• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Taking Questions on the Creation

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by AV1611VET, Jul 16, 2008.

  1. thaumaturgy

    thaumaturgy Well-Known Member

    +858
    Atheist
    Married
    If you want to say anything about Geology, you better learn some. Otherwise you are bordering on hypocrisy.

    If you think Juvenissun is some kinda great geologist, I'll remind you of your hypocrisy. You don't care enough about science to learn any, so you think someone who comes along and acts like Juvenissun who says they are a geologist but demonstrably acts like a non-scientist troll as people can tell if they have actual science and geology training, well you get the "leaders" you deserve.

    Your hypocrisy is getting on my nerves as well.

    If you don't care enough about science to learn it...then simply "shut up". It's just that easy.

    (Again, I remind you, I've bothered to learn Christianity and read the bible -sans apocrypha- to debate religion. Why wouldn't I expect you to do the same? I'll ask again--you never answer this question-- how would you debate a religious topic if someone who never cracked a book on Christianity, let alone the Bible, were to slam your religion? Would you be sanguine or would you get annoyed?)

    Maybe, in many aspects, I'm a better Christian than you because I comprehend some of the details and don't just slavishly and uncomprehendingly read the words? :)

    Just sayin'.
     
  2. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET BELIEVE IN MIRACLES Supporter

    +42,005
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    You don't get it, do you? Thaumaturgy wants me to learn at least some basic Geology; and believe me, even if I was omniscient in the field of Geology, I'd be making points like:

    • What's Geology have to do with the Creation?
    His attempts to pull me into a discussion on Geology, knowing I'm the world's greatest authority, would just be that much more frustrating to him - (I assume).
     
  3. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET BELIEVE IN MIRACLES Supporter

    +42,005
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Okay, Thaumaturgy, you wanna play hardball?

    Good --- for the next few posts, just assume I'm the world's greatest authority on Geology --- now, let's discuss the Creation.

    Go ahead --- ask me anything.
     
  4. thaumaturgy

    thaumaturgy Well-Known Member

    +858
    Atheist
    Married
    This is "hardball" to you? Sorry, I don't have time to play with little-boy AV "Science Wannabe". I honestly don't care about your "interpretation" of scripture. You aren't the sole authority on Scripture, and you sure aren't an authority on "creation" (hint: no one is).

    So what could a man who is so in love with his own ignorance on science and who thinks he knows as much as God have to teach anyone?

    Didn't you get the memo: YOU'RE A HUMAN like the rest of us.

    I don't trust any human who claims special unique knowledge beyond question.

    ESPECIALLY when they are a massive hypocrite and slag science without understanding it and try to candy coat it by saying you think science or scientists are some "gift from God" but when a scientist says something you don't understand or agree with, you tell 'em to "take a hike".

    Sorry, you can teach me nothing.

    Hardball?

    TRY GETTING NOT 1, NOT 2, BUT 3 UNIVERSITY DEGREES IN A SCIENCE. (And be able to converse knowledgably about religion as well be cause you had enough "bandwidth" to read extensively about religion, philosophy and history, all while getting a bachelors, masters and doctorate in the sciences.)

    THEN you can walk onto the diamond and try to play "hardball".
     
  5. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET BELIEVE IN MIRACLES Supporter

    +42,005
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Then if you don't have anything to ask, kindly take yourself and your three college degrees elsewhere --- please.

    I'm not interested in who you like, and who you dislike, and who you think are hypocrites, etc.

    Especially in my thread where I'm taking questions on the Creation.
     
  6. thaumaturgy

    thaumaturgy Well-Known Member

    +858
    Atheist
    Married
    No. I will not. If you want to talk about the early history of the earth be guaranteed there will be geologists involved.

    If you are scared of that, then you can take yourself and your ignorance of science somewhere else. Please.

    YOU SHOULD BE. Remember, you are a "witness" for your faith. If your faith encourages people to be ignorant of a topic and yet speak against it, then I suggest you are doing an excellent job of witnessing.

