|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,789 Year: 4,046/9,624 Month: 917/974 Week: 244/286 Day: 5/46 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: A Logical account of creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Couldn't the prehistoric neandrathal and the dinosaurs be just prototypes
So you're proposing that god is not perfect and doesn't get things right on the first try. Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well, I think intermediate forms are going to mess up any attempt to divide things into "kinds". Consider the fish-amphibian sequence. At some point you're going to have to draw a dividing line between fish and amphibians, let's say for example somewhere between Tiktaalik and Acanthostega, and announce that one is the "fish kind" and the other is the "amphibian kind". But the problem is that Tiktaalik has more in common with Acanthostega then it does with, say, a goldfish, and Acanthostega has more in common with Tiktaalik than it does with, say, a frog.
This is one reason why creationists never produce a morphological criterion for when two creatures are the same "kind".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ikabod Member (Idle past 4519 days) Posts: 365 From: UK Joined: |
a number of problems arise here , apart from the whole issue of creating anything .
firstly you dont have any of the major forms of plants or animals or fungi living in isolation , the are all part of a giant ecosystem called life , there is no good creating a plant with out creating something to fix nitrogen for the plant , no good creating a mammal unless you create some thing for it to feed on ie plants or other animals , so you have to in one shot create a whole range of interelated lifeforms ,all interdependant on each other . well actual you done need to do that , cos if you can create living creatures i guess you can just make the world obey any rules you see fit , and you just create a world where 4.5 billion years ago one of each kind formed , then create the intervening history and start the time running from yesterday and no one will know . once you accept creation its kind of hard to apply any sort of limit to the creator in fact may be the creator created a universe where life does arise from a chemical soup and then evoles into diverse life forms ! strange world we live in , or so im told ..)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jjsemsch Member (Idle past 5802 days) Posts: 60 Joined: |
in fact may be the creator created a universe where life does arise from a chemical soup and then evoles into diverse life forms !
This is entirely POSSIBLE, but if you want to go that route anything is possible. If this is what God did, don’t you think He would have told us? God told us that He created the earth moon and stars and every living creature in 6 days. The more people study evolution and creation, the more they realize that it’s either/or. You have to pick one or the other. Either God created everything from nothing in six days or everything evolved from nothing over billions of years. I’m sure that’s why the creators of this website have a “vs.” between creation and evolution. Or to be consistent with “science” I guess I should say that’s why this website evolved from nothing with no intelligent guidance to have a “vs.” in between evolution and creation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Well, we know for a fact that the universe is old, and that the universe was not created in six days. Those are givens and not even in dispute. GOD tells us that in what She wrote, the universe itself.
The question then is why did the various authors of the Bible include differing and mutually exclusive tales about creation? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
God told us that He created the earth moon and stars and every living creature in 6 days. No He didn't. He told (perhaps) some people with very limited understanding of the natural world that over 2500 years ago. What He actually said wasn't written down for centuries. What He has actually written they couldn't read. We now can read what He wrote. We can read it first hand without having oral traditions, translation mistakes and limited background in the physical sciences getting in the way. He hasn't used human tools to write. He doesn't play with brushes and parchment, pens and paper, printing presses or computers to write his message. He wrote his message about how He formed the universe, world and life into the rocks, into the stars and into us. We can read this message directly and He tells us that the old writtings (while ok for the time) are not correct and He is telling you that you are wrong. You now need to learn to read the language He writes in or suffer in ignorance of the message He tries to deliver to you. Edited by NosyNed, : spellingand sorry to beat Mr. J to the punch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jjsemsch Member (Idle past 5802 days) Posts: 60 Joined: |
Well, we know for a fact that the universe is old, and that the universe was not created in six days. And this is a fact because you were there and saw it happen?
Those are givens and not even in dispute. Actually they are in dispute. What exactly is an old universe based on? Is it the distance of stars and the speed of light? Einstein showed through his theory of general relativity that time dilation occurs around massive objects. Therefore light distance and velocity wouldn’t be an accurate measure of time. You can read more at:
Review Dr. Russ Humphreys A Young-Earth Relativistic Cosmology
| Answers in Genesis
Or perhaps you believe that the Earth is old based on the uniformitarian geological time scale which basically states that because geological strata form slowly today they formed slowly in the past. Just because you see me driving 5 mph into my driveway doesn’t mean I drove 5 mph on the highway to get there. The title of this thread is a logical account of creation. The most logical account of creation would be one from a first hand eye witness account. If you’re searching for that account the answer is in Genesis.
