The Creationist Corner

Squeegee Beckenheim · Oct 18, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
I am a dispensationalist. If you do not accept dispensationalism then we do not have enough common ground to even have a conversation. It would be like one of us is playing hockey and the other one is playing baseball.

You are not able to have a conversation with anybody unless they share your religious faith? If that's genuinely true, then I feel sorry for you. I've never found any difficulty discussing things with people of any faith and, indeed, I often find that the further from my own beliefs the person I'm talking to is, the more fruitful and interesting the conversation.

Squeegee Beckenheim · Oct 18, 2015

Crowns&Laurels said:
There's something I heard once about giraffes, but I can't remember what it is beyond that it reveals a supreme logic fail to the notions that evolutionists generally attribute to their long necks.
I'll have to revisit that.

I look forward to you posting this line of reasoning, once you have reminded yourself what it is.

Also, the pigments of parrots- they shouldn't have the type they have by all evolutionary accounts. As far as I know, not only did the jury not come back on that, but there is no jury period. They left that one for the birds
#puns

You'll have to be more specific. Can you link to a scientific paper that describes what you're talking about? I can find no reference whatsoever to the idea that parrrots "shouldn't" have the pigment that they have. There are papers that note that the red and yellow pigments that parrots have are unique to parrots (including lories and cockatoos), and that the distribution of the red pigment (the yellow is harder to map) is remarkably consistent across the families, although very different between individual species. See here for more specifics on red pigment distribution amongst parrot families.

There is nothing in that which suggests anything which is at odds with evolution by natural selection, so I can only assume you are referring to something else. Therefore it would be appreciated if you could be more specific in your argument.

Squeegee Beckenheim · Oct 18, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
The question for science is how did man go from a food gathering to food producing.

The answer is "gradually". And it goes back further than you give it credit for:

Until now, researchers believed farming was 'invented' some 12,000 years ago in an area that was home to some of the earliest known human civilizations. A new discovery offers the first evidence that trial plant cultivation began far earlier -- some 23,000 years ago.

Squeegee Beckenheim · Oct 18, 2015

rockytopva said:
It is an amazing bird once you get studying it!

That it is. None of what you list, however, is evidence for the existence of God.

Job8 · Oct 18, 2015

KTS said:
So what? Lego blocks are not analogous to life, are they?

Sure they are. Molecules are the building blocks of life.

They do not undergo chemical reactions, nor are they being moved about while sitting on the floor.

That's hardly the issue. Whether there are inanimate objects or living molecules, they do not simply assemble themselves into more complex structures BY THEMSELVES.

Argument from incredulity. This is a logical fallacy. Besides, the pocket watch argument has been debunked countless times. I see no reason why I should debunk it again just because you don't want to critically examine your position.

You don't need to debunk anything and nothing has been debunked as you imagine. More and more scientists have accepted the fact of Intelligent Design in this universe.

WOah, even if I granted the first part of this paragraph (which I don't), you;ve made a mighty big leap from arguing for a creator to concluding that the creator MUST be the Christian god!

Not at all. There is only one true and living God who is the Creator, the Sustainer, the Savior, and the Sovereign. All other gods are "pretend" gods or false gods, which belong to the realm of myths, legends, and the occult. Thor and all the Norse gods and heroes belong to this realm of fantasy, which is highly entertaining, but does not satisfy the soul.

TheQuietRiot · Oct 18, 2015

Job8 said:
He has always been and will always be self-existent. That's the beauty of the Creator, and that's the reason He is the Creator, and not the created one. All intelligence and all wisdom resides in Him from eternity past. And if that is a mystery, then that is what is is meant to be -- the Mystery of God. People love mysteries, but they do not care for the Mystery of God, because it leads to the Mystery of Godliness -- Christ.

This is nothing more than a cop out of your previous logic.

TheQuietRiot · Oct 18, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
God is outside of time. He can go anyplace, anywhere in the past, present or the future. So He does not have a beginning and a end the way we do.

That seems very convenient for the creationist/intelligent design argument.

Squeegee Beckenheim · Oct 18, 2015

Job8 said:
That's hardly the issue. Whether there are inanimate objects or living molecules, they do not simply assemble themselves into more complex structures BY THEMSELVES.

Water molecules assemble themselves into snowflakes, which are more complex structures.