    Was it not St. Francis of Assisi who said:

    "Preach the Gospel Always and if Necessary Use Words "

    This is a "discussion" forum, not an AV IS GOD Forum.

    Remember, you are just as responsible for this side-track. I was responding to another poster on the subject of Juvenissun. Since Juvenissun likes to paint himself as both a Christian and a geological scientist I was merely pointing out how his geological data is, shall we say, somewhat in question.

    YOU interjected yourself to once again proclaim your worship of ignorance.

    You don't want to learn geology which informs much of what we know about the earth's early history but you are going to tell us how things on the earth were created!

    Excellent.

    You see, so people like me will always be here. We'll always be a thorn in your side. If your "faith" can't stand up to scrutiny and data, then what good would it do to preach it at us?

    That is, after all, what you want to do, isn't it? PREACH IT AT US?

    You answering questions is, well, forgive me, but next to useless. Remember, you aren't an expert on "creation" since no one is. You have an hypothesis that your book there, Genesis, is literally true and accurate, and interestingly enough, just about every scientist on here (with the exception of "Juvenissun" who may or may not be an actual scientist) will be happy to show you the rocks and the evidence which indicates a "Literal Genesis" is likely incorrect.

    Again, if your "faith" can't stand up to that, well, then, that's hardly my problem.

    YOUR spouting stuff you know next to nothing about based on your "feelings" is something I do know about. I've seen it happen all through my life. It is something we in the sciences battle against every day: "going with your gut".

    The very second you reveal yourself to be God, then maybe we can all take some time and listen to your "preaching". Until then you aren't answering questions, you're just telling us your opinion.

    THAT, my friend, is "hardball". Can you stand on the field? Or do you live in the cheap seats?
     
  7. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET BELIEVE IN MIRACLES Supporter

    +42,005
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Have a good day, Thaumaturgy.
     
  8. thaumaturgy

    thaumaturgy Well-Known Member

    +858
    Atheist
    Married
    It serves you no good to ignore the geology just so you can support your interpretation of the earth's history through the lens of one single point: Genesis 1.

    You have thrown away 99.99999999999% of the data in order to worship that 0.0000000000001% which you can't even provide a provable origin for!

    Do you see how "anti-scientific" that is? Do you not understand why scientists see that just shake their heads?

    I find your unique love of ignorance and your obsession with actively ignoring the vast bulk of the data to be the weakest part of any of your arguments or your points.

    You want to "answer" a question on creation: Answer the one I already asked:

    "Why do you deny the vast majority of the physical data in preference to a book of unknown origin?"

    (Don't worry: I know the answer "Because the Bible is what you think God inspired to be written without error." And you worship that idea. Fine. But don't for one second think that is 'an answer' that is worth anything to anyone but you.)

    No one questions that you

    1. Believe the Bible is God's inerrant word and you would never DREAM of needing "proof" of that to any extent. You accept it without question because that's just what you have to do.

    2. You don't give a hang about what science says when it disagrees with your gut feeling.

    3. You don't understand science and you don't have any interest in learning stuff but you'll be happy to debate against it.

    4. You therefore don't even begin to understand the nature of the debate.

    5. You don't understand why #4 should be even marginally important.

    As I said, don't worry. We know you by your fruits. We know what are interested in (Preaching AT people), and we know how strong your faith is. (And it is that unique brand of mentally dead, ultra-weak reasoning I will always fight against. It is anathema to me.)

    Let's turn it around:

    Do YOU have any questions about the earth's early history for someone who has actually spent a significant amount of time looking at the physical evidence?

    (ANOTHER HINT: I know you don't because you aren't interested in what others know. You are only interest in what you know. Otherwise you'd be in danger of "learning").
     
  9. Tiberius

    Tiberius Well-Known Member

    +97
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    And why does that require an extra few BILLION years? It doesn't take a few billion years for fruit trees to produce fruit. And anyway, why would God need to embed billions of years to alloow for this when he could just snap his fingers and do it in a second?

