14 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesPerhaps we should wait for one of them to join the discussion to see if they choose option (4).
Whether you believe in Genesis or not, you can engage in the exercise of trying to reconcile very old fossils with the very young earth indicated in the text, as well as with the text's one-day gap between the emergence of various types of life. The "test our faith" hypothesis is the cleanest and most obvious resoultion. Once you move on to oth ...[text shortened]... is very belief and has invoked it numerous times. I think it was Coletti, KellyJay or pcaspian.
So far, none of the creationists (literal or otherwise) have - except BdN who's conducting a "college rag experiment".
14 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI think that is a fasle comparison. In the Christian view, land is still land. From the evolutionists view, what wasn't life became life.
Land [which God created, and saw that it was good!] over time has morphed into something drastically different through natural processes.
Life [which God created, and saw that it was good!] over time has morphed into something drastically different through natural processes.
"Drastically different" in terms of land means new location and new looks/forms in light on pangea.
"Different" in terms of life means no such thing. Would you say that a banana tree, a dolphin, and a red ant are really the same thing, just in different locations and with a different appearance?
14 Oct 05
Originally posted by kingdanwaYou should be more careful in your use of words. You say in an appeal to triviality that land "only" changes form. Yet what are all the things you mention in your second example? What do they have in common? They are all ____ _____. Still not getting it? They are all life _____. One last hint: You can find the missing word in your statement about land.
I think that is a fasle comparison. In the Christian view, land is still land. From the evolutionists view, what wasn't life became life.
"Drastically different" in terms of land means new location and new looks/forms in light on pangea.
"Different" in terms of life means no such thing. Would you say that a banana tree, a dolphin, and a red ant are really the same thing, just in different locations and with a different appearance?
Your argument does nothing but appeal to emotion. That is, you care more about the difference in life forms, so obviously that difference means more than the difference in land forms. But really, is the difference between an arctic mountain and a tropical desert really that trivial? Maybe, but I don't think it's obvious. It is something that needs to be specifically proven.
14 Oct 05
Originally posted by thesonofsaulI don't think you get my point. With pangea as our premise, from a biblical perspective, what is the difference between then and now? Primarily location. A rock in Canada is still the same rock if I kick it to mexico. It's still the same rock if the wind blows it to France. Is a banana tree in Mexico the same thing if I take it on a plane to France, or would you then identify it as a tiger?
You should be more careful in your use of words. You say in an appeal to triviality that land "only" changes form. Yet what are all the things you mention in your second example? What do they have in common? They are all ____ _____. Still not getting it? They are all life _____. One last hint: You can find the missing word in your statement abo ...[text shortened]... Maybe, but I don't think it's obvious. It is something that needs to be specifically proven.
14 Oct 05
2 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseIt doesn't take a huge jump in imagination to see life on earth
[b]How do you explain the FACT that earth is welling up in the
mid atlantic rift?
I'm sorry, did you read my post carefully. I never in any way suggested that continental drift is not occuring at present. All I suggested was that the rate may have been different in the past. If you wish to stick to the uniformatariast view that the present is the k ...[text shortened]... h other's views and can converse in a civil manner without vitriol and prejudice flying around.[/b]
could not survive continents crashing into each other in a matter of
weeks, you read a crank book and then jump to the conclusion he
must be right since it matches my own conceptions of the creation.
The upwelling data is a matter of record, just look it up. There has
been small variations but very small of the change in upwelling
patterns over millions of years written in the residual magnetic
field of the magma when it cools off. They are like tree rings.
Of course that kind of data goes against your pre-conceived notions
of how it all happened so don't worry about it, just keep your own head
stuck up the sand of your life.
If you want you can look at this link, it might open your eyes.
http://courses.unt.edu/hwilliams/GEOG_1710/science.htm
the record of magnetic field reversals is very clear. The earth
swaps north and south at very irregular intervals of about 200,000
years or so. The rocks in the upwelling record this shift quite clearly
whether you want to believe it or not, but maybe this is in the
same catagory of the moon landing hoaxes? Big conspiracy?
14 Oct 05
Originally posted by RatXAnother refreshing reminder of the "stompingaboutbeatingchestandyellingatthosewhodon'tbelieveinyourgenius" mentality that is so pervasive.
