Which creation do creationists want us to believe took place?

[MoonLancer]

Tell that to Philip II.

So would you also say that God brought down vengeance and wrath to the people of New Orleans? Are all deaths the will of God? If we compared the deaths of those responsible by Lucifer and that of God, who would win?

Taking life without consent is murder you know. Would that make God a murderer?

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

Tell that to Philip II.

So would you also say that God brought down vengeance and wrath to the people of New Orleans? Are all deaths the will of God? If we compared the deaths of those responsible by Lucifer and that of God, who would win?

My --- that opened a Pandora's Box of questions, didn't it?

Not so funny now, is it, MoonLancer?

 

[Nathan Poe]

My --- that opened a Pandora's Box of questions, didn't it?

Not so funny now, is it, MoonLancer?

Do you find being asked questions funny, AV?

 

[MoonLancer]

Not so funny now, is it, MoonLancer?

actually i find it hilarious... and sad. but that sadness is more like pity... for you.

i pity you

Your entire argument against science is based on trying to formulate a void of ignorance for which your cumbersome ideas might possibly fit.

I am reminded of a time parents protested a teachers teachers board. they wanted to give christains the right to send home church packets with kindergartners. The measure passed, but knowing that the first amendment prohibited Christianity exclusive access, They had to word it just right...

Some days later kids where bringing home packets on Pagan new age kindof stuff. Parents where not pleased realizing they had opened Pandora's box. When christains want freedom of religion, they want freedom for THEIR religion, and no others. The more they drive at creation the more they are giveing other religions an opportunity to be tought in its stead.

if you try to wedge in ideology that assumes evidence means nothing and only personal verification is valid, I would not want to be you in a murder case that was brought about due to a mistaken identity.

in the end everyone knows faeries did it, after all they say they did and they are all powerful so they must be right.

PS i am god and you cant prove me wrong, that is, in a world where evidence speaks not of truth.

 

[atomweaver]

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.

You missed the problem. I don't find the Gospels to be invalid on the basis of the timeframe within which they were written (after the fact). I do, however, find individual claims within them to be non-historical, based on the lack of corroborating evidence for many of its claims.

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.

So, when the evidence is followed, you see that the popular literature of the time can be contradicted... Good for you, apply this principal universally to your views.

This was well-documented on the History Channel.

You've only substituted one after-the-fact account for another. Was this arbitrary, or was there something more compelling about the History Channel account? What eveidence did the History Channel present that conviced you that the earlier writings were not factual?

 

[AV1611VET]

You've only substituted one after-the-fact account for another. Was this arbitrary, or was there something more compelling about the History Channel account? What eveidence did the History Channel present that conviced you that the earlier writings were not factual?

Are you kidding me, Tom? The Armada didn't even exist. It was written by Medieval Age bull runners to make it look like they were fulfilling their part of the Reinassance.

[Note to my Spanish friends: I'm being facetious here --- no offense intended --- I'm just giving these guys a taste of their own medicine.]

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

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.

You act as if somehow it's a mystery as to why a substance would be a good candidate for human composition, and we know it without having analyzed every chemical composition in our bodies. this is chemistry 101.
carbon is the lightest substance that can make four chemical bonds. it can also make up to three bonds with another carbon. the result of this is long, large, and complex carbon compounds. you can achieve very long chains of carbon compounds. there is probably no limit to the size that a carbon compound can achieve. DNA has many billions of base pairs each of which contain several carbons, hydrogens, nitrogens, and oxygens. that's why carbon is uniquely qualified to be the basic material for life. no other element has equivilent capability to make such long complex polymers with itself.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

You can have more than one. But the one you wanted is here:

The very first detectable existence is the light.

Don't you ever think this is only one of the random ideas put down by a stone-age man.

 

[juvenissun]

You act as if somehow it's a mystery as to why a substance would be a good candidate for human composition, and we know it without having analyzed every chemical composition in our bodies. this is chemistry 101.
carbon is the lightest substance that can make four chemical bonds. it can also make up to three bonds with another carbon. the result of this is long, large, and complex carbon compounds. you can achieve very long chains of carbon compounds. there is probably no limit to the size that a carbon compound can achieve. DNA has many billions of base pairs each of which contain several carbons, hydrogens, nitrogens, and oxygens. that's why carbon is uniquely qualified to be the basic material for life. no other element has equivilent capability to make such long complex polymers with itself.

I am not sure what is the point of your argument.

But even all you said is true on the earth, it may not be true universally. Given proper physical/chemical environment, I guess Si can do the same. In that environment, carbon compound would be very unstable.

