Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Questions Creationists Never Answer
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 106 of 141 (258725)
11-10-2005 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Evopeach
11-10-2005 10:06 AM


Re: On kinds
I think shoe boxing into present terminology is imperfect of course as I said.
In other words you agree that your definition didn't provide any useful information and had logical problems?
Just checking.
Next we can get to radiometric dating methodes and the correlations that are used to calibrate them eh?
Or did you forget.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Evopeach, posted 11-10-2005 10:06 AM Evopeach has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6354 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 107 of 141 (258755)
11-11-2005 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Nighttrain
11-09-2005 8:17 PM


Re: RATE group publications
Eight years ago, not knowing what they would find
Who says creationists don't have a sense of humour?

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Nighttrain, posted 11-09-2005 8:17 PM Nighttrain has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 108 of 141 (258986)
11-11-2005 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Evopeach
11-10-2005 4:40 PM


Re: On kinds
OK, so how do I determine what "kind" of creature something is?
What specific system and criteria do we use to make distinctions?
For example, how many "kinds" are there in the world right now, approximately?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Evopeach, posted 11-10-2005 4:40 PM Evopeach has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 109 of 141 (446190)
01-05-2008 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
01-08-2002 12:14 PM


Bump for 2008
Nator writes:
I have been involved in these on-line Creation/Evolution discussions for several years now, and there are some basic questions which I always ask of Creationists who claim that "Scientific Creationism" is scientific. I have yet to get any answers to them.
Perhaps the Creationists in this forum will provide. I will list a few of them to get us started.
1) Define "kind".
In other words, how do we tell one "kind" from another?
2) If ALL of the various radiometric dating methods are wrong, then how is it that they are ALL wrong in such a way that they are almost always remarkably consistent with one another?
3) Why do we never find flowering plants, including trees, grasses, etc., in the lower levels of the geologic column if all fossils were laid down in one Biblical Flood event?
I don't see how the Biblical Flood could be anything other than a local event, if it happened at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 01-08-2002 12:14 PM nator has not replied

  
Al Barrs
Junior Member (Idle past 5696 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 08-23-2008


Message 110 of 141 (479039)
08-23-2008 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by John Paul
01-08-2002 12:50 PM