The question then is why did the various authors of the Bible include differing and mutually exclusive tales about creation? There aren’t differing “tales” about creation in the Bible. With 66 books and 44 authors, in its original form no where does the Bible contradict itself. If you disagree please be specific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Actually they are in dispute. No they are not in dispute. No one who is not either ignorant, deluded or lying believes in a Young Earth. As to Answers in Genesis, they fall into the category of liars. It does not require time dilation or anything more than the most very basic common sense to know that the stars are very far away. If al of the stars were within a 6000 light year distance from the Earth, life would simply not exist. Sorry, AIG is simply laughable.
Or perhaps you believe that the Earth is old based on the uniformitarian geological time scale which basically states that because geological strata form slowly today they formed slowly in the past. Pretty much so. Again, had things behaved differently in the past, it would leave signs. As a matter of fact there ARE places where things behaved abnormally, and guess what, it left evidence.
The title of this thread is a logical account of creation. The most logical account of creation would be one from a first hand eye witness account. If you’re searching for that account the answer is in Genesis. LOL Nonsense. The various accounts in Genesis are simply wrong. They are contradictory and mutually exclusive as well as been logically impossible. As a Christian, I can only echo the words of Bishop Sims, who at the time he wrote this Pastoral Letter related to the various Genesis tales was the Bishop of Georgia:
But even here the distinction between religion and science is clear. In Genesis there is not one creation statement but two. They agree as to why and who, but are quite different as to how and when. The statements are set forth in tandem, chapter one of Genesis using one description of method and chapter two another. According to the first, humanity was created, male and female, after the creation of plants and animals. According to the second, man was created first, then the trees, the animals and finally the woman and not from the earth as in the first account, but from the rib of the man. Textual research shows that these two accounts are from two distinct eras, the first later in history, the second earlier. Insistence upon dated and partially contradictory statements of how as conditions for true belief in the why of creation cannot qualify either as faithful religion or as intelligent science. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jjsemsch Member (Idle past 5802 days) Posts: 60 Joined: |
As to Answers in Genesis, they fall into the category of liars. Do you have any evidence to support that claim, or do you make a habit of making false accusations?
Nonsense. The various accounts in Genesis are simply wrong. They are contradictory and mutually exclusive as well as been logically impossible. Actually this is an incorrect interpretation. Genesis chapter 1 gives the order and Genesis chapter 2 goes into greater detail about the creation of man and woman. Because you weren’t specific I assume (and please correct me if I’m wrong) you are referring to Genesis 2:19 that says, “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.” -NIV I’m guessing your mis-interpretation comes from another translation that doesn’t say “had formed” but “formed”. This would give the impression that God formed animals after man, when clearly from Genesis 1 God created animals before man. Who am I to speak for God? Who am I to say that one translation is right and one is wrong? I’m not worthy of making that claim so let’s look at the original Hebrew.
. in Hebrew the precise tense of a verb is determined by the context. It is clear from chapter 1 that the beasts and birds were created before Adam, so Jewish scholars would have understood the verb ”formed’ in Genesis 2:19 to mean ”had formed’ or ”having formed’. If we translate verse 19 as follows (as one widely used translation does), ”Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field . ’, the apparent disagreement with Genesis 1 disappears completely. You can read the entire article here:
Missing Link
| Answers in Genesis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
AIG's veracity is not on topic here.
However if someone wants to start a thread I'll try to be back soon enough to promote it quickly. I think it should be up to Jar since he made the accusation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
We can sit here and play dueling quotes or we can shop translations 'till the cows come home, but that has nothing to do with the subject. I provide a quote from a retired (active at the time he wrote the Pastoral Letter) and you quote AIG.
