Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
Well then, you explain what you're attempting to prove, and I'll tell you what it take to convince me.
Upvote
0
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.
Creationism does not necessitate 6,000 year old earth.
I am a Creationist and I do not claim a 6,000 year old earth. At least not in the same way it is presented in YEC.
Well then, you explain what you're attempting to prove, and I'll tell you what it take to convince me.
It depends upon your reason for creating it. Are you attempting to create just a working pocket watch or one that exactly mimicks a pocket watch created by man?
So you believe in something that has absolutely no evidence for it?
Making outlandish claims -- including but not limited to a giant sky-daddy *POOF*ing everything into being -- would require at least an attempt to back it up.
Right -- because no such evidence exists. Why then believe in such mythology?
That's rather beside the point since you're attempting to present an analogy for something which has been the focus of literally ALL scientific scrutiny -- the universe itself. Certainly it has been analyzed, scrutinized, examined, observed, documented and explored.A pocketwatch, Beastt, a simple pocketwatch. You're telling me that if I held out my hand, blinked a pocketwatch into existence from [literally] nowhere and gave it to you. You still would look for evidence that it was manufactured somewhere?
Ice cubes contain things other than water such as trapped air bubbles, (one of the reasons water expands when it freezes). The content of the air bubbles can be examined to see if the contents are consistent with Earth's atmosphere, at what elevation and at what location. If it cannot be matched to any known Earth location, then we have potential evidence that it was not formed naturally on Earth.What if it was an ice cube, instead?
Firstly, "nowhere" doesn't exist. No matter where you or anything else is, that is the place where it is. There isn't any "nowhere", except for a small town in Arizona by that name. But even Nowhere, Arizona exists in Arizona.Or a widget? Or a picture of you when you were just 1 year old? Or a book with your entire family tree written down in it, going back 5 generations? Out of nowhere?
I'm telling you that unless it was produced with the specific intent of making it appear to have been formed via natural methods it would contain evidence of having been produced by methods unlike those known to natural methods. Everything holds evidence regarding its formation. You simply cannot manipulate the physical without leaving evidence of that manipulation. The manipulation itself is evidence of manipulation as well as the marks, contaminents, chemical traces, etc. left upon the physical matter being analyzed.You're telling me it should show evidence of ex nihilo?
The manipulation itself is evidence of manipulation as well as the marks, contaminents, chemical traces, etc. left upon the physical matter being analyzed.
To cut to the chase a bit, the TAG claims to be able to justify its own assumptions. That, as Godel claimed, is not possible. Thus, if you construct an argument that assumes reason, then that same argument cannot also justify reason.Exactly.
I can use reason because we have the ability to do so. We can use reason to determine truth or falsity.
God is demonstrably not doing everything he can. He's, conveniently enough, doing everything apologists claim he can.It's not mythology, Nathan; it's the miracle of creation, done by God, Himself, Who is doing everything He can to show people the way to eternal life before it's eternally too late.
But his desperation is never so profound that he considers doing it himself.Look at it this way: He is so desperate that you get saved, He is even sending people like me and JohnR7 to try and convince you guys of the Truth --- and that's desperate!
Ok.
That Science supports the Creation narrative, that God created the universe.
That's two different things -- If the "Creation narrative" you're referring to is the book of Genesis, you might end up having to prove YEC after all.
If all you want to prove is that God created the universe (without being all that specific as to who or how) then a religious conversion is in order -- and those tend to happen, more often than not, without solid evidence.
To cut to the chase a bit, the TAG claims to be able to justify its own assumptions. That, as Godel claimed, is not possible. Thus, if you construct an argument that assumes reason, then that same argument cannot also justify reason.
There's no fancy dancing here at all, AV, just answers that you appear not to like because they demonstrate the fallacious quality of your presentation. It's all about evidence and evidence is always present. That's what I've shown and it's what you seem to prefer not to address.AV1611VET said:That was a lot of fancy dancing, Beastt, but you're adding an air of facetiousness to the examples that's being disrespectful to its intent.
Actually, I'm showing you that the question can be answered. I answered it. The answer is, if the supernatural entity is able and desirous of practicing deception, then it's not impossible that it could fake the evidence of known natural methods. If the supernatural entity has no reason and no desire to be deceptive, then the evidence would show whether or not the object was made through known natural methods or not.AV1611VET said:I suspect that you're trying to simply make it look like the question cannot be answered.
You ask a question, I present an answer and I'm side-stepping the question? That's simply unsupportable. I answered your question and gave you specifics to support my answer. And rather than face the fact that my answer is credible, supportable and accurate, you seem to want to side-step my answer by accusing me of side-stepping. That might work for you but if you're interested in truth, then you'll need to address my answer rather than hand-waving it.AV1611VET said:You can bring up halide crystals, air bubbles, and manufacturing marks all you want, but what I see in them is an attempt to sidestep the issue.
Nor did I. I answered it quite fully and with examples. I offered to provide more examples if you wanted to present different objects. Apparently, my response was more compelling because you seem to feel the need to attempt to discredit my response by calling it "fancy dancing" rather than recognizing it to be completely accurate and completely supported.AV1611VET said:Nathan Poe had no problem answering it.
.[bible]John 21:24-25[/bible]But his desperation is never so profound that he considers doing it himself.
But not God's writing; the writing of men. And not just in one book but in several; all written by men. Many attributed to different gods and presenting inconsistent claims.It is backed up --- in writing.
This is really all he can do? Nothing done so far has been other than what men can do. What happened to omnipotence?It's not mythology, Nathan; it's the miracle of creation, done by God, Himself, Who is doing everything He can to show people the way to eternal life before it's eternally too late.
But not God's writing; the writing of men.
And not just in one book but in several; all written by men.
Many attributed to different gods and presenting inconsistent claims.
This is really all he can do? Nothing done so far has been other than what men can do.
What happened to omnipotence?
You might be a Creationist if you think astronomers blew up Pluto a few weeks ago.
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?