Creationist survey

[maddog]

1) Which version of Creation? The one in Gen 1 or Gen 2? They contradict each other in terms of process. Which came first, next...

 

2) Even Gen 1's Creation myth does NOT coincide with our Scientificly supported process. The claim is bogus. Let's start easy so you can follow

 

Gen 1:1-3 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

 

So it starts out by stating that the EARTH was created at the very begining of the process. Yet we know that the earth did not exist until WAY after the BB. It goes on to say that god created water before there was light. Yet we know that particles, photons, LIGHT, were some of the first results of the BB. Before even complete atoms and WAY before heavier elements and complex molecules like H2O.

 

We could look at the other absurdities such as how the "Earth" could BE the "Earth" if it was "formless and empty". By it's very defintion, the Earth must have a VERY SPECIFIC form and be made out of STUFF (NOT "empty") How can something that is "formless" have a "surface"?

 

Do I need to go on?

 

 

No one can support a claim that the biblical creation myth and factual science "do agree". It's absurd!

 

However I also respect your right to ignore FACTS if you so choose.

 

FT,

 

Basically the BB does not fit at all. The first day, formless to light can fit a model of the

birth of a star. From there the Earth, and so forth. Basically describes the notion of

Evolution (which Creationists abhor). I will check out again both Genesis 1 & 2. Where I

remember they differ much is in the tale of serpent+apple+etc. I will read them again.

 

I was not attempting to say Religion is Scientific. Yes, that is silly. I am saying the stories

in religous texts descriptively coincide with know theories or facts. I am not forming conclusions

from this just stating them. You form your own conclusions.

 

I do see that Religion (all of them) need a bit more science and logic in their grounding to

be useful in the new millenium. Likewise some sense of spirituality needs to be inserted

into science as well. This may come in the form of discovery. Who knows... :)

 

Maddog

[Stargazer]

But I still believe in god :)

Which one and why?

[pgrmdave]

Does it matter? I believe in the god in which I believe, I don't know if he is the same as anyone else's, and I can't describe him perfectly, so I don't think I'll ever know. I believe because...it feels right. I can't explain it any better than that, and I know I could never sway anybody's thoughts. I was an atheist for most of my life, and was able to come up with all of the arguments that have been used against me, and I stumped many believers not too long ago. Only about two years ago did I lose faith in atheism, mostly because I had to accept that if this were a completly deterministic universe, then it could never have had a first event (big bang) without outside interferance. As for why I believe in god...I can offer no explanation, no rational, merely my reason - it feels right.

[Stargazer]

Atheism is a lack of faith - but you probably knew that, since you once were one. Also, we simply do not know how this universe came about, so the most honest answer right now should be "we don't know" instead of making something up - especially if it's only to feel good.

[pgrmdave]

It's not to feel good, there was a long period when I no longer denied the possibility of god, but I didn't believe in him, more of an agnostic than an atheist, but definitely not a christian. But then at some point in my life, it felt right to believe. Not good, necessarily, right.

[maddog]

So exactly how does the poetic accounts in the Bible (written by people who did not know more than we do now) and real science agree?

 

Seen as a series of stories, you can make the story fit the data.

 

Not so. If you would have evidence of a creator, then we can discuss how to interpret them to understand the creator. Now when we don't any such thing, I suppose to say that there is a creator is completely superfluous and therefor not in agreement with the scientific method.

"God did it" is not an explanation of any observations, it doesn't predict anything and it just adds to the mysteries instead of explaining them.

 

You misunderstood. I am refering that you have an interpretation to what I said. I have

mine. I don't have a problem with you and yours. Why do you have a problem with mine.

 

I don't understand why it's a volatile subject.

 

Duh... Maybe the number of post on this thread, where some of the responses have been

rather indignant. :hihi:

 

Maddog

[maddog]

I asked you to provide factual proof to the bible stories, (contemporary eyewitness) specifically it's Jesus fairytales. Rather than even bother trying the impossible, you have wasted all of our time with attempts to change the subject.

 

Why can't you either provide the requested factual information or admit it does not exist? (It's a rhetorical question, I KNOW why you can't, your a Christian)

 

The question as to whether it is exist is like attempting figure out how big is infinity or the

value 0/0 (indeterminate). I'm saying that such evidence could exist or not. I would though

hypothesize that if it did you wouldn't find such (at least not w/o some kind of time loop).

 

Maddog

[maddog]

Believers never want to subject their personal philosophys to the same level of review as a non-believer will subject their personal philosophy. Excuses are always given as to why they can't or minimally should not. Yet non-believers never seem to have that failing or fear.

 

A non-believer will apply the same level of logic and reason to everything while a believer will draw that arbitrarly line in the sand and cry foul when expected to live up to a non-believers level of logic and reasoning.

 

Don't blame us that you can not support the philosophy you base your lifes work on. We are not the ones with that problem. And don;t expect us to acccept excuses either. We don;t need them, why should we accept others excuses?

 

All you are doing is showing us why belief is so empty.

 

Belief does not require evidence. Skepticism does.

