Which creation do creationists want us to believe took place?

[juvenissun]

Sorry, but "believe first" is a guaranteed way to mislead yourself. Understand first, then decide whether or not it merits belief. That is the only way to have a hope in hell of discovering some semblance of the truth.

We could NEVER understand. So, if you hold on that attitude, you could never believe anything, include science.

For a scientist, an acceptable compromise is to accept all assumptions of the religion FIRST. Then see what would be the consequence. If you have a strong scientific mind (like I have), you may explore religion from a logic approach, rather than a scientific approach.

 

[thaumaturgy]

For a scientist, an acceptable compromise is to accept all assumptions of the religion FIRST.

This sure doesn't sound like science, logic or hypothesis testing formalisms that I have learned. One usually starts with a null hypothesis of "no effect" and then tests against this hypothesis.

But I am interested that one with a "strong scientific mind" finds it reasonable to start by simply accepting the supernatural and unfalsifiable and then moving from there.

(That, in my opinion, is precisely how religion has to work, in other words children have to be inculcated with the ideas before a natural skepticism sets in. That way it remains a mental state that is very hard to shake in adult life. I became an atheist at about age 41 and I still find it quite difficult to get rid of the ideas implanted in my head as a child. I suppose if that is how the meme must be propogated we fully understand why creationists only deal with childrens' topics in general rather than actually pursue real science with adults as the main audience).

Then see what would be the consequence. If you have a strong scientific mind (like I have), you may explore religion from a logic approach, rather than a scientific approach.

This is an excellent paragraph. I wonder if it can be up for any awards?

 

[juvenissun]

an interesting question that you make no effort to look or provide an answer for! how scientific of you! being inquisitive is for chumps!

I am thinking. It is not an easy question.

To say that human is made of carbon is not correct either. The best way to say it is that human is made of oxides. However, if you will, silicates is also a type of oxides. (definition of oxide: anything contains oxygen)

So, unless we spell out the exact chemical composition of a human being, we will give a wrong answer anyway. And I know for sure that every human, or even every life, would have different composition (to the third decimal of all elements).

God intends to use "material" to make human beings (unlike angels). So, the consideration is that what kind of material is the best choice? Whether the created being would operate based on the property of that material may not be the most important consideration. Because magic is gong to happen anyway in making that object become alive.

Using silicates to make Adam, could only mean to use "the most common earth material" to make Adam, instead of using Jupiter's material (which could probably be more realistic). So Adam belongs to the earth which is also God's unique creation.

 

[Split Rock]

I am thinking. It is not an easy question.

To say that human is made of carbon is not correct either. The best way to say it is that human is made of oxides. However, if you will, silicates is also a type of oxides. (definition of oxide: anything contains oxygen)

This is also misleading. Carbon oxides are not silcate oxides. Humans are made of organic compounds, which are compounds based on carbon. Primarliy, humans are made of C, O, N, H. This is not at all a reflection of what we find in most soils. Some soils, such as muck, are much higher in organic compounds. Of course, such soils get their organics from living sources to begin with. If the earth was made with organic compounds in its soil, then one could purpose that God used an organic-rich soil to create Adam. But then, Adam would still have silicates in his profile. It would make more sense if God used ash or peat, but again, these all come from living organisms in the first place. It is best to view the use of soil to create Adam as symbolic... We all are dependent on the soil for life and go back there when we die.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Whether the created being would operate based on the property of that material may not be the most important consideration. Because magic is gong to happen anyway in making that object become alive.

Magic?

 

[AV1611VET]

Curious, does the fact that some things are written after-the-fact in your view somehow automatically invalidate them?

Thank you --- this is the sort of mindset that I would want my challenge to bring out. It's a quid pro quo challenge: since you guys claim the Gospels were written after the fact, I can do the same thing with the [fairy?] tales about the Spanish Armada.

In reality though --- and this is Paul Harvey's "rest of the story" --- contrary to what most people think, the English did not put the sockdolager on the Spanish Armada. This was well-documented on the History Channel.

