Why do creationists redefine and/or make up words out-of-context?

[Brightmoon]

Of course I see that. You have your faith, I have nine. Neither is or will be provable.

I’m a Christian I’m just not a creationist as I don’t call up bizarre miracles to contradict the fact that nature doesn’t lie. If t accept science findings is because they’ve got s good track record in being accurate

 

[Speedwell]

Of course I see that. You have your faith, I have nine. Neither is or will be provable.

No, it's just not an answer to the question at hand, which is "How did it happen?" not "Who did it?"
"God" is an answer to the second question, not the first, and "evolution" is an answer to the first but not the second.

 

[AV1611VET]

I’m a Christian I’m just not a creationist as I don’t call up bizarre miracles to contradict the fact that nature doesn’t lie.

Is nature omniscient?

 

[Clint Edwards]

All of the below is from this post:

A mathematical refutation of Noah's ark


...According to Panda.org, which is part of the WWF, there are two types of elephants: the Asian and the African. Obviously if we believe the Bible, there would have to be four elephants on the ark.

The Asian elephant eats around 300kg of fodder per day (see Panda.org), while fully grown African elephants eat up to 200kg of food/day (WWF). Now, we know from Gen 6:21 that Noah was commanded to take food for all the animals and his family, thus nullifying a possible miracle explanation for not needing to bring food. Now, if Noah took 4 fully grown elephants he would have needed 1,000 kg of food/day just for the elephants. However, in the interest of being conservative, lets assume that Noah had younger elephants and thus needed less food than a full grown adult. So lets assume that the elephants needed half of their adult counterparts.

Therefore, collectively, the Asian and African elephants would need approximately 500 kg of food/day. That’s 1,102.31 pounds a day!! In the interest of simplicity and being conservative in our estimates lets just say 1,000 pounds of food/day. For the year that they were on the ark, that would mean Noah and family would have needed 365,000 pounds of food for the elephants. This is 1,825 tons, which will be important later.

Next step, calculating how much space was in the ark. This has been done repeatedly so I hope there is little contention here. Gen. 6:15 says, "The length of the ark shall be 300 cubits (aprx. 450 feet), the breadth of it 50 cubits (aprx. 75 feet), and the height of it 30 cubits (aprx. 45 feet)." This is 1,518,750 cubic feet. Let’s also assume for the sake of simplicity and being conservative that the ark was a perfect box with these dimensions (i.e., no space lost at the front or back due to needing to actually float, no need for going through sea/waves, no keel, etc). Also for the sake of simplicity and conservatism, lets assume by some miracle that there was no need for floors, which would take up even more space (this caveat contradicts Gen 6:16 in which God instructs Noah to build 3 decks--but that would take away more space and seeing as there is no mention in the Bible as to how thick the floors were, we cannot calculate their volume). Thus the area of the ground floor would have been 33,750 sq. feet and that the total interior cubic feet are as stated above.

Next we need to know approximately how much space the food for the elephants would have taken up (and ignoring the fact that most of it would have gone bad eventually in a hot damp environment--remember there was only one door and a small window). Just for a side-note, I am also ignoring the fact that many animals are carnivores. That would mean that many more than just a pair of many types of animals were brought aboard that also would have to be fed during the year until the "chosen pair" could eat them. Of course the fact that these "feed" animals also needed to be kept alive, many of which were carnivores also, would have meant that even more animals would have bee needed. It’s a geometrically unsolvable problem for such a situation.

Given that, Elephants are vegetarians; so lets assume that they were fed hay for the entire year (again ignore the monumental task of growing, harvesting, and storing of such an immense amount of hay by one family). According to the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, "Regardless of bale size and stacking method, any building with 16' sidewalls will accommodate at least 1 ton of hay in every 20 square feet of floor area." This means one ton of hay needs 320 cubic feet of storage. But it does say 'at least', and of course this is assuming ideal conditions. So again for simplicity and conservatism, lets assume one ton of hay needs 300 cubic feet of storage. That means the 1,825 tons of hay needed for just the 4 elephants alone would have take up 547,500 cubic feet!! That’s about 36% of the space available on the ark, again assuming ridiculously conservative (and sometimes impossible, i.e., no floors) conditions. If we have adult elephants that eat twice as much (again at a very conservative estimate) that’s 72% of the space in the ark for the food for just 4 animals!!!! Not to mention that I haven't added the space that the actual elephants would have needed, which would have been more than just the space they physically occupy, due to the need to exercise, for instance.

Interesting humanist position. Your calculations I am sure your are correct from your perspective and foundational propositions.

However, we are not speaking of anything that will fit the humanist/atheist perspective.

From the believers perspective, God's intervention can never be discounted in this narrative, or the ones before or after. I am sure your positions would be that humanity never became so depraved that a non existent God had to destroy it, I am sure you reject the Biblical narrative that antediluvian people all spoke one language and clustered in one city.

So, your conundrum is not one from a believers perspective.

