Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-28-2017 6:04 AM
410 online now:
frako, PaulK, Rrhain (3 members, 407 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,065 Year: 6,671/21,208 Month: 2,432/2,634 Week: 95/525 Day: 10/60 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   The Ten Laws of Creationism and Intelligent Design
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 568
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 3.3


(2)
Message 16 of 19 (791195)
09-12-2016 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
09-12-2016 1:02 PM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Why not? If it says something about the distant past then it's telling us the truth about that distant past. It tells us about Creation, it tells us about the Flood. If it's God's word and He cannot lie then it's telling us the truth about those events.

Who says god cannot lie? God can do whatever he chooses based on what believers indicate.

And this brings up a fantastic thought experiment: if a god wanted to truly test his creation, a great way to do so is give the creation the ability to critically think but at the same time, allow false information to permeate in the world. The actual 'test' would be for those that could look at the data and evidence and realize the true nature of the universe.

It is a simple concept in the end: either there is one 'true' religion that gets everything right and all the others are wrong. Which is clearly false. Or, more plausibly, all religions are false and that science (which is demonstrable) is correct.

I see, and you've had a conversation with Him about this and know He wouldn't do it that way?

I am curious: do you not see the irony in you making a sarcastic comment towards someone by asserting the absurdity of their perceived communion with the divine while simultaneously believing in a book written by people thousands of years ago that claimed the exact same capability?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 1:02 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2017 11:35 AM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28437
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 17 of 19 (791196)
09-12-2016 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
09-12-2016 1:02 PM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Faith writes:

If it's God's word and He cannot lie then it's telling us the truth about those events.

Except of course for the fact that Genesis tells of God lying.

Since God lied in Genesis 2 is there any reason to think the fact that either of the two mutually exclusive flood myths is factual?

Faith writes:

If it says something about the distant past then it's telling us the truth about that distant past.

Except for the fact that the distant past itself tells us that the story is wrong. Should we believe stories or the actual evidence? Did God intentionally tamper with the evidence just to fool everyone?

Faith writes:

But nobody but unbelievers read the Flood accounts that way, unbelievers including the "scholars" who come up with such stuff, and some presumptuous people who call themselves "believers" but are in for a very rude shock.

Yet again the evidence shows that those you claim are not believers actually are believers and that includes much of Christianity today as well as in the past.

Faith writes:

There's no "mashing" involved, believers know that everything in the Bible is to be read as dovetailing with everything else in the Bible.

No doubt people do believe as you say yet the fact remains that the two mutually exclusive flood myths are just mashed together just as the God described in Genesis 1 is entirely different than the God described in Genesis 2&3 and the two creation myths are also totally contradictory.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 1:02 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 18 of 19 (797857)
01-28-2017 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Diomedes
09-12-2016 3:19 PM


or ...
And this brings up a fantastic thought experiment: if a god wanted to truly test his creation, a great way to do so is give the creation the ability to critically think but at the same time, allow false information to permeate in the world. The actual 'test' would be for those that could look at the data and evidence and realize the true nature of the universe.

Nice concept. Fits well with Deism.

It is a simple concept in the end: either there is one 'true' religion that gets everything right and all the others are wrong. Which is clearly false. Or, more plausibly, all religions are false and that science (which is demonstrable) is correct.

Or thirdly, that all religions are somewhat incomplete and muddled human interpretations, limited by the ability of early people to fully understand things outside their cultural and intellectual limitations, some more correct in some aspects and others in other aspects, and that science can be used to sort the reality of creation from misunderstanding and mistaken interpretations. After all iff reality is the result of creation, then the best way to understand creation (life, the universe and everything) is to understand reality ... to the best of our god-given ability to do so.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Diomedes, posted 09-12-2016 3:19 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4545
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 19 of 19 (797870)
01-28-2017 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coyote
08-27-2016 8:54 PM


3. The Law of Reproducible Results: Anything found in nature was Designed, unless it can be reproduced in the lab. Corollary: Anything intentionally done in a lab is not natural; it’s a purposeful result. Therefore, all lab results are evidence of Intelligent Design

I do know some fellow-creationists that argue this one. Not sure I have heard of anyone arguing the other things of design though, they almost seem like they've been written by evolutionists to misrepresent creation/ID arguments.

But this one is argued by some creationists and I try to tell them not to argue it because of an example for example of the water-cycle. If we recreate the conditions of the water-cycle then obviously we can't then attribute it to intelligent design because we have only reconstructed/replicated natural conditions which logically proves that the intelligent lab equipment being designed is MOOT/meaningless.

At the risk or repeating myself, to conclude something is intelligently designed you have to show it has all of the usual features of design.

I just don't know of many creationists that argue these things to be honest, that is the only one I remember some of my fellow-creos arguing.

8. The Law of Supernatural Superiority: Whenever two explanations of a phenomenon are presented, one natural and one supernatural, the latter is always better. Naturalistic bias must be avoided.

This one seems particularly tenous, all you have to do to refute it is swap, "naturalistic" and, "supernatural", like this;

8. The Law of Natural Superiority: Whenever two explanations of a phenomenon are presented, one natural and one supernatural, the former is always better. supernatural bias must be avoided.

As you can see, if I can point out the holes in such arguments and they strike me as simplistic and unintelligent, then I can't be the one arguing them.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coyote, posted 08-27-2016 8:54 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017