Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-20-2019 6:45 AM
23 online now:
kjsimons, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Percy (Admin), Tangle, vimesey (5 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,858 Year: 4,895/19,786 Month: 1,017/873 Week: 373/376 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
10Next
Author Topic:   Why'd you do it that way, God?
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 3322 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 31 of 137 (528750)
10-06-2009 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Sky-Writing
10-06-2009 8:23 PM


Not mushy. Firm.

Haha, this is oddly erotic...

in order to avoid being soft and mushy and unsuitable to life, it was created "Ready to go".

No one is arguing that the earth could have been made 6000 years ago. What people want to know is why God would apparently create a place with the appearance of having been lived in for 4.5 billion years. You know, the fossils, the sediment, the apparent 4.5 billion year decay of radioactive isotopes, and the other things that seem unnecessary.

I appreciate God building a house that is more than walls and is not ready to live in. It's just that apparently God created a house with a cracked foundation, mildew between the walls, a rusty screen door, a leaky roof, scribbles of the children of the previous owners left on the wall, etc. That is to say, instead of creating a brand-spanking new house, God created a house with all the appearances of having been around for a long time with evidence everywhere of the previous inhabitants.

Why did God do it that way?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Sky-Writing, posted 10-06-2009 8:23 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Sky-Writing, posted 10-06-2009 10:21 PM Izanagi has not yet responded

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3257 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 32 of 137 (528764)
10-06-2009 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by kbertsche
10-06-2009 5:18 PM


"False. Nearly all conservative Bible scholars from the early to mid-1800s thru the mid-1900s believed that the earth was old and that animals had died before man was here. These scholars included Scofield, Spurgeon, Barnhouse, Ironside, Unger, J Vernon McGee, and many, many others who did not accept the ToE as "fact." "

There is nothing wrong with that. Adam wasn't "young". Nor was "the garden" a square of germinating sprouts. The earth has all the characteristics of something old. As does the rest of the cosmos.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by kbertsche, posted 10-06-2009 5:18 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3257 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 33 of 137 (528767)
10-06-2009 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Izanagi
10-06-2009 8:36 PM


"Why did God do it that way?"

There are no isotopes with a 4.5 billion yo 1/2 life, to start with. The age number is scientifical historism. Not science.

True science being a reproducible testable event.

When a guy in a lab coat, or on Nova, spews yarns of ancient planet history ... don't fall to your knees and kiss the ring. I've been around Scientists all my life. They have agendas like everyone else. Worse actually.

Anyway, earth may well have endured a massive amount of prep time. Just so we could drive fast cars on smooth roads.

Edited by -Sky-, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Izanagi, posted 10-06-2009 8:36 PM Izanagi has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Coyote, posted 10-06-2009 10:28 PM Sky-Writing has responded
 Message 44 by greyseal, posted 01-03-2010 1:00 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 211 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 34 of 137 (528770)
10-06-2009 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Sky-Writing
10-06-2009 10:21 PM


True science nonsense again
True science being a reproducible testable event.

False!

That's just another dishonest creationist talking point.

Try reproducing stellar formation in the laboratory. And try telling the scientists who practice it that cosmology is not a "true" science.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Sky-Writing, posted 10-06-2009 10:21 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Sky-Writing, posted 10-06-2009 10:38 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3257 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 35 of 137 (528773)
10-06-2009 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Coyote
10-06-2009 10:28 PM


Re: True science nonsense again
"And try telling the scientists who practice it that cosmology is not a "true" science."

As if I care how they think about themselves. The fact remains, even their peers, who they bed with, can't be sure of historical events. Besides, you failed to produce even the smallest token of support other than your, and their, belief system. Again it falls out of pure science because...well....because it's always wrong. Each new discovery throws away days or years worth of previous speculation.

Take our moon for example. All of the brightest minds in the world have reached no conclusion on how it was formed. And that's after hand delivery of 100's of pounds of surface and core samples. No, if the group you call "Science" can't reach agreement on how our moon was formed with samples in their hands, I'm not going to give them ANY credit for theories on how anything else came into being.