Creation, Evolution and the Bible
The long running discussion and debate over whether creation or evolution produced the earth as we know it today, and all that is in it, will never end so long as there are those who continue to postulate that the earth and universe are old or new and that we know we are today what God was (image) in the beginning. I often hear that “faith” is the answer. Maybe, but evidence and thinking out-of-the-box is something that we all should consider. God did give us a fertile mind, which He expected us to use. So to the attempts to prove the age of the Genesis timeframe has been impossible to resolve. We earthlings have no idea what God’s calendar or timeframe was. The author(s) of Genesis stipulated that the heavens, the earth and all in it were created in 6 days by God. That’s a fact. But do we understand from where those words to the Genesis author(s) originated? Was God speaking to them from the Earth or from his place in stellar space or wherever He resides? There are several problems with ancient and modern day perspectives about all of these events and occurrences. My perception follows and is not intended to be used in any way to sway any person’s beliefs or thoughts. These are solely my thoughts . take them or leave them.
1) God created the heavens, earth and all in it in 6 days the author(s) of Genesis wrote. First, we mortal humans, even today, don’t know what the duration of 1 day in God’s timeframe was when Genesis was written or when God undertook to create the Earth and its entire splendor. What we do know is that time is not always the same in the eye of the beholder. It depends upon where the individual is at the time. Time and space is a changing illusion. In other words, for example, I am 69 years of age here on Earth, but in Pluto time, to keep my hypothetical comparison in our Solar System, I am less than 2-1/2 years of age, since it takes Pluto 30 Earth years to circle our Sun. Suppose I dictated my memoirs to a scribe (author), to be read by my descendants thousands of years from today, of the many things that I have accomplished in my 69 years of life as an education and training administrator and corporate T&D director. What would they think if they had since migrated to Pluto and colonized the planet? First, they would be thinking in Pluto years, right. My descendants on Pluto would think that I lived to be less than 2-1/2 years old in Pluto years. Wow, what an accomplishment for a 2-1/2 year old! Like Noah who the Bible says lived to 900+ Earth years, I would be considered very young but on Earth would be a Senior Citizen. Since writing was invented long after The Creation mankind has viewed Biblical writings, as well we should, as the word of God yet they and we perceive everything we read in the Bible in our own Earthly timeframe, not in God’s timeframe. Why would God think in our Earthling timeframe and calendar in the first place when he hadn't created anything before he made the decision to form Earth. There wasn't even day and night or the heavens. Our Earth calendar isn’t all that old and has changed countless times, so why would God use it? It didn't exist before the beginning of the Earth's formation. In the first place we don’t know where God resides or where his office is located nor do we know how far away from Earth God’s residence and office lies. Simply put, we don’t have any knowledge of what 6 or 7 days was in God’s timeframe when he said he formed the Earth, man and all that is in it. Like my example above 1 day on God's Calendar may have equaled millions of years by our current Earth calendar and timeframe. We simply do not have the answers. The further away from Earth the shorter the time interval would have been and is still today. One day in God's timeframe may have equaled millions of days in our Earth timeframe.
2) Second, the author(s) of Genesis wrote that God created (formed) man in his image. OK, but do we know what God’s image was billions of Earth years ago on God’s calendar? A close look at our Universe, Galaxy and beyond quickly bears out the view that solar systems, for example, are duplicates of the smallest bit of matter, the atom. We know now that everything on the Earth including humans, animals and vegetation is made up of atoms using the same structural form as our Solar System and millions of other solar systems in outer space. Coupled with the fact that we have no ability to say for certain what the “image” of God was at the time of The Creation. And, we don’t know what God’s image is today. We can only assume and we know what assuming does to us .
3) Third, what we do know is that the dilemma is unsolvable unless we look at both the creation and God’s calendar and timeframe as scientific evidence has shown us to date with an open mind and an out-of-the-box attitude.
” If we look at the creation of Earth in 6 days in terms of God’s calendar or timeframe we can easily understand how God created the Earth within His timeframe of 6 days. One year on Earth’s calendar does not necessarily equal 1 year on God’s calendar. In fact, 1 year on God’s calendar may equal millions of years on Earth’s calendar.
” If we look at the structure of the systems within space and the systems on Earth we can easily understand what God’s image was at the creation of the Earth and all that is in it. And, that does not include the Earth interpretation “image” to be most anything. I have an image in my mind of what a spaceship might look like in one thousand years but that doesn’t mean I know what a spaceship will actually be like in one thousand years.
In summary, the important point about these topics that I have addressed here is that the timeframe and calendar of God is virtual proof that there is a God and he created the Earth and all that is in it. Otherwise, how would early mortal Hebrew authors of Genesis and other books of the Bible write what they were given in forms that do not appear to fit the Earths timeframe or calendar? There is a disconnect. Was this God's way of telling us that the Bible is truth and a paraphrase of what was conveyed to the Biblical authors? It is obvious to me that they were writing down exactly what they were communicated by God or his Angels. Based on these Biblical dates and time I sincerely believe God, whatever his image and calendar timeframe was, did create the Earth and everything in it, but he also created change and gave humans an analytical mind to improve, call it “evolution” if one must, the Earth and all that is in it. I call it Creation with built in change factors.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added some more blank lines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by John Paul, posted 01-08-2002 12:50 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by bluescat48, posted 08-23-2008 7:22 PM Al Barrs has replied
 Message 112 by Coragyps, posted 08-23-2008 7:41 PM Al Barrs has not replied
 Message 114 by Syamsu, posted 08-23-2008 9:06 PM Al Barrs has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 111 of 141 (479041)
08-23-2008 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Al Barrs
08-23-2008 6:55 PM


Re: Creation, Evolution and the Bible
It is obvious to me that they were writing down exactly what they were communicated by God or his Angels. Based on these Biblical dates and time I sincerely believe God, whatever his image and calendar timeframe was, did create the Earth and everything in it, but he also created change and gave humans an analytical mind to improve, call it “evolution” if one must, the Earth and all that is in it. I call it Creation with built in change factors.
The only problem I see with your observations is that why, if God created the universe in a different way than Genesis states, why the genesis rigamarole. If God could take 13.7 billion years to "create" the universe, why couldn't he wait several thousand years, until "his image" was able to understand the universe, to have Genesis written in a way other than figurative. Does let there be light mean the Big Bang?

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Al Barrs, posted 08-23-2008 6:55 PM Al Barrs has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Al Barrs, posted 08-23-2008 8:52 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 112 of 141 (479042)
08-23-2008 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Al Barrs
08-23-2008 6:55 PM


Re: Creation, Evolution and the Bible
Hi, Al! welcome aboard!
In summary, the important point about these topics that I have addressed here is that the timeframe and calendar of God is virtual proof that there is a God and he created the Earth and all that is in it. Otherwise, how would early mortal Hebrew authors of Genesis and other books of the Bible write what they were given in forms that do not appear to fit the Earths timeframe or calendar?
Maybe they had no clue what the actual timeframe of early earth was like? The Romans and greeks appear to have been in the same boat....mythology is mythology, after all.

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Al Barrs, posted 08-23-2008 6:55 PM Al Barrs has not replied

  
Al Barrs
Junior Member (Idle past 5696 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 08-23-2008


Message 113 of 141 (479045)
08-23-2008 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by bluescat48
08-23-2008 7:22 PM


Re: Creation, Evolution and the Bible
Don't forget that it was mortal human being who authored Genesis and put it into a very condensed format to fit it into the Bible. What is time when you own it? twelve billion years is a tiny dot in comparison to outer space time. Answer this, is there an end to outer space? Can it go on forever? If 'yes' what does it go into? If it does end, what is holding it up? Is our solar system just an atom within God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by bluescat48, posted 08-23-2008 7:22 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Rrhain, posted 08-23-2008 9:19 PM Al Barrs has not replied
 Message 116 by onifre, posted 08-26-2008 12:27 PM Al Barrs has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 114 of 141 (479046)
08-23-2008 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Al Barrs
08-23-2008 6:55 PM


Re: Creation, Evolution and the Bible
You are using relative motion notions of time. You should instead use historical notions of time, where time is a sequence of decisions. For instance the deciding events in the formation of a nation, the decisive events in a football match. Those kinds of sequences of decisions correspond with real, absolute time. Consider the following quote of Newton:
"1. Hitherto I have laid down the definitions of such words as are less known, and explained the sense in which I would have them to be understood in the following discourse. I do not define time, space, place and motion, as being well known to all. Only I must observe, that the vulgar conceive those quantities under no other notions but from the relation they bear to sensible objects. And thence arise certain prejudices, for the removing of which, it will be convenient to distinguish them into absolute and relative, true and apparent, mathematical and common.
2. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration: [Absolute time is to be contrasted with] relative, apparent, and common time, [which] is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a year."
" 404 Error Page Not Found at MSUM
Principia Mathematica (1687)
SCHOLIUM ON ABSOLUTE SPACE AND TIME
The fact that we can trace back to the beginning of the universe using a few laws indicates a few powerful decisions at the start of the universe which pretty much created everything. If we could not look back so close to the beginning, then that would indicate many decisions in the history of the universe of equal influence.
That is the same also for a football match for instance. If you can trace back the result to the beginning then that just means the one side was much stronger than the other side. So the match was decided as soon as the players entered the pitch. But if we had a more equally balanced set of teams, than it would be very difficult to trace the result back to the decisions at which the result was determined.
So as said, our situation is we can easily find the beginning of the universe from the result we see, easily meaning with using only a few universal laws. So that means that 6 days of creation at the start of the universe can still be perfectly accurate, because we know that in a short relative time at the start of the universe pretty much of everything was decided to be the way it is now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Al Barrs, posted 08-23-2008 6:55 PM Al Barrs has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 115 of 141 (479047)
08-23-2008 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Al Barrs
08-23-2008 8:52 PM