.
Yes, that mainly comes from the Christian chestbeaters, or hadn't you noticed? Oh, that's right, you just now joined.
Sonny, post hoc ergo propter hoc is a nice way of saying, "don't yell your view too loud, it's actually a little over your head".
Good! A little condescension goes a long way, doesn't it? Feel better now?
This is what I gathered from your reasoning:
1. There is a 7-day Creation retelling in Genesis
2. There is an apparently older 7-day Creation retelling on a stone tablet in Cairo.
3. Therefore, this logically and conclusively leads from (1) and (2), that the 7-day Creation retelling in Genesis is a myth.
Face it. While this nor the Sumerian tablets may to be conclusive 'proof' that Genesis was plagarized, it is strong evidence. For you to bleat "It's not!" is as much of a logical fallacy as the inverse.
This ain't show-and-tell dude.😞 I saw a lot with "my own eyes!!!", including much wisdom and genius on Discovery channel, MTV and the like
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where Jesus was teaching the Jesusbots to be egotistical and overly condescending?
14 Oct 05
Originally posted by kingdanwaYes, then it is the same rock. But is it the same rock if it is pulverized to dust by wind and rain, carried down a river where is it deposited on a far lake shore where it is buried amongst other dirt and muck, then the lake dries up, then a nearby volcano spews lava on the whole mess heating it up nicely, then it dries up in a drought and the whole conglomeration cracks into pieces, then you come along and kick the piece of rubble that still has the majority of atoms from the original rock to Mexico, is it the same rock? I would say not. Perhaps you disagree. They key ingridient? Time.
I don't think you get my point. With pangea as our premise, from a biblical perspective, what is the difference between then and now? Primarily location. A rock in Canada is still the same rock if I kick it to mexico. It's still the same rock if the wind blows it to France. Is a banana tree in Mexico the same thing if I take it on a plane to France, or would you then identify it as a tiger?
14 Oct 05
Originally posted by David CHey thanks for the support, even though its partly based on the
[b]Another refreshing reminder of the "stompingaboutbeatingchestandyellingatthosewhodon'tbelieveinyourgenius" mentality that is so pervasive.
Yes, that mainly comes from the Christian chestbeaters, or hadn't you noticed? Oh, that's right, you just now joined.
Sonny, post hoc ergo propter hoc is a nice way of saying, "don't yell you ...[text shortened]... ssed the part where Jesus was teaching the Jesusbots to be egotistical and overly condescending?
hard-on you have against the rat🙂
We seem to think more alike than I first read into your past posts.
14 Oct 05
3 edits
Originally posted by kingdanwaAt a certain level of abstraction, yes. They are all carbon-based life forms each of whose manifestation is an expression in the language of DNA.
"Different" in terms of life means no such thing. Would you say that a banana tree, a dolphin, and a red ant are really the same thing, just in different locations and with a different appearance?
At a corresponding level of abstraction, all forms of things that we call earth are made of various combinations of a core set of physical elements, yielding expressions in the language of types of molecular combinations.
Of course, within each language, there are a variety of expressions, and when comparing any two, you can say that those two instances are different: ants vs. dolphins, or granite vs. limestone. But when looking at the abstract nature of the beast, there is a unifying language behind each which has persisted without change over time.
If there is a weakness in my comparison, it lies in the fact that land changing is a physical morphing, while life chaning is an informational morphing.
14 Oct 05
8 edits
Here is the issue that I think is central.
We see mountains, glaciers, forests, deserts, and other wondrous terrain about us. Perhaps God made these just as we see them today, or perhaps he designed the rules of nature such that when he "booted up" the universe, they would naturally arise according to those rules. Either way, God ultimately created them. Does it make any theological difference whether it took a day or billions of years for his plan to come to fruition?
Obviously God had to have some physical interface to the universe. What difference does it make whether that interface took the form of rules and abstract languages that he designed, or whether it took the form of a proclamation as described in Genesis? If God designed and set the laws of nature to work, didn't he actually give us more beautiful things than if he had just pronounced the wonders of the world into existence?
In addition to the wonders themselves, we have the laws of nature, which are additionally beautfiul!
