I'm not sure other Creationists would like the "This is creationism as I see it." bit, it seems to defeat the whole purpose of being a fundamental Creationist.
But then again, I'm not a Creationist so what would I know.
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.
I'm not sure other Creationists would like the "This is creationism as I see it." bit, it seems to defeat the whole purpose of being a fundamental Creationist.I
I said something to the order of:
"Welcome to Creation 101. This is creationism as I see it. You're going to get some deep theology here, and I'm sure some of you are going to disagree with me, which is your prerogative. Feel free to do so. But be assured, I'm teaching this class, and if you don't pass my tests, I'll fail you."
Then go take someone else's class.I'm not sure other Creationists would like the "This is creationism as I see it." bit, it seems to defeat the whole purpose of being a fundamental Creationist.
But then again, I'm not a Creationist so what would I know.
Was that during your (at least) 3 weeks at college too?.I've had classes in Astronomy, Oceanography, and an introductory course in Space Technology; and I can assure you, whether I agreed with them or not, I'd better have given them the answers they're looking for, or I just wasted six weeks (apiece) for nothing.
Maybe you'd better read that link a little more slowly.Was that during your (at least) 3 weeks at college too?
There is a story perhaps an urban legend in the early 20th century at the University of Copenhagen a student was posed the question "show how it is possible to determine the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer."Then go take someone else's class.
But be assured, you'd better give them the answers they're looking for, or they'll flunk you.
Or at least they should.
Same for me if I took Mormonism 101 and wanted to argue with their final exams.
I've had classes in Astronomy, Oceanography, and an introductory course in Space Technology; and I can assure you, whether I agreed with them or not, I'd better have given them the answers they're looking for, or I just wasted six weeks (apiece) for nothing.
In that case, if I were you, I would opt out of the class and take something else.The moral of the story here is firstly you are no Niels Bohr who knew enough about the subject to provide alternate answers where as you are motivated by willful ignorance.
Secondly along with having natural talent, Bohr was developing his critical thinking skills which education in any subject provides; your attacks on education and in believing one doesn't have to understand the subject in order to agree or disagree with it is a reflection of your own absence of critical thinking skills common in your posts which stems from a lack of education.
Did even bother to try to read my post?In that case, if I were you, I would opt out of the class and take something else.
No one would be forcing you to take my class.
Like I said, if you don't agree, don't.
But if you decide to stay, you'd better answer my questions on my tests to my satisfaction, or I'll flunk you.
In what type of twisted thinking/classroom is the abandonment of critical thinking and logic, regarded as deserving of commendations?In that case, if I were you, I would opt out of the class and take something else.
No one would be forcing you to take my class.
Like I said, if you don't agree, don't.
But if you decide to stay, you'd better answer my questions on my tests to my satisfaction, or I'll flunk you.
Then go take someone else's class.
But be assured, you'd better give them the answers they're looking for, or they'll flunk you.
@AV wants to teach his version as History, IIRC(?)I think unfortunately my points are being completely lost.
I understand that if people don't like the premise of your course that they don't have to take it.
But my two mains points are this:
1. Is your course really being true to the value "The bible says it, that settles it"
of which all Fundamental Creationists should be striving to be true to?
If you get two Fundamental Creationists into a room (two strangers) shouldn't they be lock step aligned in their understanding of the bible, because they steadfastly stick to what is literally in the bible.
Your course isn't steadfastly sticking to the bible, your course is "This is creationism as I see it." and this presents many things that are not in the bible but are taught as if they are fact.
2. You are making yourself the authority as if YOU are a prophet or an infallible magistrate made up of one person. Creationists want to know the bible as it is written, not as AV interprets it. So what would compel these Creationists to sign up to your course which is presenting an altered view of the Bible?
And if they gain this qualification, how can they use it? Would religious schools, even fundamental Creationist schools, value this qualification in a teacher? Why would schools consider AV's altered vision of the bible to be better than another potential teacher who sticks steadfastly to what's actually written in the bible? All YOU are selling is your own solitary position which is your interpretation of the bible and is not recognised by any organisation anywhere in the world.
A popular counter-argument these days is that God is 'beyond' or 'outside' logic, or even that God is illogical (we already knew that!), which, of course, is literally no argument at all; it's the limit of 'God works in mysterious ways'... The problem here is that if God is beyond logic (and therefore, reason), or, as is often said, beyond understanding (which probably amounts to the same thing), it makes no sense to say anything about it, let alone attribute logical properties to it or anthropomorphise it... which pretty much defeats the whole point of it.I prefer a modern version of the omnipotence paradox.
Here is a screen shot of a topologist (a type of pure mathematician) holding an object he insists is a square.
In fact he is quite correct, the object he holds is topologically equivalent to a square.
Can God show using topological equivalence, the mathematician is not holding up a square?
The answer is no.
It's like God trying to show 1+1=3.
The full story of this screen shot is given in the video.
Yes .. If God is 'beyond' human understanding, why do so many want to abandon their own minds in order to understand his?A popular counter-argument these days is that God is 'beyond' or 'outside' logic, or even that God is illogical (we already knew that!), which, of course, is literally no argument at all; it's the limit of 'God works in mysterious ways'... The problem here is that if God is beyond logic (and therefore, reason), or, as is often said, beyond understanding (which probably amounts to the same thing), it makes no sense to say anything about it, let alone attribute logical properties to it or anthropomorphise it... which pretty much defeats the whole point of it.
If you say you believe genesis is correct
then you say rocks were created in a day.
You also say ( falsely) that it takes millions
of years. Some do, some dont.
Ive pointed out those things before.
So this is getting ridiculous.
There you again said one day.I said that if God created them the way they are formed naturally then they would appear to be millions of years old on the day He made them. If you can’t comprehend that, it’s not my problem. I don’t expect that you can because you don’t want to.
It takes millions of years for sediment to become rock. So even a brand new rock is going to look millions of years old.
I get your main points.But my two mains points are this:
You recall correctly.@AV wants to teach his version as History, IIRC(?)
So we can love and worship Him properly.Yes .. If God is 'beyond' human understanding, why do so many want to abandon their own minds in order to understand his?
Sure, we comprehend it. Generally, that position is known as "Last Thursdayism" and is the only unfalsifiable version of YEC.I said that if God created them the way they are formed naturally then they would appear to be millions of years old on the day He made them. If you can’t comprehend that, it’s not my problem. I don’t expect that you can because you don’t want to.
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?