More and more scientists have accepted the fact of Intelligent Design in this universe.

There are more scientists called Steve who support Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection than there are scientists of any name who don't. So, the percentage of scientists who favour Creationism isn't that high, really.

Kylie · Oct 18, 2015

Job8 said:
Sure they are. Molecules are the building blocks of life.

SO what? Molecules can do a whole bunch of things that Lego can't do at all, so your analogy fails completely.

That's hardly the issue. Whether there are inanimate objects or living molecules, they do not simply assemble themselves into more complex structures BY THEMSELVES.

Yes they do. That's one of the things an enzyme does. If you have a molecule A and a molecule B, they might be able to combine if they bump into each other the right way. Of course, this will be very rare. But if you have an enzyme, it can make the process a lot faster. It can grab on to an A molecule and grab onto a B molecule and hold them together in the right way for them to combine. This accelerates the formation of the combined A-B. The enzyme is usually named after the combination it makes with the suffix -ase at the end. So in this case, the enzyme that makes the A-B combination would be called Abase. And what happens if the enzyme itself is abase? Then we have enzymes going around making more of themselves. Have a read of this. http://www.chem4kids.com/files/bio_enzymes.html

You don't need to debunk anything and nothing has been debunked as you imagine. More and more scientists have accepted the fact of Intelligent Design in this universe.

Irrelevant. The vast majority of scientists in relevant accept the naturalistic explanation for the formation of the universe.

Not at all. There is only one true and living God who is the Creator, the Sustainer, the Savior, and the Sovereign. All other gods are "pretend" gods or false gods, which belong to the realm of myths, legends, and the occult. Thor and all the Norse gods and heroes belong to this realm of fantasy, which is highly entertaining, but does not satisfy the soul.

Make the claim all you want, it doesn't change anything. Your statements are not more likely to be true just because you believe them really strongly.

AV1611VET · Oct 18, 2015

KTS said:
Genesis 1, where God makes the animals and then makes man and woman at the same time, and then Genesis 2, where God makes man, creates the animals as companions, but when Adam doesn't find them satisfactory, God then creates Eve.

So was it animals, man/woman, or was it man, animals, woman?

What does it matter?

You guys already called them "creation myths" (plural).

So whether there is only one, two, or more -- it looks like you're minds are made up.

Squeegee Beckenheim · Oct 18, 2015

AV1611VET said:
What does it matter?

You guys already called them "creation myths" (plural).

So whether there is only one, two, or more -- it looks like you're minds are made up.

Firstly, there is nothing in the word "myth" that necessarily implies that the story isn't true.

Secondly, speaking only for myself, I am always open to new evidence or cogent arguments. I am entirely persuadable on every subject, including the veracity of the creation myths in the Bible. If you have any cogent arguments as to why I should accept their veracity on a literal or even metaphorical level, I promise I will listen with an open mind. If you don't, then you can't blame me for failing to be persuaded.

AV1611VET · Oct 18, 2015

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I promise I will listen with an open mind.

We'll see about that, won't we?

Okay, Mr. Open Mind, two questions:

1. How many times does the Bible say in Genesis 2 that Adam was placed into the Garden?

Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

2. I'm a staunch KJVO, but not everyone else is. So if you aren't, please explain how there are two creation accounts, in light of the NIV.

Genesis 2:8 [NIV] Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

joshua 1 9 · Oct 18, 2015

TheQuietRiot said:
That seems very convenient for the creationist/intelligent design argument.

That is the way it will be for us in Heaven, we will be able to look through a portal anywhere at any time. So we can go back and observe the dinosaurs of we want.

joshua 1 9 · Oct 18, 2015

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
You are not able to have a conversation with anybody unless they share your religious faith?

I can not have a conversation with anyone that does not believe in dispensations. All of evolutionary theory is based on dispensations. One age ends another begins. If you do not understand change if you think everything is consistant and that there is no difference between a child and an adult then your not going to understand what I am talking about.

joshua 1 9 · Oct 18, 2015

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Water molecules assemble themselves into snowflakes, which are more complex structures.

Yes the design of the snow flake follows the structure of the water molecule. When the water is cold enough to crystallize. Otherwise it is just a tiny snowball. I use to ski in the rocky mountains so the resorts understand quite a bit about snow and even have 100 different snow conditions in their snow reports.

