Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
According to some, the Fall didn't occur until about a year after the Creation.Eh. That's after they ate the fruit AV.
No matter how often God spake unto them, they would't know what was good and what was evil. My argument stands.
Ath
And they dunnit, and they was punished.Doesn't change the fact that A&E was punished for a "crime" that couldn't have been a "crime" until after they had dunnit.
Because G walked and talked with them often ---
If that's what they discussed --- yes --- they would already know the difference.Then wouldn't they already know the difference between Good and Evil?
Eating the fruit would have been a sin --- God told them not to --- they did it --- sin.If they already knew the difference between Good and Evil because "God walked and talked with them often," then eating of the fruit would have been redundant.
Good --- for more insane dribble --- read God's Voice in the Stars by Kenneth C. Fleming.AV, your posts in this thread have become inane dribble. The star story, are you serious (refer to page 5)? Is this stuff you make up to try and reconcile your belief system with the evidence around you?
The latter.Psalm 19:1-4 The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard; yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.
So I guess God either created a world with the appearance that it is much older than it actually is, or, a world that is in fact as old as evidence says it is.
No, I don't --- but feel free to keep thinking I did --- I wouldn't want anyone to stop misquoting/misrepresenting me.AV, you claim God "jumbled" the fossil record to "fool" us athiests.
I'll make something up ---However, the Bible says the firmament proclaims his handiwork. How do you reconcile this?
Epic fail.
Doesn't matter AV. My argument stands.
Doesn't change the fact that A&E was punished for a "crime" that couldn't have been a "crime" until after they had dunnit.
There goes original sin out the window, jesus meaningless etc.etc, etc, etc....
Really, this ceases to be a problem once you accept the bible as non-literal. How about it AV?
A.
PS Logging off now. Cya tomorrow.
The first time I ever told my son not to cross the street, and he came back with, "Why? Show me traffic patterns during my playtime, along with the average speed in front of our house, along with kinetic energy and momentum computations and that would impact my safety." --- he'd have an impact crater on his behind from my belt.They were warned not to eat the fruit, and chose to believe the devil. That is what they paid a price, as was explained to them, for.
AV will use "physical evidence" when it serves him.
It really doesn't matter when he uses it. The physical evidence
is its own proprietor.
I suspect he relies on physical evidence every single day of his life.
We all do, but interpretation of evidence is different that then
actual data itself.
I bet he holds the handrail while going up stairs, I bet he doesn't walk of cliffs, and I bet he is more than happy to know that statistically living here in the U.S.
statistics applied individually do not secure protection. this is
the fallacy of using induction as an absolute. someone can
poison his water.
he's able to enjoy a ridiculously safe water and food supply, all largely due to science and "physical evidence".
Better to pray for safe water and healthy food, and not ignore
the possibility that the evidence has been manipulated or mis-
interpreted to be safe, when it is actually fatal to truth.
I bet AV has had innoculations and goes to regular modern day doctors.
natural selection is a part of God's creation. Darwinian theory does
not have a monopoly on it.
He uses a computer, an impossibility without "physical evidence" which laid the foundation for its development.
Is the computer itself an evidence or a tool? Do we need evidence
for tools, or do we need knowledge, design and faith to employ the
use of parts to build tools?
He rejects science and physical evidence when it suits him.
I am new here, but is it possible he rejects scientific interpretation
rather than science itself?
But what he doesn't realize is: that isn't how the machine works. You can't just "reject" a little bit of reality when it suits you in hopes of saving parts you like.
But you can reject interpretations about the groves in the nuts and
bolts, and reject that they were not the result of a random construct
that resulted in order and design.
What I find amazing about people like AV is they would have me believe that they can pick and choose which things require "evidence" and which things are true despite the evidence.
Perhaps we are not choosing evidence, but rather choosing assumptions that interpret the evidence. Perhaps the evidence
is merely a reflection of the Glory of God?
If evidence is of no value, then how does he function in the world?
How does the unbeliever function in a world without knowledge of
the Creator? Does the unbeliever give the Creator His value?