Is a view that God's plan was to design the language of DNA and the laws of nature in such a way that man, a creature in His form, would arise after billions of years somehow theologically inferior to the the view that it took him an afternoon of molding man from clay? If it is theologically inferior, is the inferiority due to anything other than being at odds with a literal reading of Genesis?
Either way - whether Genesis is literally true, or whether the evolutionists' life from non-life theory is correct - we came from dirt, and either way, God orignally breathed our life into us - either literally through the nostrils, or via the design and boot-up of the universe that he knew would lead to mankind arising. If God is eternal, it wouldn't make him any difference whether his plan took an afternoon or millenia to come to fruition. He ultimately knew the outcome, and that it was a result of his design of the universe.
15 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesKudos doctor. Well said. 🙂
Here is the issue that I think is central.
We see mountains, glaciers, forests, deserts, and other wondrous terrain about us. Perhaps God made these just as we see them today, or perhaps he designed the rules of nature such that when he "booted up" the universe, they would naturally arise according to those rules. Either way, God ultimately cr ...[text shortened]... uition. He ultimately knew the outcome, and that it was a result of his design of the universe.
15 Oct 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerYes, I am a "creationist".
Are you a creationist?
What is a creationist? Someone who believes in the literal 6-day creation? Or simply someone who believes we were all created?
By the literal definition of the term, it is simply one who believes we were created (ID).
15 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNot many of the established religions could ever subscribe to that
Here is the issue that I think is central.
We see mountains, glaciers, forests, deserts, and other wondrous terrain about us. Perhaps God made these just as we see them today, or perhaps he designed the rules of nature such that when he "booted up" the universe, they would naturally arise according to those rules. Either way, God ultimately cr ...[text shortened]... uition. He ultimately knew the outcome, and that it was a result of his design of the universe.
view simply because they have too much dogma at stake.
How could a Christian in good faith ever convert to the view that
god bootstrapped the universe to produce us by making the rules
amenible to our kind of life appearing here? That would imply a
hands off god who views the comings and goings on earth with a bit
of disdain, maybe even humour. I have no problem with that kind
of theology but you can be sure no Christian, Jew, or Muslim would
ever think twice about the possiblity, they are much too closed minded
for that.
15 Oct 05
5 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseNo, it doesn't! It might be consistent with a hands-off God, but it doesn't imply one. He could still step in to cause floods, make the sun stand still in the sky, or turn water to wine if those things weren't designed to arise from his rules.
That would imply a hands off god
Even if he didn't step in to perform miracles, what difference does it make if God is micromanaging the universe or whether it is running on auto-pilot according to his great design? There literally need be no difference: his design could simply be such that every micromanagement decision he would make will be carried out naturally. His designed universe could pass the Turing test to fool you into thinking it was being micromanaged; or vice versa.
Man could never tell the difference between a God that governs by design and a God who governs by moment to moment string pulling, especially when assuming God never changes his mind. In the end, they are the same thing from both man's and God's perspective. I can't see what theological difference it could make.
Dr. S
P.S. I would like to add that human free will seems more compatible with a God who governs by design than a God who plays puppetmaster. If there is a design, free will could be part of that, with humans allowed to go about their way within the confines of the rules of the universe that God has established. But if God micromanages molecule by molecule, then human decision making is an illusion, for God would be controlling each firing neuron in your brain. To the extent that there is any in-between or overlap between these two extremes, then it must be the case that the design is more fundamental, for otherwise, what determines what can happen when God lets go of the wheel if God has no fundamental design in place?
15 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWow, reading a bit too deeply into the tea leaves again?🙂
No, it doesn't! It might be consistent with a hands-off God, but it doesn't imply one. He could still step in to cause floods, make the sun stand still in the sky, or turn water to wine if those things weren't designed to arise from his rules.
Even if he didn't step in to perform miracles, what difference does it make if God is micromanaging ...[text shortened]... e could pass the Turing test to fool you into thinking it was being micromanaged; or vice versa.
I keep wondering why no-one has stepped up to the plate
with 'we know god delivered the final blow to the dinosaurs with that
chixilub asteroid because HE wanted to make way for our obviously
superior selves'