Read about the moons of Saturn. You'll note that the moons are "Surprisingly active". I'll say. Not a single sentence has been written to try to explain how a moon that out-gasses material into space could exist for a billion years. I've not seen one. And I follow it pretty close.

According to Jesus, the scriptures are written correctly. His opinion trumps theirs any day, and is reconfirmed each day.

Edited by -Sky-, : Defining.

Edited by -Sky-, : Commentary


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Coyote, posted 10-06-2009 10:28 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by jasonlang, posted 01-03-2010 8:34 PM Sky-Writing has responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 36 of 137 (528775)
10-06-2009 11:06 PM


This is a theistic evolution topic, in a science forum
Message 1 again:

As I suffer from a condition called "theism", I occassionally ponder the question of why God chose naturalistic means to create the world we live in today. Naturally, the answer can only be speculative, but I thought it would be interesting to phrase it here, since we have members of many different -isms and backgrounds.

Now, a few guidelines.

1. This thread assumes that the universe is ~14 billion years old, and that the scientific consensus regarding life's origins and diversity is an accurate description of reality.

2. This thread also assumes that there is an omnipotent Creator of some sort, who is fully capable of creating a complete universe by any means He (or She or It) chooses.

3. The Creator in question, created the universe with the express purpose of producing the human race, and to be worshipped by said humans.

A rather general description of a Creator for most theistic (at least monotheistic) religions I imagine.

So, if you had to make these assumptions, what reasons do you see for the Creator to choose gradual naturalistic processes, as opposed to an undeniably divine creation event?

It'll be particularly interesting to see what the theistic evolutionists think about the question.

Considerations of things like "heaven" and "hell" do not belong in this topic. I am highly suspicious about quoting Biblical scripture in the topic.

Adminnemooseus


    
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 25 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 37 of 137 (528782)
10-06-2009 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Meldinoor
10-03-2009 4:24 AM


What I love about all these responses is audacity to come across like "we know it all" and that we are even in a position to judge such a thought. According to said science, the universe is HUGE, and we are but a mere speck, trying to look out into it. Shit we don't even know what's on the bottom of our own dam ocean's, yet we can sit here and speculate Why God would create such a thing, and talk it down using dumb words from a dictionary.

God's creation surpasses all words, all thoughts, and everything we know. I am incapable of judging why He did it the way He did. I can just sit back an enjoy looking at it, learning about it, and trying to know Him.

So to assume #1, and #2 is futile, and as far as #3 goes, the bible does say that even the rocks will worship God. When people in this forum try to down play the meaning of the word worship when it comes to God, and how childish that may seem, and a stupid thing for an omnipresent force to ever want to have, they have no real idea of the true meaning of worship, and why God created it. Everything has a purpose. We take God's creation constantly and make things from it, and there is a purpose. We are like God. Any honest Christian/believer could not really answer why God did it that way. No one can, we just don't know enough. We are too small.

Even choosing the word naturalistic is down playing God's creation. It IS so amazing, and the wonders of it never cease. I can look at the smallest things, and the largest things, and just be in awe. I think it is a most beautiful amazing way of doing things, and we spend our lifetimes trying to figure it out. This is some of what I see when I ponder the naturalistic ways of creation, yes I made this video, sit back and enjoy:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Meldinoor, posted 10-03-2009 4:24 AM Meldinoor has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by onifre, posted 10-07-2009 12:22 AM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 45 by greyseal, posted 01-03-2010 1:11 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1056 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 38 of 137 (528800)
10-07-2009 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by riVeRraT
10-06-2009 11:28 PM


God's creation surpasses all words, all thoughts, and everything we know.

Doesn't this contradict your point about people coming across like they know it all? If people don't know shit (your words) then how can you know that?

