able to think in the first place is from the spiritual.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This is not about its "necessity" but its truthfulness. Christianity is not just the new testament, it includes the old testament as well; including creation. The Messiah's coming is a fulfillment of many old testament prophesies, and he himself confirms the truthfulness of the old testament. Furthermore, without the resurrection of the Messiah, there would be no Christianity, so the resurrection is "necessary". Then use today's "knowledge" to explain it.

None of this has anything to do with the wine from water or multiplication of loaves "miracles" that prompted my response. They aren't old testament prophesies, just minor miracle stories featuring Jesus. They aren't even the important miracles of Jesus. I feel no compunction to "explain" them because I see no reason to think they ever happened.

My point is the inability for human "knowledge" to explain any miracle. So why use this knowledge to explain creation? Just because you didn't see it yourself, don't think it didn't happen, especially when many confirm its occurrence. Do you think the Israelites, or the Jews are mistaken when they say their ancestors walked on dry land through the Red Sea? I think the existence of the nation of Israel is enough reason to think the miracles actually happened. How about the faith of the many Christians insisting on the resurrection of the Messiah. Is that not enough reason? The empty tomb?

The empty tomb is another claim and the only evidence for it is in the Gospels.

Why would the Israelites need to cross the Red Sea, they were already from Canaan?

None of this has a thing to do with creation/evolution.

 

[FullMoon]

None of this has anything to do with the wine from water or multiplication of loaves "miracles" that prompted my response. They aren't old testament prophesies, just minor miracle stories featuring Jesus. They aren't even the important miracles of Jesus. I feel no compunction to "explain" them because I see no reason to think they ever happened.



The empty tomb is another claim and the only evidence for it is in the Gospels.

Why would the Israelites need to cross the Red Sea, they were already from Canaan?

None of this has a thing to do with creation/evolution.

Apologies for not giving the resurrection as my initial miracle example (thought the miracles in scripture were already accepted). Creation is a miraculous work by the Almighty. I am pointing out that the current "knowledge" is insufficient to explain even the recent miracles we know of. I pointed to the resurrection because it cannot be deemed as "unnecessary" for Christianity, and also commented that Christianity includes the old testament so that creation is clearly seen as a teaching of Christianity. So my point is, if the current "knowledge" cannot explain a miracle, and in this case the resurrection, how can it explain creation.

 

[sjastro]

A vacuum would have a density of zero, so anything in such an environment would be more dense, and so would go down. The constant rate of fall with everything in such an environment is because of the lack of force to resist its downwards movement.

*** opinion; could have stated it before, but thought best to go with "don't know" ***
As to why less dense things prefer the higher altitudes, or rather, why more dense things prefer the lower altitudes, and this is just an opinion; could be spiritual in nature. I suggest that more dense things are more "physical" and less "spiritual", and so move away from heaven, whereas, the less dense things are more "spiritual" than "physical". Our world is both physical and spiritual, so wouldn't be surprising if some of the natural occurrences stem from the spiritual. How we are able to think in the first place is from the spiritual.

Wrong vacuums do not have a zero density and represents a departure from classical physics to Quantum Field Theory as described in this post.
This have been confirmed in the laboratory via the Casimir effect where vacuums can exert a pressure.

Leaving the intricacies of Quantum Field Theory aside since you have a "thing" against gravity what is preventing the Earth's atmosphere from simply dissipating into the vacuum of outer space?
The answer is hydrostatic equilibrium where gravity place a pivotal role.

Apart from illustrating a curved and not flat Earth note the answer doesn't rely on evoking the supernatural as you have done.
We can thank the ancient Greeks for suggesting we should use our minds to explain nature rather than relying on the supernatural.

 

[John Bannister]

The different between a miracle and what we call a 'natural event' seems to come from unlikeliness. In Quantum Theory it is not impossible for a human to teleport to the other side of the world at random, it's just effectively impossible because it's so astonishingly unlikely. Even if miracles were to occur today in a large public event there would be some way for people to convince themselves that it was 'simply natural' unaware that God is in everything.
In Egypt, Moses was successfully argued against by magicians when he demonstrated miracle, and the plagues were written off as simply natural until the last.

 

[TLK Valentine]

False human knowledge.

And you're going to tell me otherwise -- and what are you, a Klingon?

The result of man's choices; there is free will you know.

Seems like man's choices keep catching God by surprise, forcing Him to slap some sort of temporary fix on His creation while He scrambles to come up with a real one.

The whole Jesus scenario is something we're supposed to take on faith that He got right... this time.

In what way? Helium has a lower density than the surrounding air, so the balloon is pushed up by the air as the air tries to displace the balloons original position. I'm pretty sure the original question was to why there is a "preference" for low dense things to "favor" higher altitudes, and high dense things to "favor" lower altitudes. My answer was to that point when disregarding "gravity", or did you miss that?

I missed the part where you acknowledged that gravity existed and had an understanding regarding how it worked. Kudos; you seems to have learned something.

You are too far gone. Even the enemies of the Messiah did not deny his miracles.

False -- besides, if I'm not a follower or an enemy, what does that make me?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Apologies for not giving the resurrection as my initial miracle example (thought the miracles in scripture were already accepted). Creation is a miraculous work by the Almighty. I am pointing out that the current "knowledge" is insufficient to explain even the recent miracles we know of. I pointed to the resurrection because it cannot be deemed as "unnecessary" for Christianity, and also commented that Christianity includes the old testament so that creation is clearly seen as a teaching of Christianity. So my point is, if the current "knowledge" cannot explain a miracle, and in this case the resurrection, how can it explain creation.

