Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[AveChristusRex]

I've done some lurking, but I'm busy and the threads move too fast. Joining a conversation that's already thousands of posts long risks recycling points that have already been discussed in depth.

I hope to never criticize Christianity. After enough years of deep discussion with my brother and others, I've long since accepted that there are no actual "defeaters" for the faith writ large. If you've been involved in creation/evolution discussions for long enough, you'll have encountered Glenn Morton, an irascible character who lived his truth that there is no conflict between an old earth, human evolution, and biblical literalism.

The point being that contentious doctrines are rarely considered essential even among Christians.

Civil discussion works for me. And while I have had thousands of students, in my experience, education only occurs when it's driven by students themselves. No matter how sumptuously the table is set, if your company isn't hungry, they won't eat.

Wow...much respect for being respectful! Many won't do such credence. God bless!

 

[AveChristusRex]

All of those things are indeed evidence that my husband loves, me, but you try and shift it to talk of proof in order to make your point deceptively.

Im not that clever

But that kind of faith is very different from religious faith, isn't it?

No, we are absolutely sure God exists, just as you are absolutely sure you have a companion, the faith comes in when we are considering their love for us, there we find the Christian faith: not faith that God exists, but faith that He died for us, and loves us eternally.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've done some lurking, but I'm busy and the threads move too fast. Joining a conversation that's already thousands of posts long risks recycling points that have already been discussed in depth.

That's actually one of the most reasonable things I've heard this month.

I hope to never criticize Christianity. After enough years of deep discussion with my brother and others, I've long since accepted that there are no actual "defeaters" for the faith writ large. If you've been involved in creation/evolution discussions for long enough, you'll have encountered Glenn Morton, an irascible character who lived his truth that there is no conflict between an old earth, human evolution, and biblical literalism.

I've been around for quite some time, myself, and although I haven't encountered Glenn Morton, I have encountered the likes of Francis Collins and Malcom A. Jeeves, among many, many others from varied backgrounds in science.

Wouldn't it be great if everyone had a brother, or sibling, like yours?

The point being that contentious doctrines are rarely considered essential even among Christians.

True enough.

Civil discussion works for me. And while I have had thousands of students, in my experience, education only occurs when it's driven by students themselves. No matter how sumptuously the table is set, if your company isn't hungry, they won't eat.

Admittedly, my teaching skills are paltry being that I've only taught for a year and a half; of course, then again, I quite because I'm too much of an avante garde philosopher to put up with anti-intellectuals or luddites, and I'm afraid that even the likes of Nel Noddings and Carol Gilligan, however much I appreciate their views on the Philosophy of Education, weren't enough to produce the patience in me to stay the course as a professionally invested educator.

But such is life. I'm glad to hear that you were able to find what sounds like a solid spot in your calling. I imagine you're good at what you do.

 

[AveChristusRex]

Wow, Hans! See? You actually can give a decent hand to the plow of Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis.

Keep going, though. You're almost there!

If Christianity was undeniably false as folks like Kylie ascertain, then they should focus primarily on answering the fundamentals of the faith: Is the Bible the Word of God, if yes, then there should be no contradiction, if no and there is contradiction, then the faith fails entirely. Why not focus on exegesis, rather than throwing secular science at the wall and hoping it would stick?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If Christianity was undeniably false as folks like Kylie ascertain, then they should focus primarily on answering the fundamentals of the faith: Is the Bible the Word of God, if yes, then there should be no contradiction, if no and there is contradiction, then the faith fails entirely. Why not focus on exegesis, rather than throwing secular science at the wall and hoping it would stick?

That's a good point. So we need to ask: Why don't people--or Christians-- engage the learning and acquisition of reading skills and concepts involved in interpreting the Bible in the best, most technically and spiritually inclined way(s) possible?

I'm sure we would run into many human road blocks to it all along the way. There's a lot that, unfortunately, goes into understanding almost anything we humans have to read. The Bible is just one more complex thing to have to grapple with over the bills and the legal fine print we all get zapped with in daily life.

But you're right.

 

[BCP1928]

If Christianity was undeniably false as folks like Kylie ascertain, then they should focus primarily on answering the fundamentals of the faith: Is the Bible the Word of God, if yes, then there should be no contradiction, if no and there is contradiction, then the faith fails entirely. Why not focus on exegesis, rather than throwing secular science at the wall and hoping it would stick?

The truth or falsity of the Faith is not really at issue here. Kylie's challenge depends on the passage about faith moving mountains being literal rather than figurative.

 

[AveChristusRex]

The truth or falsity of the Faith is not really at issue here. Kylie's challenge depends on the passage about faith moving mountains being literal rather than figurative.

So this is similar to a child asking "why" to every answer given? Puts the conversation into perspective

 

[BCP1928]

That's a good point. So we need to ask: Why don't people--or Christians-- engage the learning and acquisition of reading skills and concepts involved in interpreting the Bible in the best, most technically and spiritually inclined way(s) possible?

I'm sure we would run into a lot of human road blocks to it all along the way. There's a lot that, unfortunately, goes into understanding almost anything we humans have to read. The Bible is just one more complex thing to have to grapple with over the bills, and the legal fine print we all get zapped with in daily life.

But you're right.

I think that it's already being done by many Christians--and has been for almost two millennia. But some groups have so much invested in their own point of view that there is no hope of change.

