The number one bugger for creationists: C

[w81minit]

Wouldn't have even mattered if his dad was Jewish which he probably wasn't (he was illegitimate I believe) because being Jewish is passed through the maternal line. He wasn't an atheist he was basically an ex-Catholic Christian who had no time for the church itslef.

Being Jewish is passed through the maternal line?
Can you explain? I've never heard this before.

Thanks!

 

[Tachocline]

Being Jewish is passed through the maternal line?
Can you explain? I've never heard this before.

Thanks!

You are not Jewish unless your mother was Jewish. You don't know this? Hitler's mother was not Jewish ergo he cannot be Jewish. Simple really.

 

[w81minit]

nyjb,

Can you explain what you mean by "literal" given the fact that, presumably:

1) You don't believe insects have four legs.
2) You don't believe rabbits chew cud.
3) You don't believe the earth has corners.

These are all instances whereby science directly contradicts Scripture. Based on your testimony, it would be inconsistent of you to accept the word of science on these matters.

I may return to 1 and 2 later; however on item 3 the 4 corners of the Earth is an idiomatic phrase, much like Feliz Navidad is Merry Christmas.

The Bible uses them for understanding in the venacular. For example:
King David was going to kill everyone in Nabol's house down to he who p***eth on the wall.
Further the four corners refers to each direction one might travel. North, South, East, and West. Sure you can travel derivitave directions, but they still boil down to the 4 corners.

 

[Polycarp1]

Hey, Lonnie. I see your point about the contrary evidence -- but come at it with the idea of being on a jury, and weighing the evidence.

Here we have a book, which some people claim to be the sworn literal truth of a figure that all are agreed is beyond reproach. But some people work from that truth value to advance statements not in the book, but logically derivable from it. However, we know that while the author of the book is trustworthy, he also has a fondness for using parables, poetry, and other literary forms for making his points -- it's common knowledge that parts of the book are poems, surreal images claimed to be prophecy, etc.

Now, here we have a whole lot of observations of the universe at large. We know how long it takes for hard water to lay down a thin layer of limestone under various conditions, how long it takes for a buried layer of sand to turn into sandstone. These are observable phenomena. But if limestone is laid down at 1/32" per year under these conditions, and we have a ten-foot-thick layer of limestone, how long does that tell you it took to produce that layer? We have radioactive material that breaks down at a measurable rate, sometimes very fast (so that it takes 12 hours for half of it to decay) and sometimes quite slow (Carbon-14, for example, takes about 5600 years for half of it to decay). Some of it is extremely slow, so that the time it would take for half of it to decay are way beyond the 6008 years since Creation on the Ussher scale. But by taking the amount of radioactive element present now in a given sample, and the amount of what it breaks down into that is there, we can determine how long it's been since it started breaking down.

Likewise, there are a lot of ways to measure the distance to stars and other celestial objects. And many of them appear to be doing things as we see them, which means that they would have had to be doing that as many years ago as they are light-years distant from us. So if a star is exactly 6000 light years away, and is now seen expanding slowly to supergiant size, it must have been actually doing that in year 8 after Creation. But what about another star that's 7000 light years away, and doing the same thing? Are we supposed to believe that 6008 years ago, God created it complete with light beams 992 light years towards us that showed what it would have been doing if he'd started earlier? Doesn't that seem a bit strange?

On the other hand, the idea that the text of Genesis 1 is a literal repertorial account and not a story is a human concept -- God didn't say "Listen, the parable of the Good Samaritan is a story, and Psalm 50 is a poem, but Genesis 1, now that's literal reportage!" We came up with the idea that that's what it must be. And all the YEC stuff is founded on this human idea -- not on the word of God itself. We agree on what Genesis 1 says -- we just disagree on what it was supposed to be understood as. And I think that the points it makes about what God wanted us to know about Creation are better understood when you look at it as story -- as "myth" in the Joseph Campbell sense, truth told under the guise of story -- than if you try to bend data about the world all out of shape in an effort to make it come out true as a literal news-story account. It isn't that; it's clear that it's not supposed to be that. It makes points by its repetitive style, like a story with a moral would; it doesn't have the dry narrative style of history, but the inspiring style of teaching at its finest.