    If someone has a granite counter top on their kitchen bench, how old is it? Why didn't god just bring the earth into existence all those billions of years ago and avoid the whole difficulty of "I know it LOOKS like it is billions of years old, but really, I only made it a few thousand years ago."

    If the Bible doesn't say how old the earth has been around, where in the world do you get the figure of 6100 years?

    And do you have anything to suggest that this whole embedded age malarky is something more than just a wild idea of yours?
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2008
  10. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET BELIEVE IN MIRACLES Supporter

    +42,005
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    I use Ussher's calculations just for simplicity.
     
  11. thaumaturgy

    thaumaturgy Well-Known Member

    +858
    Atheist
    Married
    Hey, Mr. "Answer Man". When are you going to answer my question?

    Or are you afraid to answer?

    Why do you deny the huge mass of data about the earth's early history in preference to one piece of data of unverifiable origin?

    (If you really are honestly interested in 'answering' questions rather than merely asserting and preaching at people...but I'll understand if you don't. But do make sure to tell everyone you are merely interested in answering questions about "creation".)
     
  12. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET BELIEVE IN MIRACLES Supporter

    +42,005
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    QV please.
     
  13. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET BELIEVE IN MIRACLES Supporter

    +42,005
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    From Post 37:
     
  14. thaumaturgy

    thaumaturgy Well-Known Member

    +858
    Atheist
    Married
    Asked. Still waiting for the answer.

    So that's all you got? Well, if you actually read Genesis 1 you'd see that this is the order of "creation events" on or near earth

    First day: God creates light ("Let there be light!") - the first divine command. The light is divided from the darkness, and "day" and "night" are named.
    Second day: God creates a firmament ("Let a firmament be...!") - the second command - to divide the waters above from the waters below. The firmament is named "heavens".
    Third day: God commands the waters below to be gathered together in one place, and dry land to appear (the third command). "Earth" and "sea" are named. God commands the earth to bring forth grass, plants, and fruit-bearing trees (the fourth command).
    Fourth day: God creates lights in the firmament (the fifth command) to separate light from darkness and to mark days, seasons and years. Two great lights are made (most likely the Sun and Moon, but not named), and the stars.
    Fifth day: God commands the sea to "teem with living creatures", and birds to fly across the heavens (sixth command); He creates birds and sea creatures, and commands them to be fruitful and multiply.
    Sixth day: God commands the land to bring forth living creatures (seventh command); He makes wild beasts, livestock and reptiles. He then creates Man and Woman in His "image" and "likeness" (eighth command). They are told to "be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it." Humans and animals are given plants to eat. The totality of creation is described by God as "very good."
    Seventh day: God, having completed the heavens and the earth, rests from His work, and blesses and sanctifies the seventh day.

    (SOURCE)

    Let's see what the SCIENCE says.

    1. God gathers together the "dry land" and puts the water in one place. That sounds like the water was there before the rocks. That doesn't make too much sense. The rocks were there first, the surface water came about through outgassing from the mantle as it cooled and maybe through meteor impacts. But maybe God meant cooling molten magma exsolving water as "dry land" coming together separate from the waters. Seems like more data is necessary. Otherwise someone reading it for "details" might draw the wrong conclusion. We have a reasonable idea of how water came to the surface of the earth. But some "creation myths", like the Egyptian creation myth, apparently do start out from water. Huh, whodda thunk it? A known "myth" (I assume you would agree the Egyptian story as mythos) versus your factual bible in a battle for "truth".

    2. God creates the stars after the earth? Highly unlikely because the stars provide us with the elements necessary to make up the earth. (MORE INFO HERE)

    3. God creates "fruit bearing trees" before animals. Fruits are part of the angiosperms which don't show up in the physical record until well after animals. By like several million years. But, as an "out" for you, there are some gymnosperms which have a "fleshy" covering on some of their seeds, but these are technically not fruit in the same way as apples and fruits like that. But then God is often quite "non-technical" in Genesis and the Bible as a whole.