God could could have slowed down the animals metabolism, He could have had for most of the time the animals in state of suspended animation, for most of the time, whatever.

The humanist/atheist perspective and rules simply do not apply. You are trying to open a door and your particular key will never fit.

There is another key that will open the door, but you won't use it, stalemate. It is a draw. There could never be checkmate, because we are playing on different boards.

 

[Clint Edwards]

I’m a Christian I’m just not a creationist as I don’t call up bizarre miracles to contradict the fact that nature doesn’t lie. If t accept science findings is because they’ve got s good track record in being accurate

That's fine, many hold that position. It's all good and it is between you and I individually before God.

Then do you believe there are no miracles, at all ? I believe Christ was dead, and arose from the grave alive, a miracle.

Paul wrote that if you don't believe in that you are totally wasting your time.

Albert Schweitzer was a man who followed the principles of Christ, he selflessly sacrificed his life, treating freely (he was a physician) the poor of Africa, he died there.

Yet, he was an atheist, no God, mo miracles, just a philosophy of doing Good, and following the philosophy of Christ.

He wasn't a Christian, in the truest sense of the word. just sayin'

 

[HitchSlap]

Interesting humanist position. Your calculations I am sure your are correct from your perspective and foundational propositions.

However, we are not speaking of anything that will fit the humanist/atheist perspective.

From the believers perspective, God's intervention can never be discounted in this narrative, or the ones before or after. I am sure your positions would be that humanity never became so depraved that a non existent God had to destroy it, I am sure you reject the Biblical narrative that antediluvian people all spoke one language and clustered in one city.

So, your conundrum is not one from a believers perspective.

God could could have slowed down the animals metabolism, He could have had for most of the time the animals in state of suspended animation, for most of the time, whatever.

The humanist/atheist perspective and rules simply do not apply. You are trying to open a door and your particular key will never fit.

There is another key that will open the door, but you won't use it, stalemate. It is a draw. There could never be checkmate, because we are playing on different boards.

Your worldview makes more assumptions than ours. You have mysteries explaining mysteries, because you think a god exists. So, please, tell us how our worldview is unsatisfying, again?

 

[Clint Edwards]

I hope he appreciates the irony in his statement.

No irony. Your "absurd" assumptions are yours, mine are mine. Regardless of what you think, you have no superior position in this particular matter.

 

[HitchSlap]

No irony. Your "absurd" assumptions are yours, mine are mine. Regardless of what you think, you have no superior position in this particular matter.

Sure I do.

 

[Clint Edwards]

This is the best implicit argument against Design that I have read. Anytime. Anywhere. Thank you for the insight.

LOL, Did the wood chipper turn itself on with the intent to get the end result, no matter how inefficient the process ?

It d seems your analogy supports intelligent design, no matter how inefficient your analogy works.

 

[Clint Edwards]

Sure I do.

I am the greatest professional baseball player who ever lived, in my mind. Your superior position exists solely in your mind, as well.

You have suspended fact, for your faith., Good on ya

 

[Clint Edwards]

Your worldview makes more assumptions than ours. You have mysteries explaining mysteries, because you think a god exists. So, please, tell us how our worldview is unsatisfying, again?

LOL, your world view is based upon a plethora of unprovable ideas, many ludicrous, for the creation of everything. YO

Can only answer the fundamental questions of philosophy, like " why is there something instead of nothing " with "huh ?"

Satisfying ? Some people find cutting of their genitals to pretend they are the opposite sex satisfying.

Well, as we used to say in the '60's different strokes for different folks, but that is the point isn't it ? Purely subjective

Your worldview is is at heart, a view of no value, no meaning, and death riddled. Everything dies, a long lifetime means nothing in itself, or to anyone else, because every ones life is lived to die, and everyone dies, and on the road of infinite time you, me, everybody, the earth, the universe dies, and becomes a microscopic bump on that smooth road that never ends. That tiny bump has as much meaning, significance, importance and value as the tiniest bump on the road in front of your house.

 

[Clint Edwards]

LOL, your world view is based upon a plethora of unprovable ideas, many ludicrous, for the creation of everything. YO

Can only answer the fundamental questions of philosophy, like " why is there something instead of nothing " with "huh ?"

Satisfying ? Some people find cutting of their genitals to pretend they are the opposite sex satisfying.

Well, as we used to say in the '60's different strokes for different folks, but that is the point isn't it ? Purely subjective

Your worldview is is at heart, a view of no value, no meaning, and death riddled. Everything dies, a long lifetime means nothing in itself, or to anyone else, because every ones life is lived to die, and everyone dies, and on the road of infinite time you, me, everybody, the earth, the universe dies, and becomes a microscopic bump on that smooth road that never ends. That tiny bump has as much meaning, significance, importance and value as the tiniest bump on the road in front of your house.

Sorry, I have a neurological disorder that makes typing on some days difficult, plus, I compound that with not proofreading properly. I meant to have " You " as the first word in the second paragraph. I'll try to do better.