 

[aeroz19]

Are you familiar with Augustine's writing on arguing science with non-believers?

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

I love that quote.

 

[aeroz19]

"If you suggest that God created the world in six days in 4004 BC, and made it replete with evidences of being far, far older, you have made Him into one of those trickster gods"

The people that think the world is far older are evolutonists.
Just because it you guys could have been mistaken, does not mean God is a liar.

Please do not comment unless you can follow the discussion.

 

[w81minit]

Mistaken about what?

Do you agree that the universe looks older than 6000 years?
Then there has to be an explanation for why it looks older than it is.

Or you disagree that the universe looks older - then you have to explain all the instances (and I mean ALL) that lead people - people who weren´t eveolutionsis - to think it was.


All that comes down to a single point: creationists CANNOT be mistaken. They might talk about a God how "send deluding spirits", but it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE that they might be the one who are deluded.

Oh, now that one is easy: The same book I got the deluding spirits reference is the same book that I got the six days reference.

Maybe I read it wrong. Lemme check.......<pages turning>...nope. God created man 'And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.' And from the other reference: 'the LORD has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets'

 

[aeroz19]

So, have the creationists here dropped the idea that creationism is science?

Lets get this over with. It seems that they have absolutely no scientific proof to back up their claims except for PRATT items which have been refuted decades ago.

Therefore they are in such a state of mind that they are forced to reject all modern science and blindly embrace their faith, forcing their minds to be bankrupt of knowledge and learning in science. They must also be as closed minded as possible, so that all fragments of truth cannot enter in.

 

[aeroz19]

the earth doesn't look old. it looks like it was wiped out by a catastophic flood about 4400 years ago. God hates sin and judges it. The "old"features we see today should remind us of a holy God who cannot tolerate sin. It should make us aware of the judgment that is yet to come upon sinful humanity, and point us to the answer for our sin problem-CHRIST

YEC (of the earth anyway) has been effectively reduced from a science to a sin, or myth blindly believed by those who cannot or do not understand science or their own Bibles.

 

[w81minit]

...Snip to condense... So why the false record?

YECists have two options: either the earth is young and the evidence indicates this (which means that they have to present the evidence and deal with the falsifying evidence) or the earth is young but contains evidence that it is old (which means that they can ignore evidence, but in turn make their deity into a deceiver). So which is it?

Or perhaps the earth isn't actually young at all, which is exactly what all the evidence indicates, and that gets rid of both problems...hmm...a young earth does not seem to be the only answer, but that is the limit you insist on imposing upon yourself.

Why did God have to create Earth out of new material? When God creates a new heaven and a new Earth (assuming you believe those are true) will he have to wait 4 Billion years before we can occupy it?
Will he use older material? I am just wondering what you believe on that?

As for the fossil record, it has been posited that there is the distinct possibility that sudden and cataclysmic events caused these fossils to exist as they do.

One argument doesn't of necessity depend on the other. Just an alternative explanation.

 

[w81minit]

Questions to creationists:
Do you believe God created Adam and Eve with belly buttons?
Do you believe God would create adam with false memories and a scar from a bar fight he never had? Why, why not?
Does Adam have any toys from his childhood?

<shaking head>
I don't know, the Bible is silent on that matter. I do believe he was a fully finctional male with the ability to reproduce. Not sure if God created him prepubescent or not, but I have always felt he was a full adult male. I can't be dogmatic about it though.
What do memories have to do with it. Are you seriously comparing our calculation of the age of the matter on Earth to Earth 'memories'? It makes no sense as a comparison. The conjecture on a fight is trite, but I'll swing at it - nope. Adam knew that Eve came from him. That is why he called her woman, for she was taken out of man. The bar scene I am sure was dull back then.
Yes, he does. As the saying goes the bigger the boys the bigger their toys. I am confident he had a 4x4 and went muddin' through the rainforest like garden.

 

[Arikay]

And so far every creationist explanation of the fossil record has fallen flat. Often ignoring the evidence to come up with a fictional explanation. For example, hydrological sorting. Sure it sounds good that water sorted everything based on weight and buoyancy. But when we look at the fossil record, it looks completly different than what hydrological sorting suggests. So new and progressively odder ideas are created. That animals ran up mountains to escape the flood.
I guess we are getting a bit off topic here.