    4. God creates birds and sealife at the same time (the first animals). This is also not what the physical evidence says. The physical evidence says birds don't show up til several hundred million years after the fishes and sealife. They aren't even close in the physical evidence chain.

    5. God creates land animals after birds. Again, just the opposite is what the masses of data indicate. Birds came several hundred million years after land animals.

    There, see? That wasn't so hard.

    Would fail, not because Geology is so hard only a handful of people can handle it, but rather because you don't have any interest in learning that which you slag and debate against.

    Such is your ministry. Ignorance and bile spewed at that which you don't even bother to understand.

    Bravo.

    If you even bothered to care about geology before dismissing it out of hand, then I would find you such an annoying "debater" on this fourm.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2008
  15. thaumaturgy

    thaumaturgy Well-Known Member

    +858
    Atheist
    Married

    So then I asked some questions HERE

    This is the only answer I received:

    So I asked a few more questions HERE

    Ultimately his only answers (HERE and HERE) had nothing whatsoever to do with the biggest question:

    Why do you deny the huge mass of data about the earth's early history in preference to one piece of data of unverifiable origin?

    (We already understand that you think the discussion should only stick to Genesis 1...but that isn't an "answer" as to why)

    So what we have here is a man who can't "man up" and admit he can't handle debates in which he is not the sole arbiter of what is discussed.

    He wants to talke "creation" but the only terms he will utilize are those which he, and only he, narrowly defines. YOU have to stick with Genesis 1. AND ONLY GENESIS 1.

    Unfortunately he said he was going to answer questions on "creation", which we are assumed to be comparing what GENESIS 1 says to what the vast majority of the data says. IF it agrees it is often only by some ultra liberal "read-between-the-lines" method as I showed in post 254, but by and large the vast majority of the physical data (which outweighs the one single chapter of one single book of unknown and unverifiable origin by several billion to one) says it is in error in order of "appearance" of various aspects.

    So, AV, again, I will ask, in the assumption that you are not so scared to answer that you have to change your underpant every time I ask it:

    WHY DO YOU DENY THE VAST MAJORITY OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IN PREFERENCE TO ONE CHAPTER OF ONE BOOK OF UNKNOWN AND UNVERIFIABLE ORIGIN?

    Let's put it another way: If I give you a pill and say "it has absolutely no bad side-effects and you will be immediately cured of any ailment and your life will be perfect if you simply take it" but there are 10,000,000 doctors standing on the otherside of the room who say "That pill has never been proven to do what it is advertised to do and, statistically, there is a >90% chance that it will cause systemic organ failure in 3 seconds.

    Will you take the pill?

    Because that is precisely what you are asking others to do: You want us, who have been trained in a field you know little about and have shown an amazing resistance to learning about in detail that we should abandon the core principles of how we process evidence and data.

    If I commanded you to become an atheist today, would you do it? If you command me to "buy" your little story based on your track record in these discussions....should I do it?

    Should I gut everything I've ever learned, throw away every piece of information I've ever been given so that I might follow you?

    Where will you lead me? Why should I trust you?

    THIS is your witness. THESE are your fruits. We know you by your fruits, just as your lord and savior warned us. So show me how the rotten ex nihilo apple you are proferring me will taste sweet and noursih me.
     
  16. Athrond

    Athrond Regular Member

    453
    +16
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    Right.

    This isn't from genesis 1, but it casts doubt wether genesis can be trusted:

    1. How could it possibly be a sin for Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the famous tree "of knowledge of good and evil" prior to them actually knowing what was good and evil AFTER having eaten the fruit?

    A
     
  17. thaumaturgy

    thaumaturgy Well-Known Member

    +858
    Atheist
    Married

    Do you want to know why I don't like or trust you, and think you are a poor witness for your faith, AV?

    This post is a prime example. Indeed it boils down to the meat of it all.

    In my discussions with you, I have always endeavored to grant that some of your "interpretations" of the BIble may be technically accurate. You claim the bible isn't pro-slavery, so I find the original hebrew words and point out that the common usage was as "slave" not servent but I grant that indeed the word could have meant servant, but that I was rather under the impression that the bulk of the concepts around these "servants" indicate "slavery". Other posters see that as well, and historically many Christians felt that to be the case. EVEN IF YOU AND I FIND SLAVERY REPELLENT.

    Even when discussing the order of creation in Genesis 1 I granted that there were some "outs" based on "technicalities". I GAVE you a point! Ironic that when debating a "man" who claims to be a "Christian" you can't seem to do the same kind of "good turn" to the people you debate against! Are your points so weak that you fear any questioning will destroy them? Is your house built on sand?

    Look at your list up there. It is common knowledge that indeed, read literally, the Bible can be read to teach geocentrism. In point of fact it is actually so open that one can interpret it a number of ways, but you will note that history says MOST PEOPLE IN PRE-COPERNICAN EUROPEAN CHURCHES READ IT AS MEANING GEOCENTRISM.

    The point NOT being that it does or doesn't but rather

    you appear to never grant that the bible could have ever been interpretted to read this way.

    You treat us in a way we don't treat you.

    Why? Do you want us to treat you with the gross and alarming disrespect you exhibit REPEATEDLY????

    Surely you must. You love your bible so much I'm sure you've read Luke 6:31. I'm just sure of it.

    Another example from your list: you say it is "FALSE" to claim the Isaiahan prophecy around Mary as merely a "young woman" and not a virgin. Well, whether it is or isn't YOU CANNOT SAY because the original hebrew word, almah, CAN MEAN "YOUNG WOMAN".

    THAT MEANS THAT WHEN YOU SAY IT IS FALSE YOU ARE DEMONSTRABLY WRONG. IT IS "QUESTIONABLE AT BEST".

    False is a strong term. You need to get away from that kind of "reasoning" since you don't know.

    No matter what you BELIEVE, it COULD MEAN a "girl of marriagable age" (SOURCE). And while most young women probably "waited until marriage", it was not PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR AN UNMARRIED YOUNG WOMAN TO GET PREGNANT BY THE USUAL MEANS (ie she didn't have to be impregnated by God...there were other means available to young women back then.)

    Do you UNDERSTAND?

    You CANNOT CLAIM that it is FALSE for people to find these "interpretations" in the Bible. Whether they are true or false YOU DO NOT "KNOW".

    THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!!!!!

    If there's some compelling other reason why you claim these interpretations are "FALSE" you need to provide those. In point of fact, again, the best you will be able to do is get a "maybe".

    You treat others as if they are scum and you are privy to God's Thoughts. That is not in keeping with the spirit of your faith. Even if you can find some "letter" in the law that allows you to be thus, it violates the spirit of the law.

    And that is why ultra-literal fundamentalism is morally, intellectually and theologically bankrupt.

    Is that your witness?
     
  18. thaumaturgy

    thaumaturgy Well-Known Member

    +858
    Atheist
    Married
    Well, to be fair, God told them NOT to eat of it.

    It is the only kind of "morality" fundamentalists understand: COMMAND AND CONTROL.

    It is their "version" of a loving God; he just commands you to do stuff and you are obligated to do so.

    Fundamentalists don't need to know why an action is good or evil, just that they are NOT supposed to do some things.

    It is a "simple" and un-nuanced morality that doesn't require thought or use of a mind. It is a beautiful thing to behold.
     
  19. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET BELIEVE IN MIRACLES Supporter

    +42,005
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    BECAUSE I'M FAITHFUL TO THE BOOK AND IT'S AUTHOR --- EVEN UNTO DEATH --- AND PHYSICAL EVIDENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE!
     
  20. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET BELIEVE IN MIRACLES Supporter

    +42,005
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Well, you're right, it's not from Genesis 1, but for the record, they were told not to eat it --- period. They weren't told "not to sin" --- but "not to eat". Even a dog understands NO! when properly trained, and Adam knew well what NO! meant.
     
Loading...