Squeegee Beckenheim · Oct 18, 2015

AV1611VET said:
We'll see about that, won't we?

Okay, Mr. Open Mind, two questions:

1. How many times does the Bible say in Genesis 2 that Adam was placed into the Garden?

Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

As you've cited, twice.

2. I'm a staunch KJVO, but not everyone else is. So if you aren't, please explain how there are two creation accounts, in light of the NIV.

I have no preference for any version of the Bible. We can use whatever version you wish.

But I don't really understand what you're asking me here, or what relevance the passage you quoted has to that question. Can you rephrase the question for me, please?

Squeegee Beckenheim · Oct 18, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
I can not have a conversation with anyone that does not believe in dispensations. All of evolutionary theory is based on dispensations.

As dispensations are a specifically religious concept of history, I think it's safe to say that evolutionary theory is not based upon them.

If you do not understand change if you think everything is consistant and that there is no difference between a child and an adult then your not going to understand what I am talking about.

That is a straw man. What I said was "I think the idea of thinking of life as having distinct, clearly-delineated "stages" is rather simplistic and not supported by observational data".

You mention the difference between a child and an adult. Firstly, this is obviously equivocation as you are comparing different stages of an individual's development with different eras in human history, yet there are clear distinctions between the two.

Secondly, of course I recognise that there is a difference between a child and an adult. What I dispute is the idea that there is a clear boundary line between them. Let's say for the sake of argument that we will count someone as being an adult when they reach the age of 18. This does not mean that some magical event happens at midnight on the eve of their 18th birthday. Instead, what we see is a gradual transition from child to adult. Some people will seem older than others when they are 18. If you were to look at a photo of any particular individual a day before their 18th birthday and had no more information to go on than that photo you would be unable to state with complete, justified confidence whether they were a child or an adult, as per the definition cited above. You could see the same individual on their 21st birthday and still be unsure.

The same principle applies for eras in human history, for evolutionary changes in populations, and many other phenomena, up to and including astronomical events.

Squeegee Beckenheim · Oct 18, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
Yes the design of the snow flake follows the structure of the water molecule. When the water is cold enough to crystallize. Otherwise it is just a tiny snowball. I use to ski in the rocky mountains so the resorts understand quite a bit about snow and even have 100 different snow conditions in their snow reports.

I was responding to the assertion that inanimate objects or molecules do not arrange themselves into more complex structures.

joshua 1 9 · Oct 18, 2015

KTS said:
There's nothing in there that requires the mustard seed to be a herb.

It is just not a problem for me, I just do not see a conflict. The first rule of understanding the Bible is context, you have to look at who the Bible was written to. THEN you can look to see how the Bible applies to us, the secondary audience. The people at the time believed the mustard seed was the smallest of seeds.

joshua 1 9 · Oct 18, 2015

AV1611VET said:
You guys already called them "creation myths" (plural).

This is the problem with a public school education. They do not understand that even what they call myths has an application in our lives as representing universal archetypes. Then they wonder why Christians fight and argue so much with the board of education in their local school districts. Right now we are working on getting the people we want elected to the school board and get rid of the people that do more harm then good to the school system. This is a reminder of how much more diligent we need to be to support elected officials that support what the Bible teaches.

"In Jungian psychology, archetypes are highly developed elements of the collective unconscious. Being unconscious, the existence of archetypes can only be deduced indirectly by examining behavior, images, art, myths, religions, or dreams. Carl Jung understood archetypes as universal, archaic patterns and images that derive from the collective unconscious and are the psychic counterpart of instinct.[1] They are inherited potentials which are actualized when they enter consciousness as images or manifest in behavior on interaction with the outside world.[2] They are autonomous and hidden forms which are transformed once they enter consciousness and are given particular expression by individuals and their cultures.

Strictly speaking, Jungian archetypes refer to unclear underlying forms or the archetypes-as-such from which emerge images and motifs such as the mother, the child, the trickster, and the flood among others. It is history, culture and personal context that shape these manifest representations thereby giving them their specific content. These images and motifs are more precisely called archetypal images. However it is common for the term archetype to be used interchangeably to refer to both archetypes-as-such and archetypal images.[2]"

The Creationist Corner

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Senior Member

indomitable

indomitable

Newbie

Defeater of Illogic

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency