Taking Questions on the Creation

[Naraoia]

And I believe God would too. Growing an Oak tree outside is ho-hum; growing an Oak tree w/o the sun is Creation.

Light bulbs?

 

[agentorange20]

And I believe God would too. Growing an Oak tree outside is ho-hum; growing an Oak tree w/o the sun is Creation.

Better yet, why would God poofing a tree into existence w/ out a sun be more impressive than say for it to create the natural laws and forces required for it to build itself without his direct intervention? One is an example of a nanny who continually watches and acts in something, the other is a supreme engineer who pushes the ball so to speak and lets the rest go on its own without nanny supervision.

Then all he'd have to do is sit back and watch the universe build itself and 'bring forth' the life, plants and such and think of it as good.

Poofing something into existance is more impressive to you than devising fundimetnal laws and principles for which matter/energy can work within and then letting it build itself? Mkay, AV.

The 1st option sounds like a true master planner, an engieer which with their wisdom managed to devise a system to build itself without his constant and direct attention, this would indicate some level of omnipotence.

The 2nd option is that he's continually called to act in interving in the affairs of something he is being created with building/created, as if to imply he couldn't get it right the first time around, or was neglegent, or indifferent from the beginning and later realizing his error (oops no more omnipotent there!) then he's forced to clean up his spilled milk. Personally, I think its preferably to think of a god who got it right from the onset and didn't require constant baby sitting.

In the end, in this 2nd option one is left with the questions Epicurus posed on the omnibenevolence of god, and whence come or call him god if it doesn't fit with the nature of existance?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus

 

[Caduceus]

WOW --- have a good day, Caduceus ---

"And answer came there none".

I suspected as much.

 

[AV1611VET]

Better yet, why would God poofing a tree into existence w/ out a sun be more impressive than say for it to create the natural laws and forces required for it to build itself without his direct intervention?

The order of God's creation in Genesis 1 is anti-evolutionary, and effectively shows that nature did not do it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The order of God's creation in Genesis 1 is anti-evolutionary, and effectively shows that nature did not do it.

Assuming Genesis 1 is actually how it happened.

 

[Skaloop]

The order of God's creation in Genesis 1 is anti-evolutionary, and effectively shows that nature did not do it.

Or that god didn't do it.

 

[Breckmin]

The video was intended to define creationists and their stupidity, I will now show one of hovind, since he is your hero.

Is this a nickname for Ken Hamm? I do not know all the creationists
names. I am old school in that I can name guys like Duanne Gish and
John Morris and Henry Morris and Phillip E. Johnson, and some of the
guys I sent to Tom in a "pm." I have not researched "hovind" but I
will try to find out who he is on the internet. Collin's, "the language
of God," is the next book I want to read. I spend ten times the amount
of time reading evolutionary writings than I do creationists, but I need
to change that to see what creationists have been up to.

Though lets not forget here, regardless of what god hypothetically looks like the notion of a pebble creating god is equally as absurd as a life creating god or sun creating god. That was the point since you missed it.

Or the notion that God not creating a pebble is absurd, and God not
creating Life is absurd and God not creating the Sun is most absurd
is perhaps the point that an atheist misses. Theistic evolutionists
would claim God did bring these things about in order.

The more evidence you bring to the table, because of order and
complexity and atomic structure, it just screams out Creator even
more.
~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

Clarification:
<<but I need
to change that to see what creationists have been up to.>>

I realize that the answer is "not much." But that is because they are so very
much outnumbered and limited in their time and busy with families and teaching
students at colleges. The demand is high, for highly educated Christians in the
scientific fields to teach, especially if they reject DET.

I do try to keep up with creationist theories every couple years, like I am doing
now, so I should have ended that statement with "more."
~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

We should ALL be able to call you on your BS collectively.

The people I email and talk to are sacred to me. I would NOT betray
them by name dropping. You can believe what you want, God knows
the truth. Enough said.

Let's hope that BS stands for Bible Study. You can call me on it.
~Michael

 

[Caduceus]

The order of God's creation in Genesis 1 is anti-evolutionary, and effectively shows that nature did not do it.

You appear unwilling to accept that the Genesis accounts are merely two examples of the many creation myths that exist throughout various human cultures.

As I have illustrated not only do these accounts contradict each other but so do other parts of the OT. Genesis 6 & 7 are further evidence of such discrepancies. One wonders how Noah could have known about clean and unclean animals (Genesis 7.2) before Moses and Aaron had been told about them in Leviticus 11.

Hence it is quite clear that these texts are not inerrant, they are not literal, but are derived from different sources at different periods and were written retrospectively, looking back to earlier periods in Hebrew culture.

 

[Breckmin]

I remember him now. If you had said Kent Hovind, the guy who had to
declare chapter 11 and was in all kinds of trouble, then I would have
probably remembered.

This is a situation that we as creationists are saddened by, and we
would of course try to forget.

It has nothing to do with whether the evidence should be interpreted
with the absolute knowledge of the existence of God as the Creator.

~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

BTW,
I didn't read split rock's post until after I responded to agentorange. Plus I only
had 3 hours sleep last night.
~Michael

 

[huldah153]

Here's one.

How did Noah manage to get a T-Rex on the Ark without being maimed?

 

[Assyrian]

Duct tape its mouth shut.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

WOW --- have a good day, Caduceus ---

It's funny when your cognitive dissonance takes over like that but I hope you get over it someday.

 

[Naraoia]

The people I email and talk to are sacred to me. I would NOT betray
them by name dropping. You can believe what you want, God knows
the truth. Enough said.

The truth, which is, "people can get harrassed for all I care, so long as they aren't my pals"?

 

[Naraoia]

Duct tape its mouth shut.

I think that works with crocodiles, provided that you can sit on the bastard's back before it crunches a few of your bones (yeah, I grew up on Steve Irwin :o), but a two-storey Tyrannosaurus?

 

[Caduceus]

There is a well-known joke here in Europe about what Noah did with all the animal excrement from the ark but politeness towards my American 'cousins' prevents me from repeating it.

 

[paug]

Two T-Rex's were boarding the Ark. One asked the other, "Hey, but what if Noah realises we're both males?"
The other replies: "Shut it, if we pull this off, we'll feast like kings!"

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's one.

How did Noah manage to get a T-Rex on the Ark without being maimed?

T. Rex wasn't on the Ark, in my opinion, his kind was.