 

However, to put any theory to task and corroborate as factual bears the brunt of all that

can shoot it down. It only takes evidence of one counterexample. This is why it is a lot

easier to disprove something than prove it.

 

I don't claim such in what I have posted this thread. Just a conjecture of a way one can

interpret various books from the bible as coinciding with know theories of science. I am

only thinking this may have where/how they originated.

 

You can disbelieve a hypothesis all you want. I haven't seen a valid counterexample has

been brought up, not to say that it doesn't exist - just haven't seen it.

 

Maddog

[Freethinker]

Okay, you win

Dave Dave Dave... (I assume the dave part of your nic is the name dave?) There is not win/ lose in these discussions. Or at least there shouldn't be. At least not on a personal basis. Ideas perhaps. When conflicting ideas are evaluated, one will win and one lose. (or both lose, never both win)

 

True/ False, rational/ irrational, factual/ fallacy, logical/ illogical, supported/ unsupportable, ... yes. But not a personal Win/ Lose. This is not a personality contest. Well perhaps I am more personable... :-) We should ALL win when we examine an idea and work to resolve how factual, how truthful, how REAL it is. We ALL win by gaining new knowledge and a more correct world view.

 

The only losers are those that for what ever reason will not ultimately benefit by having gained new insights that allow them to adopt a more accurate, truthful understanding of the reality we all are forced to live in.

I cannot back up any of my arguments with research or facts, merely with feeling. As much as I try to translate my instincts into a coherent, cohesive argument, I fail miserably, you are right and I must change my views

If this is not being facetious, why would you consider gaining new knowledge, more accurate views, being able to live your life more closely aligned with reality and as such more effectively, either a personal failure or a overall bad thing?

 

I personally welcome the opportunity at every turn to learn new things. To find more accurate explanations. To gain new insights. To become better educated.

 

When someone shows me that I was wrong in how I understood something, I thank them and readily adopt a revised, more accurate view. I don't consider myself as having failed when I find out I was wrong. Perhaps the knowedge I HAD failed me, but it is now replaced with the new and improved version and I am better off because of it.

 

And even if the knowedge itself has not changed, but I have learned a more accurate approach, I have won. Identifying fallacies more accurately. Developing a more succesful approach to understanding, even if what I understand is the same.

 

Believe it or not, this is itself a perfect example. The very concept of being able to identify, admitting and accepting when shown to be wrong. One of the few valuable lessons taught to me by nuns while in Catholic School. The head penguin would always, when we answered incorrectly and she corrected us, make us thank her for correcting us.

 

When you say "As much as I try to translate my instincts into a coherent, cohesive argument, I fail miserably" (if not being facetious) I hope you mean that you identifed it as such. That there are other, perhaps more effective and accurate ways to "translate (...) instincts into a coherent, cohesive argument". And that you perhaps have identifed some. This is far from being a failure, it is a tremendous success. And I congradulate you on it.

the sun is round, there, I said it, now I can never go back.

Actually, the sun is NOT round, it is spherical. :-) And actually I had corrected my original post as I used "round" at first. I did not want anyone being able to use that error in an attempt to minimalize my entire post.

But I still believe in god :hihi:

Prove it! :-)

[Freethinker]

When offering up topics for discussion that are logically not proveable,

I asked you for an example of such on the other thread. I sure can't think of a single one. Oh, plenty that others would hope they do not get asked to prove, to support logically. But none that CAN'T. I can't wait to be shown that I am wrong and get to change my POV.

how absurdly cruel to wrongly criticize others for speculating about alternative views by telling them that they have no proof.

In what way is it cruel to help others realize that there are more accurate, better, more positive, more benefitial to society, ... ways to approach our thought processes? What other human activity does not benefit from a more advanced approach, a greater level of understanding of how it works. Take any sport and see if any participant does not improve their performance by gaining a better understanding of how to do it. Why should the muscle that is our brain be different from the ones in our arms or legs?

 

Why is helping someone understand that they are mistakenly accepting things when they have no valid, logical, factual reason to, be a bad thing? Oh ya, it's a bad thing for the mistaken, unsupportable nonsense and superstition itself, but not for the person that was mistakenly accepting it. Nor the general society that person has to live in.

[maddog]

But I still believe in god :hihi:

 

Prove it! :-)

 

Duh...???

 

Could I prove "I believe I weigh over 200 lbs" ? Yes, I can weigh myself and show that I do.

Yet is it possible to prove that I BELIEVE it!

 

Maybe I misunderstand your response.

 

Maddog

[Stargazer]

It's not to feel good, there was a long period when I no longer denied the possibility of god, but I didn't believe in him, more of an agnostic than an atheist, but definitely not a christian. But then at some point in my life, it felt right to believe. Not good, necessarily, right.

Ok, so it felt right. But which god did you chose, and why?

[Stargazer]

Seen as a series of stories, you can make the story fit the data.

No, and even if that was the case, so what?

 

Duh... Maybe the number of post on this thread, where some of the responses have been rather indignant.