Edit: Can you answer my questions Seriously this time? Or do the serious answers cause problems so you have chosen to try to dodge it.

Why did God have to create Earth out of new material? When God creates a new heaven and a new Earth (assuming you believe those are true) will he have to wait 4 Billion years before we can occupy it?
Will he use older material? I am just wondering what you believe on that?

As for the fossil record, it has been posited that there is the distinct possibility that sudden and cataclysmic events caused these fossils to exist as they do.

One argument doesn't of necessity depend on the other. Just an alternative explanation.

 

[w81minit]

You are not Jewish unless your mother was Jewish. You don't know this? Hitler's mother was not Jewish ergo he cannot be Jewish. Simple really.

OK, so you are saying paternal geneology is irrelavant as it pertains to determining jewish credentials?

 

[Tachocline]

OK, so you are saying paternal geneology is irrelavant as it pertains to determining jewish credentials?

I'm not saying that, the Jewish faith says that.

And Hitler's father was officially illegitimate anyway. The whole Hitler was a Jew thing is just an urban legend and has been treated as such by historians since the rumour first started decades ago. I think it was started because someone thought it would be the ultimate in irony.

 

[Cantuar]

Formal conversion to Judaism will also make a person Jewish. Otherwise descent from a Jewish mother is the criterion. My father is Jewish but I'm not because my mother isn't; however, my cousins (the children of my father's sister) are. Not that those fine distinctions would have mattered to Hitler, who counted anybody with at least one Jewish grandparent as Jewish, but that's how it is for Judaism.

 

[Cantuar]

What do memories have to do with it. Are you seriously comparing our calculation of the age of the matter on Earth to Earth 'memories'?

No. He's asking whether God created Adam with memories of a childhood that didn't happen or whether he created Adam as physically mature but with no past whatever, in his mind as well as his body.

 

[aeroz19]

Most YECs seem to chose option 1B: the earth is young, the evidence indicates this, but I don´t have to explain because you are deluded.

Handwaving is always the easiest argument.

I have found that that the testimonies of the YECists are in want of proof and evidence in science. I have found that they believe their interpretations of the Bible's account of Creation are unquestionable, and that, to seal their interpretations in their minds they have become willfully ignorant of the findings of modern science, and even the science from over a hundred years ago.

I also find that their ability to understand the scientific material of the discussion is severly limited due to willful ignorance and the lack of interest, and also that their ability to follow the discussion and participate in the discussion in a logical manner is greatly lacking and is a hindrance to the discussion.

I therefore conclude that this discussion cannot progress further, because of the above.

However, continuing is irresistable...

 

[Tachocline]

Well Yes of course you can convert. But I ahve never heard of even the most die hard Hitler legends folk claim he had a conversion. Now that would be news.

 

[Cantuar]

Trouble with creationists is that they're afflicted with Morton's Demon.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

I wont name who said that if God did make the World 6,000(or so) years old, that it would make God the liar. So I dont think it would make God a Liar, but you guys sure seem to think so.

You continue to miss the point. I'm not sure you're reading what people have been writing very carefully.

IF your deity created the planet 6000 years ago, and IF the evidence does not indicate this, then it makes that deity a liar because a false record would be contained therein.

You guys(evolutionists) are the ones that say its a false record.

Again: IF your deity created the planet 6000 years ago, and IF the evidence indicates that the earth is older complete with the examples I gave that you ignored (fossils of organisms that never actually existed, etc.), then it is a false record.

IF creationists claim that the earth was created mature and it includes things like fossils, then they are admitting that it is a false record whether they state it explicitly or not.

Not creationists, so the whole "God is a liar thing" is rather, annoying to me(and other people too), as it does not effect me(and many others too), cause they where not "decieved"/Tricked/think things look older than they really are.

So does the evidence on the planet indicate that it was created 6000 years ago or does the evidence indicate that it was 4.6 billion years ago. What does the evidence indicate? You need to make your position clear because you keep swaying.