 

[atomweaver]

Are you kidding me, Tom? The Armada didn't even exist. It was written by Medieval Age bull runners to make it look like they were fulfilling their part of the Reinassance.

[Note to my Spanish friends: I'm being facetious here --- no offense intended --- I'm just giving these guys a taste of their own medicine.]

Your coherence is at an all-time low. I don't even know what point it is that you're trying to make anymore.... *Shrug* maybe tomorrow will be a better day for you, and we can try again.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your coherence is at an all-time low. I don't even know what point it is that you're trying to make anymore.... *Shrug* maybe tomorrow will be a better day for you, and we can try again.

QV posts 55 & 68 before you judge my coherence --- thank you.

 

[atomweaver]

QV posts 55 & 68 before you judge my coherence --- thank you.

Post 55 is what I originally replied to, AV... as for #68, whatever it is that you think of as "a taste of [scientists'] own medicine", is what you are failing to express coherently. You're welcome.

 

[Chalnoth]

You can have more than one. But the one you wanted is here:

The very first detectable existence is the light.

1. That's false (the universe wasn't dominated by radiation until after inflation ended).
2. Can you name me a person for theological reasons who predicted any specific feature of the big bang theory?

 

[MoonLancer]

2. Can you name me a person for theological reasons who predicted any specific feature of the big bang theory?

Of course said source would have have to come before the scientific source, otherwise its a case of interpreting after the fact, which is all too common.

I have asked av on many occasions to produce instances where the bible comes to a scientific conclusion before science does but that question is always answered with silence. To my knowledge no theological christian thinker has used the bible as a source for understanding the universe before a scientist using the scientific method discovered it first. anything already known to the people of long ago would not count, as this would be a case of the bible simply recording what is already known.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have asked av on many occasions to produce instances where the bible comes to a scientific conclusion before science does but that question is always answered with silence.

You mean silence --- as in --- the universe expanding, or Amos calling the Pleiades the "seven stars", instead of the "six stars"? Or David mentioning submarine ocean currents?

 

[juvenissun]

1. That's false (the universe wasn't dominated by radiation until after inflation ended).
2. Can you name me a person for theological reasons who predicted any specific feature of the big bang theory?

1. It does not take a dominance, only existence. And, the word "light" is the best single word to represent anything and everything at the beginning of the big bang.

2. No (my ignorance). But that is not the point. Words in Gen. 1 do not need any testimony from anyone. For thousands of years, people had slightest idea on what kind of science it says. But that does not mean it is wrong.

You don't have to argue on the precision of word used in Gen. 1. It is not a science book. I said, many correct scientific concepts/implications are included in Gen. 1. You want one example, you got one. There is no need to pick on its precision.

 

[juvenissun]

Of course said source would have have to come before the scientific source, otherwise its a case of interpreting after the fact, which is all too common.

I have asked av on many occasions to produce instances where the bible comes to a scientific conclusion before science does but that question is always answered with silence. To my knowledge no theological christian thinker has used the bible as a source for understanding the universe before a scientist using the scientific method discovered it first. anything already known to the people of long ago would not count, as this would be a case of the bible simply recording what is already known.

What if the Bible describes some natural features that are only discovered recently?

edit: well, AV stole some of the thunders. But, there are still hundreds of them unknown to you.

 

[MoonLancer]

You mean silence --- as in --- the universe expanding, or Amos calling the Pleiades the "seven stars", instead of the "six stars"? Or David mentioning submarine ocean currents?

Unless you show me a theological scholar that agrees with your interpretations that these mean what you say they mean, its just you following in the footsteps of what science has already descoverd. Your interpreting them in a favorable way after science has already figured it out. Show me writings of others from the past who agree with you in these interpretations that come before science made these discoveries.

And yes, you have answered with silence, every time i have to clarify why its more intellectually honest this way.

 

[MoonLancer]

PS: count the stars



Nice try though

 

[MoonLancer]

What if the Bible describes some natural features that are only discovered recently?

That's the point really. The bible has a lot of poetry. In order to affirm that what it says is what its intended mean is, we deffer to scholars and theologians of the past. I don't know of any instance where the bible clearly describes something about the natural world that couldn't have been known at the time.

Its important that we understand how people of the time interpreted the text, as it removes the urge to reinterpret the bible today giving passages meanings they never had.

AV is very guilty of this. That's why I ask for other sources that validate his claim. Otherwise its likely a case of him twisting the meaning improperly to win an argument.