 

[HitchSlap]

I am the greatest professional baseball player who ever lived, in my mind. Your superior position exists solely in your mind, as well.

You have suspended fact, for your faith., Good on ya

Mmmhmmm...

 

[DogmaHunter]

So you claim to be open for evidence and burden of proof is on me

Off course.

, would you accept evidence outside of materialism for existence of God for example one of his divine atribute- foreknowledge ?

I don't know what that means.
Try me.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not when God's account of the creation in Genesis AGREES with Science and History

It doesn't.

, which your changeable Theory does not

Scientific theories are changed to match reality better.
While religions are static and dogmatic, at best only "re-interpreted" (and only ever after science demonstrates black on white that the preceeding "interpretation" was utterly wrong)

It falsely presumes that mindless Nature instilled God's superior intelligence into Apes.

No. The a priori assumptions are entirely on the side of the creationists.
This is why creationists pretend to have the answers before even asking the questions.
While science will happily change their models to accomodate for new answers.
Because in science accuracy of the model is the goal, while in religion the goal is rather to simply "believe" the model and to uphold it at all costs.

Evols cannot show How or When this magical event happened but they preach their "false assumptions" as Fact, to little children. They are willingly ignorant of God's Truth. ll Peter 3:3

There's nothing magical or mysterious about a demonstrable natural process.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You say nonsensical. PROVE it so. Your opinion, or mine, is worth a hand full of spit, or less.

prove what?

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, it's just not an answer to the question at hand, which is "How did it happen?" not "Who did it?"
"God" is an answer to the second question, not the first, and "evolution" is an answer to the first but not the second.

I can't help but to point out that "who did it?" is a loaded question.

 

[DogmaHunter]

From the believers perspective, God's intervention can never be discounted in this narrative, or the ones before or after.

Nail on the head.
Indeed, it can never be discounted. The problem exactly. It's unfalsifiable nonsense that can be defended with ad hoc rationalization against anything, because there's always the "omnipotent miracle worker" (or simply put: magic) to fall back on.

When your premise is that your mysterious undemonstrable entity is all-powerfull and thus by (arbitrary) definition can do anything - including the impossible- then idd... no amount of evidence could ever discount it. Because no matter how much the evidence points in the opposite direction, there's always the "god is mysterious" or "god has a plan" or "god can do anything" get-out-of-jail freecard.....

Such models are utterly useless and explain literally nothing.

I am sure your positions would be that humanity never became so depraved that a non existent God had to destroy it,

My position is that there is no reason, no evidence, to suggest that such a destruction ever took place. Events of that magnitude tend to leave evidence, you know.
And the evidence doesn't exist. This claimed event in particular, literally makes testable predictions. Like literally "if a, then b". And if upon investigation it turns out that b is not the case - then a wasn't the case either.

I am sure you reject the Biblical narrative that antediluvian people all spoke one language and clustered in one city.

That is demonstrably false, yes.

So, your conundrum is not one from a believers perspective.

What conundrum?

God could could have slowed down the animals metabolism

Yes yes, God can do anything.

He could have had for most of the time the animals in state of suspended animation

Yes yes, God can do anything.

, for most of the time, whatever.

Yes yes, indeed... "whatever". It doesn't matter. No matter what it is that you are up against: god can do anything.

Exactly the kind of ad hoc rationalization by appealing to magic that I was talking about earlier.

It matters not what contradicting evidence we present to you. Not at all. You'll just invent something on the spot by appealing to / invoking god's magical miracle powers, et voila.

I can point out to you that if the flood happened as written, then ALL living things should have a severe genetic bottleneck that can be universally dated to the same period. I can point out that this bottleneck does not exist. At all. In any species. While it should exist in ALL species. And you'll come back with inventing something about "super duper DNA" that your God magicked into those ark animals or something similar. Whatever you come up with, it will be something that will make exactly zero sense in terms of genetics, biology, bio-chemistry,....

But it all won't matter to you. "god can do anything" - so why not this as well?

It's a perfect circle.

The humanist/atheist perspective and rules simply do not apply. You are trying to open a door and your particular key will never fit.

Yep. My empirical key does not fit in the magical door. True.

There is another key that will open the door,

Yes. The magical key. The "god can do anything" key.
The "i always win, even when I lose" key.

but you won't use it

Indeed, I won't.
I value intellectual honesty too much, to use that key.

It is a draw

It really, really, isn't.
It's rather more like pidgeon chess.

There could never be checkmate, because we are playing on different boards.

Disagree.
We play on the same board.
You're just not playing by the rules. Like I said... pidgeon chess.

In case you aren't familiar with that....
There's this saying:

"Discussing science with a creationist, is like playing chess with a pidgeon. They'll crap all over the board, knock over all the pieces and then fly away while claiming victory..."

 

[Speedwell]

I can't help but to point out that "who did it?" is a loaded question.

LOL! Feel free to answer, "Nobody."

 

[tas8831]

1. The food problem was a piece of cake with God. A barrel would suffice.

Great.
Show the Scripture that indicates that this happened.