Al Barrs writes:
quote:
Don't forget that it was mortal human being who authored Genesis and put it into a very condensed format to fit it into the Bible.
Why condense it? Humans aren't idiots. We can understand complex things. Complex things require complex explanations. If it becomes a sound bite, then it isn't really explaining anything.
quote:
What is time when you own it? twelve billion years is a tiny dot in comparison to outer space time.
So? We've only been seriously able to look at deep cosmology for about 100 years and look how far we've come. Imagine how much further we could have been if we had been able to start thousands of years ago. Why on earth hide things and dumb down those things you do present?
quote:
Answer this, is there an end to outer space?
Yes.
quote:
Can it go on forever?
Define "forever." The universe if finite but unbounded.
quote:
If 'yes' what does it go into?
It goes into nothing. You need to abandon your "common sense" notions of how space-time works. But the books you'll use to understand cosmology are longer than the Bible.
quote:
If it does end, what is holding it up?
Nothing. Again, you need to stop thinking of the universe as something you've run into on a day-to-day basis. It doesn't work that way. The universe is finite but unbounded. It expands into nothing and is held up by nothing.
quote:
Is our solar system just an atom within God?
The solar system does not compare to an atom.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Al Barrs, posted 08-23-2008 8:52 PM Al Barrs has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 116 of 141 (479317)
08-26-2008 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Al Barrs
08-23-2008 8:52 PM


Re: Creation, Evolution and the Bible
Don't forget that it was mortal human being who authored Genesis and put it into a very condensed format to fit it into the Bible.
This is your own take on it. You do not have any evidence that this was the case. A condensed format of what exactly? Who condensed it? Humans because they wanted to print the edited version? Or God because he felt his creation was too dumb to understand the un-condensed version? And please give references to your answers.
twelve billion years is a tiny dot in comparison to outer space time.
This is non-sensical. What is 'outerspace time'?
Answer this, is there an end to outer space? Can it go on forever? If 'yes' what does it go into? If it does end, what is holding it up? Is our solar system just an atom within God?
This too is non-sensical. The universe is not 'going into' anything. The universe is all there is and thus nothing exists 'outside' of it.
Heres the wiki definition,
Universe - Wikipedia

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Al Barrs, posted 08-23-2008 8:52 PM Al Barrs has not replied

  
olletrap
Junior Member (Idle past 5648 days)
Posts: 23
From: Mass, USA
Joined: 10-07-2008


Message 117 of 141 (485461)
10-08-2008 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by John Paul
01-08-2002 12:50 PM


easy
A "kind" iof animal, is whatever can breed with it. Canines can breed with canines, felines with felines etc... Felines can't breed with canines. Sothey are different "kinds" of animals.
Flowering plants may have been deposited all over the globe, but obviously couldn't survive in certain climates and died off except where the climate was hospitable.
Next question...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by John Paul, posted 01-08-2002 12:50 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Huntard, posted 10-08-2008 4:31 PM olletrap has replied
 Message 119 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-08-2008 7:56 PM olletrap has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 118 of 141 (485463)
10-08-2008 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by olletrap
10-08-2008 4:27 PM


Re: easy
olletrap writes:
A "kind" iof animal, is whatever can breed with it. Canines can breed with canines, felines with felines etc... Felines can't breed with canines. Sothey are different "kinds" of animals.
Except that not all canines can breed with each other, so this definition needs work.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by olletrap, posted 10-08-2008 4:27 PM olletrap has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by olletrap, posted 10-08-2008 8:38 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 119 of 141 (485486)
10-08-2008 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by olletrap
10-08-2008 4:27 PM


Re: easy
A "kind" iof animal, is whatever can breed with it.
So basically you're going with the Biological Species Concept?
O ... kay, but remember that the whole point of this nonsense about "kinds" in the first place was to reduce the number of animals that Noah had to take on to the Ark. If you're going to equate "kinds" with species then the concept loses its usefulness for the purposes of creationist apologetics.
Flowering plants may have been deposited all over the globe, but obviously couldn't survive in certain climates and died off except where the climate was hospitable.
That is not an answer to the question, which you need to read again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by olletrap, posted 10-08-2008 4:27 PM olletrap has not replied

  
olletrap
Junior Member (Idle past 5648 days)
Posts: 23
From: Mass, USA
Joined: 10-07-2008


Message 120 of 141 (485489)
10-08-2008 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Huntard
10-08-2008 4:31 PM


Re: easy
You know... These are age old stories, obviously there are going to be problems with them. I don't think the Noah story can be literally true according to our understanding of it, but is that more important than the general idea, that the world was destroyed but a remnant saved to repopulate it?...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Huntard, posted 10-08-2008 4:31 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024