The facts are that the various accounts in Genesis simply do not match the evidence available. Even your own quote is simply a case of asserting whatever AIG wants despite the fact that it lies and you simply bought it. The disagreement does not disappear, regardless of which translation is used. Instead of believing liars and con artists like AIG, perhaps you should actually read the Bible. Changing the wording of Genesis 2 to 'had formed' still leaves the contradiction. In Genesis 1 (which is a much later tale than the ones combined into Genesis 2) God simply speaks things into existence, in the Genesis 2 compilation, God is a kid by the streamside forming critters by hand. The orders of creation are different, the methods are different, the very descriptions of God are different. Further, neither of the tales matches the evidence of what actually happened. One example is having the earth created before the stars. Sorry, that is simply wrong. As creation myths go, the Biblical ones are slightly more reasonable than some of the others, but they are still factually wrong and anyone who does not think so is either ignorant, deluded or a liar. From the Catechism of Creation Are the creation stories in Genesis, chapters 1 and 2, meant to convey how God originated the universe? These majestic stories should not be understood as historical and scientific accounts of origins but as proclamations of basic theological truths about creation. “Creation” in Holy Scripture refers to and describes the relationship between God and all God’s wonderful works. To consider the tales as either historical or scientific is to diminish God, turn GOD from a Creator into a bumbling backyard tinkerer and make God a liar and trickster as well. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jjsemsch Member (Idle past 5802 days) Posts: 60 Joined: |
The facts are that the various accounts in Genesis simply do not match the evidence available. Actually they match the evidence quite well. You’ve simply interpreted the evidence incorrectly. Rather than us going back and forth saying, “You’re wrong.” “No you’re wrong.” Let’s discuss the evidence and the proper interpretations. One of the biggest problems with the Genesis account of creation is the light travel time problem. If God created the stars on day 4, approximately 6 thousand years ago we would only see the stars that are 6 thousand light years (or less) away. Russell Humphreys and his White Hole Cosmology in his book Starlight and Time have solved this problem. He has shown that it is mathematically possible that Earth entered a black hole during creation week. At the point of singularity the black hole reversed into a white hole and the Earth exited the white hole. From a vantage point outside of the white hole billions of year’s worth of time could have passed, while from the Earth vantage point this happened nearly instantaneously. Perhaps you still believe in the Big Bang model for the existence of the universe. If you discount the Genesis account of creation because of the light travel time problem, then you should discount the Big Bang for its light travel time problem as well. Cosmic microwave background radiation is nearly uniform everywhere we look in the universe, from 18 billion light-years one direction to 18 billion light-years in the other direction. Unfortunately there hasn’t been enough time for one side of the universe to communicate with the other side and reach equilibrium. Like I said before the Genesis account of creation is the only logical account of creation. It’s likely that we will never reach an agreement, because my axiom is that the Bible is the flawless word of God and evidence from the past should be interpreted in light of that. It seems your axiom is that the Bible was simply written by man and full of errors. I hope in time you’ll realize that God and His Word can be trusted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2519 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
One of the biggest problems with the Genesis account of creation is the light travel time problem If you asked me for the top 20 "biggest problems" with Genesis creationism, I don't think "light travel time" would be on the list. I don't know if it would make the top 50. The issues with Creationism taken as fact are legion. The fact that people are obsessing about the distance of stars as part of the issue boggles my mind. It's like dusting in Pompeii while the mountain is exploding. Edited by Nuggin, : screwed up the "quote" box
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jjsemsch Member (Idle past 5802 days) Posts: 60 Joined: |
The facts are that the various accounts in Genesis simply do not match the evidence available. Another piece of evidence that has been improperly interpreted is the fossil record. The Uniformitarian Geological Timescale basically says that each layer of sediment was laid down over millions of years. The evidence however shows polystrate fossils. (poly- meaning many and -strate meaning strata) The most common polystrate fossils are tree trunks. They supposedly penetrate through millions of years of geological time. If this were true however, they would have rotted before the next layer was laid down. It makes much more sense that they were buried during flood conditions. During a violent flood the trees were ripped up by their roots, and stripped of all of their leaves and branches. They then became water logged and sank root-side first and were rapidly buried in sediment. It was in this mineral rich water that fossilization took place. This is exactly what happened when Mount St. Helens erupted on May 18 1980. With the Bible as my axiom, this interpretation of the fossil record makes perfect sense in light of the Noachian Deluge. In fact every ancient culture has a global flood story. The Epic of Gilgamesh is one of the more famous ones. This is obviously a variation of the story of Noah. One example that Gilgamesh is a variation of Noah and not vice versa is the dimensions given for the ark. In the Epic of Gilgamesh only one dimension is given, making his boat a cube. This would be extremely unstable. Whereas the dimensions found in Genesis 6:15 make an extremely stable boat. In fact experts say it could withstand waves 30 meters high. To put that in perspective the Tsunami that destroyed much of the coast of China and India back in December of 2004 was 10 meters high. As I’ve said before, Genesis is the only logical account of creation. Unfortunately because we have differing axioms I’m sure we will continue to disagree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
jjsemsch writes: He has shown that it is mathematically possible that Earth entered a black hole during creation week. Showing that something is "mathematically possible" is not evidence. It is "mathematically possible" that Hitler discovered penicillin or that Napoleon invented the hot-air balloon. Humphreys' ideas are just so much hot air unless there is some evidence to show that it did happen that way. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024