And yet the unbeliever still functions and exists. Perhaps the
question is not about evidence, but about the interpretation
of evidence, and what conclusion will it lead you to?
As for science, well, that's a great topic. You see, AV claims along with his associates degree and >170 IQ to be quite a chess player. That is something that requires "strategy". Which means one must be able to put together a string of events moving forward in time based on some presumable set of possibilities.
High IQ has little to do with great chess play. Chess is a game of
"knowledge" not pure thinking ability. The best chess players
are the ones with the best memories who know which openings to
play against their opponents to exploit their weaknesses based
on their style of play. Chess is about pattern memory, opening
analysis which leads to pawn structures which will allow you to
have either equal or winning chances in the end game if you
can survive the middle game tactics. Knowing thousands
and thousands of combinations and positions and tactics from
playing 10's of thousands of speed games is how someone
gets good at chess, NOT having an IQ of 170. Chess is a game
of knowledge just as correctly interpreting scientific evidences
is the result of correct knowledge and correct assumptions.
What AV doesn't seem to realize about science is; it too must follow specific rules of evidence. He wants to talk about "creation" in regards to what it says in Genesis 1.
What about when evidence corroborates special creation?
Well, Genesis 1 has events occuring in the wrong order as shown by physical evidence. So AV rejects the physical in this particular part of reality and places a book of unknown origin above the physical evidence.
Perhaps there are interpretations of evidences which will shed
light on providing a "correct" order. Either way, it doesn't mean
that a person who rejects the order you are providing does not
have evidence of their own which they would interpret to provide
such correct order.
That's fine. That is is his perogative. But he must now either choose:
1. He must explain why the evidence in this case is flawed using superior evidence.
Perhaps he will trust others to explain the flaws. Why does he
have to do anything?
2. Reject all physical evidence.
Why not look at physical evidence that supports his claim???
Why does it have to be all or nothing?
To reject the uniformitarianist approach to geologic history of the earth he will have to reject all of physics and chemistry.
Rejecting the assumption of uniformity which is not falsifiable does
NOT mean you have to reject those methods that ARE falsifiable.
Not just the weird quantum stuff, but all of it, even down to "falling bodies", gravity, and concepts like the "Law of Superposition"
You do not need to throw out the baby with the bath water.
Science is not all or nothing. You can look at areas that are
indeed falsifiable and interpret them. You can look at other
areas of science that employ GROSS suppositions and reject
them due to the factors that they ignore (carbon rates and
geometric rates which would change, parent-daughter element
relationships which would be different if different assumptions
were applied).
(basically which states that if object A is on top of object B and there's no reason to believe they were overturned, then A was placed after B. I sit on the chair means the chair was there first, not that I assumed a sitting position in space and the chair was manufactured under me. That's an oversimplification, but the gist of it).
What if there IS a reason to believe that they were overturned??
and all of conventional scientists either ignore or reject it because
they have falsely interpreted the "reason to believe" as something
entirely different, based on assumptions in uniformity?
AV has to choose to reject all physical evidence or some. If he rejects some he must provide a reason.
Poor AV... He has only been left with two choices here.
That reason is; he believes a book of unknown and unproven origin is superior to the vastness of the physical evidence.
What if this is not a book? What if this is a collection of different
books written by different authors all testifying to the same thing?
What if it is not unknown to him, but he actually knows the origin
and he has supernatural evidence which has PROVEN this to him?
NOW, imagine for a second that you are on trial for a crime and AV is the judge. There is a mountain of physical evidence that says you are likely not guilty of the crime, you were no where near the crime scene. But AV has found a piece of paper on which is written "someone you see in front of your desk has committed a crime!" He interprets it to mean you and he will adjudicate you guilty.
What the piece of paper was handed to him by an eyewitness
who actually saw you commit the crime?
That is his judgement, that is his "faith" that the piece of paper is right.
If that Eyewitness was God, then perhaps is "faith" is right!
Now, there is just a slight possibility that AV found a confession written by you because you did commit the crime! You are guilty but you are a crafty criminal who hid the evidence.