 

[BCP1928]

So this is similar to a child asking "why" to every answer given? Puts the conversation into perspective

I suppose it depends on whether one regards the acceptance of literal inerrancy as a salvation issue.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think that it's already being done by many Christians--and has been for almost two millennia. But some groups have so much invested in their own point of view that there is no hope of change.

It surely has been done already by many Christians. But we're in the 21st century now, and cognitive dissonance is a liability many people will give their left arm to alleviate.

 

[BCP1928]

It surely has been done already by many Christians. But we're in the 21st century now, and cognitive dissonance is a liability many people will give their left arm to alleviate.

Can't help you there. I'm an Anglican, and one of the things about being an Anglican is that you have to not only be able to tolerate congnitive dissonance, but positively enjoy it. But to your point, when it concerns the conflict between conservative Evangelicalsm and secularism, I know toa certainty which hand I would cut off and cast from me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Can't help you there. I'm an Anglican, and one of the things about being an Anglican is that you have to not only be able to tolerate congnitive dissonance, but positively enjoy it. But to your point, when it concerns the conflict between conservative Evangelicalsm and secularism, I know toa certainty which hand I would cut off and cast from me.

You do realize that in referring to cognitive dissonance, I wasn't referring to myself. I prefer using both hands.

 

[AV1611VET]

Note to lurkers:

In a creationism test I made up, this is one of the questions:

13. When discussing Creationism, why should one never let himself stray from Genesis 1 or 2?

This thread is a perfect example of why.

 

[truthpls]

You mean like Zeno's paradox--no mater how close the object you got you could never quite get all the way there? What about tests and examinations which can be carried out remotely?

If there is a God, why would He allow that? He died to give us life forever. Why would He have humiliated Himself and come to this stinkhole world of wickedness to suffer horribly and be murdered unjustly if all He needed to do was send us a litmus test or something via cosmic home delivery?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Wow, Hans! See? You actually can give a decent hand to the plow of Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis.

Are those related to Hermitian matrices or eczema? Who knows...

Keep going, though. You're almost there!

Clearly Jesus hated fig trees, but this is probably what you mean...

Jesus made a claim, that any on with true/pure/whatever faith could do seemingly impossible things through prayer. So, if any modern believer should claim that they can do impossible thing through faith with prayer we can test those, but we can only confirm that the claimed thing happened or not, causation, particularly of failure, is a bit trickier given the degeneracy in the potential causes of failure.

 

[AveChristusRex]

Note to lurkers:

In a creationism test I made up, this is one of the questions:

13. When discussing Creationism, why should one never let himself stray from Genesis 1 or 2?

This thread is a perfect example of why.

is there a link to the rest of the questions?

 

[QvQ]

I haven't met anyone that could waft Everest around the planet, have you?

There are corporations and governments and machines and methods that man could use to waft Everest around the planet.
Man has been moving mountains around since time began
What does that do to dating or archeological evidence?
So, is the dirt dug up in a mining operation the oldest dirt on top of the heap, then that pile tested long after all rememberance of the mining operation, is that site going to give accurate data concerning that site?
And all the dirt and rock wafted around by wind and water, earthquakes, glaciers and such?
Consider a chocolate sundae. Give it a few whips and beats. It is now a chocolate shake.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are those related to Hermitian matrices or eczema? Who knows...

Don't make fun, Hans. You're joking about a valid field of study that incorporates interdisciplinary praxis.

Clearly Jesus hated fig trees, but this is probably what you mean...

So says Bertrand Russell.

Jesus made a claim, that any on with true/pure/whatever faith could do seemingly impossible things through prayer. So, if any modern believer should claim that they can do impossible thing through faith with prayer we can test those, but we can only confirm that the claimed thing happened or not, causation, particularly of failure, is a bit trickier given the degeneracy in the potential causes of failure.

Alright, Hans. I'll make this easier for you, just short of making you look the additional reference up by yourself using a bible concordance.

Go read Matthew chapter 17:14-21 and tell me what you think it means.

I'm holding out the possibility that I'm dead wrong here or there and not just a little off about the Bible's meaning.

 

[BCP1928]

If there is a God, why would He allow that? He died to give us life forever. Why would He have humiliated Himself and come to this stinkhole world of wickedness to suffer horribly and be murdered unjustly if all He needed to do was send us a litmus test or something via cosmic home delivery?

That makes no sense at all. I think you're just paranoid about the fantasy that science is trying to disprove God.

 

[AV1611VET]

is there a link to the rest of the questions?

Thanks for taking an interest!

1. Define Embedded Age.
2. Explain the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia; and give two examples of each.
3. Why is "heaven" singular in Genesis 1, but plural in Genesis 2?
4. Eden in the Bible is known as __________ on a secular map.
5. Put the following in order that they appeared in the universe: whales, stars, trees, sun, land, sea, outer space.
6. What day was Adam created on?
7. Was the universe created a closed system and, if not, what kind of energy did it run off of? if it was created open, what closed it?
8. Describe terra aqua and what kind of water it consisted of and why.
9. Photosynthesis required light from the sun prior to the Fall. true or false?
10. Explain how a 24-hour day could transpire before the sun was created.
11. Explain the difference between "miracles" and "magic."
12. What literary device reconciles Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?
13. When discussing Creationism, why should one never let himself stray from Genesis 1 or 2?
14. What was the first object in the universe that had mass?