Ok, so you're showing me that it is volatile. What I don't understand is why it is volatile. It's mystifying how it can be a volatile subject whether something unobserved and unnecessary exist or not. Noone has any evidence, so what's the debate about? How can it be a volatile subject of whether or not your god exists, or that there was an intelligent designer, when all these concepts are empty and without support? I might as well say it's a volatile subject of whether Santa exists or not. And see, it's not volatile. Now, how could that be?

[maddog]

Ok, so you're showing me that it is volatile. What I don't understand is why it is volatile. It's mystifying how it can be a volatile subject whether something unobserved and unnecessary exist or not. Noone has any evidence, so what's the debate about? How can it be a volatile subject of whether or not your god exists, or that there was an intelligent designer, when all these concepts are empty and without support? I might as well say it's a volatile subject of whether Santa exists or not. And see, it's not volatile. Now, how could that be?

 

1. You accept and then deny. Kind of sound like the same arguements I hear from those

pesky Creationists.. :hihi:

 

2. Why I see the volatility arise is when one party attempt to convince the other party of his

belief is fallacious and is without proof. As I said earlier Belief by definition is w/o proof !

This is one arena where both Atheist and Creationist are nearly alike. They both with

enthusiasm and exuberiance attempt coerce and taunt their oppenent until the they

acquiece or agree.

 

3. If I said I believe in Santa, do we start a new thread ??? :rant:

 

Maddog

[Fishteacher73]

[Santa is not real!!!!!?????

Most religions are based on faith. Proof negates faith. With proof, one no longer needs faith, the facts speak for themselves. Much of the mysticism around many religions is that it is a given that the G/god/s cannot be proven to exist by any other means than their works. To provide solid proof would absolve the believer of having to believe, because it would then be known. A sacrifice would no longer have to be made for acceptance and the all-mighty would be as mundane as the force of gravity.(While at its core we would really not understand it either).

[Freethinker]

Basically the BB does not fit at all.

OK, I really do not understand the specific reference here. Are you admitting that the biblical creation myth does in fact NOT fit at all with the observation we call the BB? Or the BB itself does not fit (reality?)? Or...?

The first day, formless to light can fit a model of the birth of a star.

Boy you are desperate to invent a connection!

 

1) "formless to light", "Light" is photons. They existed WAY before the first star did.

2) as such, they in fact would have to help FORM any star.

3) thus the birth of a star would have to include it being "seen by" (NOT formless) to light (photons).

From there the Earth, and so forth. Basically describes the notion of

Evolution (which Creationists abhor).

Ah, once more we find the complete lack of understanding of what the Theory of Evolution is and involves. There is nothing in the Theory of Evolution (which Creationists abhor) that is in the least involved with the formation of the universe, stars and our planet. That is Cosmology, NOT the Theory of Evolution (which Creationists abhor). The Theory of Evolution only involves itself with the explanation of the facts we find around us involving the diversity of life on earth, including homo sapien sapien.

 

Not to say that the universe, stars, the earth, ... did not "EVOLVE" as part of the natural process established at the BB. But that is NOT "Evolution (which Creationists abhor)".

I will check out again both Genesis 1 & 2. Where I remember they differ much is in the tale of serpent+apple+etc. I will read them again.

Better read them a lot better than the first time. I don't know what errors and ocntradictions it has RE "the tale of serpent+apple+etc", as Gen 1 does not mention them at all. Suprised?

 

Nope the contradiction is way more than that. They give different orders of creation. Which was created before what.

I was not attempting to say Religion is Scientific. Yes, that is silly. I am saying the stories in religous texts descriptively coincide with know theories or facts. I am not forming conclusions from this just stating them. You form your own conclusions.

But that was exactly what I disproved. The texts do NOT "coincide" in any reasonable way "with know theories or facts".

 

Can't we each form our own conclusions? Sure. But in order to "conclude" that there is a reasonable, even coincidental, correlation requires that you INTENTIONALLY IGNORE easily verifyable facts. It woould be no more rational to conclude a correlation than to accept Santa. But yes you can do either if you so choose.

I do see that Religion (all of them) need a bit more science and logic in their grounding to be useful in the new millenium.

The last thing religion needs is MORE Science. The only thing that has ever pushed religion to the curb is SCIENCE. The only reason it is no longer the Dark Ages, the period of history when Christianity ruled, is because you can not stop factual science from bubbling up. No matter how hard they tried to destroy it. It exists. It IS reality. No amount of forced ignorance can stop someone from running into factual science. And the truth will out. Here is an interesting quote. I have removed the words that would give clues as to who or what, but it fits in every age and every technology.

 

"The (scientific theory) is cloaked in the ghastly apparition of atheism...befogged speculation, producing universal doubt about God and His creation."

 

Guess what the science was and who the person was who's scientific concept was under attack.

 

Or "Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God." Martin Luther

 

"Thirteenth Rule . To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it," Ignatius of Loyola

 

Ya, religions LOVE Science! More! More!

[Freethinker]

mostly because I had to accept that if this were a completly deterministic universe, then it could never have had a first event (big bang) without outside interferance. As for why I believe in god...I can offer no explanation, no rational, merely my reason - it feels right.

GOD= "I don't know... therefore"