Then it was a good thing he kept his "faith" in the piece of paper!
But the question remains: was AV correct in judging you "guilty" of the crime? Was his reasoning sound?
The problem is that this is nothing like what the scientific debate
is about. You are building a strawman of biblical creationism
and claiming there is no evidence to support it, when it fact it
is often the same data used to support creationism that
Darwinian theory uses, just a different interpretation based
on a different set of assumptions.
In science he would be found lacking in judgement. He claims to "know" but in reality he is merely expressing his "feelings".
What if Jesus rose from the dead and then handed him the piece
of paper and told him it was true? Perhaps the criminal was
found guilty because there was an eye witness that the jury didn't
know about, but the judge (AV) did know about?
MAYBE Genesis is correct and accurate as an account of the earth's early history. The evidence would suggest it is incorrect. The vastness of the evidence speaks against its correctness.
What about all of the alleged evidence that supports it? What about
the interpretation of evidence that is disputed?
Is AV correct in tossing out the vast majority of the evidence to come to his judgement? It is fully within his right to do so.
How do you know he is tossing it out instead of questioning it?
However, he needs to remember that which he fails to remember all the time: his "wishes" do not translate into "fact" just because they are wishes. He is not capable of the fiat lux.
Perhaps the darkness could not comprehend it.
He is well within his rights to hold his religion superior.
Perhaps he is holding on to other interpretations of evidences
that you are not providing as being Veritas.
But why he comes on a discussion forum and offers to "answer questions" and then immediately grants they are "his opinion" and why he thinks that will be of value to anyone but him is beyond me. I wish he would be internally consistent in reliance on evidence, but he is, after all, only human.
Why is the focus on AV rather than the position that AV holds to.
This is my first post here in this thread, and I haven't read anything
AV has written, but my question is "How come AV" is the subject
here, instead of what AV believes about creationism or Darwinian
evolutionary theory?
Because unlike you, n00b,
Was this meant as name calling?
most of us have been dealing with AV for two long long years. (I could have sworn it was much longer than 2+ years.)
AV's art form is to make every thread about him.
So where he leads, you follow?
Why not make the thread about the merits of what he says
or does not say rather than about him personally?
~Michael
No --- not when you assume I reject all modern science. Please don't tell me you accept all modern science?I don't know Ken Miller, what he looks like, stands for, or preaches; but I'll take your word for it.I understand --- but you've got me all wrong.
You mean here?We are talking about a man who claims that four-legged grasshoppers came about as a result from nuclear fallout from fighting Angels.
Show me where the Bible quotes the age of the earth --- literally or otherwise.You believe that everything that goes against the literal version of the bible is false correct? Say the age of the earth? Confirmed by multiple fields of science but in direct contradiction to a literal interpretation.
Show me where the Bible quotes the age of the earth --- literally or otherwise.
So does Wikipedia.The Bible may not say it, but you do.
Wikipedia said:Modern geologists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years (4.54×109 years). This age represents a compromise between the interpretations of oldest-known terrestrial minerals small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia and astronomers' and planetologists' determinations of the age of the solar system based in part on radiometric age dating of meteorite material and lunar samples.
Repeating the question asked by Nathan and so sneakily cut out by AV:So does Wikipedia.
Michael, it is about the position AV holds. Which is, science/evidence is all good so long as it doesn't contradict the Bible (as interpreted by AV, of course). As soon as it does, it can "take a hike".Why is the focus on AV rather than the position that AV holds to.
Bad luck for beginners, I'm afraid. Most of us regulars know AV too well.No where did I see you quote where AV said he rejected all evidence.
No where did I see you quote where AV defined what science is,
or whether he accepted or rejected evidence which was falsifiable.
Hey, first of all, AV thinks there is no evidence for creation as in Genesis 1 (which is, IMHO, the most honest position for a creationist to hold, but unfortunately it's only part of the story with AV).My only observation was that the post was more about AV, and
not about any alleged evidences for creationism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?