What is the end goal for creationists these days?

[Astrophile]

What if the Bible were to tell you that 5+4=10?

What if the Bible were to tell you that pi = 3 - 1 Kings 7:23?

 

[juvenissun]

It seems to me that you can't present a clear definition of Christian life, nor is there a way to test for its presence.

I suspect it will have to remain a point of personal faith and conviction, and not of testability, definition and science.

I did it very clearly. I am talking about science, not faith.
Are you trying to run away from the discussion? I was expecting your positive comment.

 

[juvenissun]

Which rocks do not have, so I still do not understand why you claim they are alive. Heck, if one defined life as items which have blood, you'd consider more than half of the organisms considered alive not to be.

Even if you defined blood as "a fluid within something", most rocks still wouldn't be considered alive under those extremely weird life and blood definitions.

According to my definition, rock is not alive.
According to your definition, rock is alive.

 

[juvenissun]

May I ask what class you're teaching? I somehow doubt that it is biology...

You are right. I never teach biology. In fact, I never learn biology.

 

[juvenissun]

May I ask what class you're teaching? I somehow doubt that it is biology...

You are right. I never teach biology. In fact, I never learn biology.

 

[juvenissun]

May I ask what class you're teaching? I somehow doubt that it is biology...

You are right. I never teach biology. In fact, I never learn biology.

 

[bhsmte]

You are right. I never teach biology. In fact, I never learn biology.

That was worth saying three times.

 

[Skreeper]

You are right. I never teach biology. In fact, I never learn biology.

It was kinda obvious that you've never learned biology. But I still would like to know what class you're teaching.

 

[juvenissun]

It was kinda obvious that you've never learned biology. But I still would like to know what class you're teaching.

Do you no good.

 

[Skreeper]

Do you no good.

I am just gonna assume you were lying about being a teacher then since you refuse to answer one simple question.

 

[Ophiolite]

I am just gonna assume you were lying about being a teacher then since you refuse to answer one simple question.

Correction: refuses to answer many simple questions. Repeatedly.

 

[Shemjaza]

I did it very clearly. I am talking about science, not faith.
Are you trying to run away from the discussion? I was expecting your positive comment.

I apologise, I am not trying to run away.

It's just that none of your definitions are clear. You present examples with individual explanations, but the explanations have been either inconsistent (rocks have have internal processes but trees do not) or based on undefined or undefinable terms (blood is necessary for life but does not in itself have a definition).

 

[juvenissun]

I apologise, I am not trying to run away.

It's just that none of your definitions are clear. You present examples with individual explanations, but the explanations have been either inconsistent (rocks have have internal processes but trees do not) or based on undefined or undefinable terms (blood is necessary for life but does not in itself have a definition).

So, let me do it one more time, in a clear way:
Christian definition of life: A life has and must have blood. Or: a natural system which has blood, then it is a life.
Good enough?
Scientifically, it is a better definition than those we have now.

 

[Shemjaza]

So, let me do it one more time, in a clear way:
Christian definition of life: A life has and must have blood. Or: a natural system which has blood, then it is a life.
Good enough?
Scientifically, it is a better definition than those we have now.

That definition doesn't work if you can't define blood.

 

[juvenissun]

That definition doesn't work if you can't define blood.

That is a scientific problem, not a definition problem. However it is defined in science, it will be applied to the definition.

Think, the meaning of blood to people 3000 years ago is different from that to people today. However, the definition works then as it does now.

 

[Shemjaza]

That is a scientific problem, not a definition problem. However it is defined in science, it will be applied to the definition.

Think, the meaning of blood to people 3000 years ago is different from that to people today. However, the definition works then as it does now.

No, that is a definition problem. You are using an undefined term, so your definition is in turn undefined.

In addition, you have not presented a definition of "blood" that even applies to the series of examples you are using. Rocks do not bleed, they do not have internal processes analogous to animals. Plants do not bleed, but they do have internal processes vaguely analogous to animals.

You seem to want to hold onto the assertion that you support science and have a clear alternative definition for life, but have so far been completely incapable of presenting it.

 

[juvenissun]

No, that is a definition problem. You are using an undefined term, so your definition is in turn undefined.

In addition, you have not presented a definition of "blood" that even applies to the series of examples you are using. Rocks do not bleed, they do not have internal processes analogous to animals. Plants do not bleed, but they do have internal processes vaguely analogous to animals.

You seem to want to hold onto the assertion that you support science and have a clear alternative definition for life, but have so far been completely incapable of presenting it.

You are not fair in that view.

This is not a problem of math or logic, it is a biology, theology, chemistry, and physics problem. It is rare that every word used in the definition of a scientific term is well defined (in the definition itself). Very very rare.

For example: The earth is the third planet of the sun. Do you see any problem in this definition? What is a "planet"? You give me the definition of a science term, I will give you a question to at least one word in the definition, which is not explained in the definition. In that case, can you say the term is not defined?

I wish you quit this line and start to help me to define what is blood.

 

[ruthiesea]

No, it doesn't.

The Bible is right, whether I'm wrong or not.

5+4=9, and if someone thinks it equals 10, that statement is still correct: 5+4=9.

Of course, your math example is a non sequitur.

I never said that the Bible is wrong. It is absolutely right in teaching us morality and ethics. What it is not is a history or a science book, especially the first five books.


“That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, all the rest is commentary, go and learn it." ~ Hillel

 

[AV1611VET]

I never said that the Bible is wrong. It is absolutely right in teaching us morality and ethics. What it is not is a history or a science book, especially the first five books.

Would you know it if It was?

And if so ... how?

I'll agree that It is neither a science, nor a history Book; but I won't agree It doesn't contain science and history.

In other words, the Bible is not a science book; the Bible is not a history book; but the Bible contains both science and history.

There's a difference.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Would you know it if It was?

And if so ... how?

By comparing it to actual science and history books.

I'll agree that It is neither a science, nor a history Book; but I won't agree It doesn't contain science and history.

In other words, the Bible is not a science book; the Bible is not a history book; but the Bible contains both science and history.

There's a difference.

Agreed -- the Bible contains some science and some history... but then again, so does The Wizard of Oz, so you might not want to hang your hat on it.