It was an "act of God" that destroyed the Armada.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is a double-edged sword. But folks like AV and Dad simply don't understand that the next step in their "slicing and dicing science" is that the blade comes back around to slice and dice their point with equal ease.

No --- it's the other way around.

I've learned how you guys "slice-and-dice" the Scriptures with your science - (Remember that picture of that Veg-o-Matic I used to post?) - so I'm "slicing-and-dicing" science up the same way.

In other words, I'm giving you guys a taste of your own medicine; and you guys don't like it.

 

[Chalnoth]

We could NEVER understand. So, if you hold on that attitude, you could never believe anything, include science.

Well, that depends upon what you mean by 'understand'. If you mean on an intuitive level, then you're absolutely right. What I meant, however, was understand in the sense that I understand how the various pieces logically fit together, and how they accord with observation. That level of understanding is most certainly possible with science (it's what science is all about), but it is not possible with the Bible.

For a scientist, an acceptable compromise is to accept all assumptions of the religion FIRST. Then see what would be the consequence. If you have a strong scientific mind (like I have), you may explore religion from a logic approach, rather than a scientific approach.

Well, not accept, but hypothetically consider. You're right, though, this is just fine. The problem is that Christianity doesn't make any sense whatsoever, and this thread shows just one way (among many) in which this is the case. Specifically, those versions of Christianity that believe that the early chapters in Genesis are literal have a very real problem where described in chapters 1 and 2 are two very different creation accounts. These cannot possibly both have occurred as stated. That is a fundamental impossibility. So either one or both must necessarily not describe what actually happened. It's as simple as that.

 

[Split Rock]

Thank you --- this is the sort of mindset that I would want my challenge to bring out. It's a quid pro quo challenge: since you guys claim the Gospels were written after the fact, I can do the same thing with the [fairy?] tales about the Spanish Armada.

Again, there is a difference between contemporay writings, and those writings that followed long after the event in question. I am curious as to how you think it is possible to write about an event before it happens? Interestingly, we have writings that support the events that unfolded that were written before the Armada was destroyed... such as musterings of troops and financial records.

In reality though --- and this is Paul Harvey's "rest of the story" --- contrary to what most people think, the English did not put the sockdolager on the Spanish Armada. This was well-documented on the History Channel.

It was an "act of God" that destroyed the Armada.

True, it was a storm which crippled much of the Spanish fleet (but not all). Nevertheless, actions by the British ships disrupted and delayed the Spanish both before and after the storm did its damage.

 

[Nathan Poe]

No --- it's the other way around.

I've learned how you guys "slice-and-dice" the Scriptures with your science - (Remember that picture of that Veg-o-Matic I used to post?) - so I'm "slicing-and-dicing" science up the same way.

In other words, I'm giving you guys a taste of your own medicine; and you guys don't like it.

I wasn't aware that "we guys" slice and dice scripture at all -- I, personally, wouldn't shred a book for any reason.

So, what are you blathering about?

 

[Split Rock]

No --- it's the other way around.

I've learned how you guys "slice-and-dice" the Scriptures with your science - (Remember that picture of that Veg-o-Matic I used to post?) - so I'm "slicing-and-dicing" science up the same way.

In other words, I'm giving you guys a taste of your own medicine; and you guys don't like it.

Then why is it that your arguments fall so flat? It is because you are NOT treating science the way we treat scripture.. or more accurately, your interpretation of scripture. You are not exposing any "flaws" in science... just making the nihilistic claim that all arguments are worthless, therefore they all carry the same weight. You "slice and dice" your own faith and belief to gain a parity of desolation. All understanding is now "sliced and diced" into wreckage and nothing we believe is true. Fine. You win. You are now Emperor of Somalia.

Do you think your interpretation of scripture should be sancrosant? If your only argument is your interpretation of scripture, do you not expect us to examine and question it? We are happy if you wish to question and examine scientific theories. Yet, you claim you have no interest in understanding them. Then you make the claim these same theories you do not want to understand are worthless because they conflict with your beliefs. Sorry. We are not buying it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Again, there is a difference between contemporay writings, and those writings that followed long after the event in question. I am curious as to how you think it is possible to write about an event before it happens? Interestingly, we have writings that support the events that unfolded that were written before the Armada was destroyed... such as musterings of troops and financial records.