Again, I see no reason to explain the minor miracles of Jesus because I see no reason to think they are anything but legends added to his story before it was written down.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

*** opinion; could have stated it before, but thought best to go with "don't know" ***
As to why less dense things prefer the higher altitudes, or rather, why more dense things prefer the lower altitudes, and this is just an opinion; could be spiritual in nature. I suggest that more dense things are more "physical" and less "spiritual", and so move away from heaven, whereas, the less dense things are more "spiritual" than "physical". Our world is both physical and spiritual, so wouldn't be surprising if some of the natural occurrences stem from the spiritual. How we are able to think in the first place is from the spiritual.

Not so different from Aristotle, who thought that things move towards their 'natural places' in respect of the centre of the cosmos (the Earth) according to their weight (their combination of earth, air, fire, and water), where earth is heaviest, water is next, and air and fire are lightest. Sadly, he was wrong too.

 

[FullMoon]

Again, I see no reason to explain the minor miracles of Jesus because I see no reason to think they are anything but legends added to his story before it was written down.

The resurrection of the Messiah is no minor miracle, and its fundamental for Christianity.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The resurrection of the Messiah is no minor miracle, and its fundamental for Christianity.

That's not what was spoken of. It was the "loaves & fishes" and "water to wine". Tell me those are fundamental.

 

[FullMoon]

Seems like man's choices keep catching God by surprise, forcing Him to slap some sort of temporary fix on His creation while He scrambles to come up with a real one.

The whole Jesus scenario is something we're supposed to take on faith that He got right... this time.

Salvation through the Messiah was planned from the beginning. Removing obstacles from men, such as the tree of knowledge of good and evil, or preventing the serpent from attempting to deceive would have made free will meaningless. Men had to be provided with options in order for them to exercise their free will. The Most High wants people to come to him willingly, not for men to simply be programmed that way.

 

[FullMoon]

That's not what was spoken of. It was the "loaves & fishes" and "water to wine". Tell me those are fundamental.

You deemed those as unnecessary, and so I pointed to the resurrection of the Messiah, for that cannot be deemed as unnecessary. The whole point was that human "knowledge" cannot explain any miracle, so how can it be used to explain creation. It is not my problem that you cannot accept other miracles recorded in scripture.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The resurrection of the Messiah is no minor miracle, and its fundamental for Christianity.

It's also not part of the messianic prophecies, and in fact, disqualified Jesus as the Jewish messiah.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Salvation through the Messiah was planned from the beginning. Removing obstacles from men, such as the tree of knowledge of good and evil, or preventing the serpent from attempting to deceive would have made free will meaningless. Men had to be provided with options in order for them to exercise their free will. The Most High wants people to come to him willingly, not for men to simply be programmed that way.

Hellfire would seem to dispute that claim -- the "choice" to say yes is meaningless once One has created a place of eternal torture for those who say "no."

 

[FullMoon]

It's also not part of the messianic prophecies, and in fact, disqualified Jesus as the Jewish messiah.

My understanding is that the Jewish people are focusing on the second coming of the Messiah; when he will establish the Kingdom of God on earth. I also hear that the Jewish people do not read Isaiah 53 as it speaks of the Messiah as the suffering servant. This chapter speaks of the Messiah being killed, and later on being rewarded. Does this not hint to his resurrection?
We go from:
For He was cut off from the land of the living; He was stricken for the transgression of My people.
to:
After the anguish of His soul, He will see the light of life and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant will justify many, and He will bear their iniquities.
Therefore I will allot Him a portion with the great, and He will divide the spoils with the strong, because He has poured out His life unto death, and He was numbered with the transgressors.

 

[TLK Valentine]

My understanding is that the Jewish people are focusing on the second coming of the Messiah; when he will establish the Kingdom of God on earth.

It's a bit of a muddle -- early Judaism saw the Messiah as a King/General who would lead the nation to prominence and power -- "Make Israel Great Again," as it were.

Fast forward a couple of centuries and a Babylonian Captivity later, and as that old image looked more and more like a pipe dream, the "Messiah" becomes a religious leader whose coming is to herald the end of the world as we know it.

Both images of the Messiah tended to get mixed as time went on...

I also hear that the Jewish people do not read Isaiah 53 as it speaks of the Messiah as the suffering servant. This chapter speaks of the Messiah being killed, and later on being rewarded. Does this not hint to his resurrection?

It's Christians, not Jews, who see the Messiah and the Suffering Servant as one and the same -- many Jews see the Suffering Servant as the Nation of Israel itself.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You deemed those as unnecessary, and so I pointed to the resurrection of the Messiah, for that cannot be deemed as unnecessary. The whole point was that human "knowledge" cannot explain any miracle, so how can it be used to explain creation. It is not my problem that you cannot accept other miracles recorded in scripture.

Again. Stop trying to pin me with claims I didn't make in this thread.

Right now I am objecting to your attempt to paint my rejection of the minor miracles of Jesus as a rejection of *all* of the alleged miracles of Jesus. I was specifically rejecting the notion that I *needed* to "explain" the loaves and fishes or the water-to-wine, just because it was written in one of the Gospels.

 

[FullMoon]

Hellfire would seem to dispute that claim -- the "choice" to say yes is meaningless once One has created a place of eternal torture for those who say "no."

I think the "eternal torture" is an error of mainstream Christianity. The dead do not feel pain, they do not think, they are unconscious. To go through "eternal torture" requires one to be living for eternity. Eternal life is for the faithful; the ones who say "no" go to the lake of fire, and so die a second time (after they have been raised from the dead and judged); their initial life on earth was enough for them. I think the second death is said to be permanent because the Most High has not promised a resurrection from it.