Show me one.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are now Emperor of Somalia.

I've been taken captive though, but I have a bank account in the U.S., and if I can get to it, I can make a withdrawal and finance a rescue operation. For a small donation, would you be interested in financing my staff's trip to the U.S. to release these funds? Then, upon my rescue, I'll reimburse you at the rate of 100-to-1.

 

[juvenissun]

This is also misleading. Carbon oxides are not silcate oxides. Humans are made of organic compounds, which are compounds based on carbon. Primarliy, humans are made of C, O, N, H. This is not at all a reflection of what we find in most soils. Some soils, such as muck, are much higher in organic compounds. Of course, such soils get their organics from living sources to begin with. If the earth was made with organic compounds in its soil, then one could purpose that God used an organic-rich soil to create Adam. But then, Adam would still have silicates in his profile. It would make more sense if God used ash or peat, but again, these all come from living organisms in the first place. It is best to view the use of soil to create Adam as symbolic... We all are dependent on the soil for life and go back there when we die.

Yes, symbolic. But what "symbol" to use is still a very high wisdom. Even an symbolic illustration could still have a lot of science and logic embedded in it. For example, I am sure you can tell me a lot of "reasons" by the symbol you used in your avatar.

So, why does God use silicates to make Adam, rather than uses other animals and plants that are already created? I still could only say that it is a very good question.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, that depends upon what you mean by 'understand'. If you mean on an intuitive level, then you're absolutely right. What I meant, however, was understand in the sense that I understand how the various pieces logically fit together, and how they accord with observation. That level of understanding is most certainly possible with science (it's what science is all about), but it is not possible with the Bible.


Well, not accept, but hypothetically consider. You're right, though, this is just fine. The problem is that Christianity doesn't make any sense whatsoever, and this thread shows just one way (among many) in which this is the case. Specifically, those versions of Christianity that believe that the early chapters in Genesis are literal have a very real problem where described in chapters 1 and 2 are two very different creation accounts. These cannot possibly both have occurred as stated. That is a fundamental impossibility. So either one or both must necessarily not describe what actually happened. It's as simple as that.

From one view, you may see that the Gen. 1 has a lot of errors.
From another view, you may also see that the Gen. 1 suggests a lot of amazing scientific possibilities and ideas.

 

[Chalnoth]

From one view, you may see that the Gen. 1 has a lot of errors.
From another view, you may also see that the Gen. 1 suggests a lot of amazing scientific possibilities and ideas.

Well, sure, you might suggest the latter. If you're completely and utterly ignorant of science.

To illustrate this, name me one theologian who predicted a scientific discovery based upon Genesis 1. Just one.

 

[Split Rock]

Show me one.

Here we go again! Can you prove I am typing on a computer keyboard right this second? Can you???? NO, you can't! Ha,ha!!

I've been taken captive though, but I have a bank account in the U.S., and if I can get to it, I can make a withdrawal and finance a rescue operation. For a small donation, would you be interested in financing my staff's trip to the U.S. to release these funds? Then, upon my rescue, I'll reimburse you at the rate of 100-to-1.

Sounds like one of those Nigerian 419 fraud schemes to me!

 

[MoonLancer]

It was an "act of God" that destroyed the Armada.

I diden't destroy the armada, i don't know what your talking about. as God, I claim no responsibility. When you make claims without evidence and try to pass it along as truth, it opens a Pandora box of ignorance.

 

[AV1611VET]

I diden't destroy the armada, i don't know what your talking about. as God, I claim no responsibility.

Tell that to Philip II.

It was reported that, when Philip II learned of the result of the expedition, he declared, "I sent the Armada against men, not God's winds and waves".

 

[Nathan Poe]

Tell that to Philip II.

So, are you adding Philip II to the long list of infallible people?