When people in this forum try to down play the meaning of the word worship when it comes to God, and how childish that may seem, and a stupid thing for an omnipresent force to ever want to have, they have no real idea of the true meaning of worship, and why God created it. Everything has a purpose. We take God's creation constantly and make things from it, and there is a purpose. We are like God. Any honest Christian/believer could not really answer why God did it that way. No one can, we just don't know enough. We are too small.

...and how do you know any of this (shit)...?

Aren't you not supposed to know shit, too? (again, your words)

So maybe you're right, maybe we're right, maybe no one is right...I mean, shit, who knows?

yes I made this video, sit back and enjoy:

Not my favorite song (maybe some Floyd, but hey that's just my taste), but a cool video nonetheless. Although kinda wierd at first with that whole minute of footage on the bee/wasp/whatever, but cool afterwards.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by riVeRraT, posted 10-06-2009 11:28 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by riVeRraT, posted 10-07-2009 8:43 AM onifre has not yet responded

    
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 25 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 39 of 137 (528844)
10-07-2009 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by onifre
10-07-2009 12:22 AM


onifire writes:

Doesn't this contradict your point about people coming across like they know it all? If people don't know shit (your words) then how can you know that?

No, it's based on an assumption from the first post, and from what we think we know about God. What I am saying is we don't know.

So maybe you're right, maybe we're right, maybe no one is right...I mean, shit, who knows?

Exactly.

Floyd would have been cool, but a copyright infringement. The band is my own worship team, that's me on the keyboard, thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by onifre, posted 10-07-2009 12:22 AM onifre has not yet responded

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 713
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


(1)
Message 40 of 137 (528937)
10-07-2009 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Meldinoor
10-03-2009 4:24 AM


quote:
So, if you had to make these assumptions, what reasons do you see for the Creator to choose gradual naturalistic processes, as opposed to an undeniably divine creation event?

One word

fun

It would be so much more interesting to create a system then dabble with it a bit to guide the eventual outcome.
Maybe send the odd asteroid to wipe out a failed branch of life that seems to be going nowhere then gently encourage a new species to dominance.

We've all played that kind of game on our computers at some time I would think.

Making everything in an already completed state would be kind of boring and an omnipotent being with nothing but an eternity of the same old same old ahead of him/her/it must be looking for something interesting to pass the time.

If I were that being I would do it exactly the way that we see it. A poke here, a prod there. just little, almost undetectable changes to tweak the outcome.

the ultimate God Game lol

Edited by PurpleYouko, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Meldinoor, posted 10-03-2009 4:24 AM Meldinoor has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Minority Report, posted 12-08-2009 8:01 AM PurpleYouko has not yet responded

  
Minority Report
Member (Idle past 1259 days)
Posts: 66
From: N.S.W Australia
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 41 of 137 (538610)
12-08-2009 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by PurpleYouko
10-07-2009 3:01 PM


Is creation timelength relevant to God?
Hello PurpleYouko,
I wonder how can you speculate that God(I'm assuming the Biblical one for this post) would enjoy creating the world over a long period of time, more so than creating the world in an instant? Isn't this just projecting a personal feeling onto God?

I know the question is asking for possible reasons for a long creation, but "fun"?

Consider the Biblical verse dealing with time from Gods perspective. To God a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day. To God, an eternal being, why would billions of years be any different to 6 days? Could he not examine all the events in the universe that happen each nanosecond, and then reveal them to us, say just one nanosecond worth, breaking it down step by step, galaxy by galaxy, planet by planet, atom by atom, to such an extent that to us it would seemingly be like billions of years worth of details?

To God, who is omnipotent, why would taking billions of years to do something, which he can already foresee, be more fun? Would it not be the ultimate in boredom to endlessly watch re-runs of a movie which you already know the ending too, and have already seen an infinite number of times?

I think you can only speculate "fun" as the reason for a long creation, for any 'god' other than the Biblical God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-07-2009 3:01 PM PurpleYouko has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Meldinoor, posted 12-08-2009 7:09 PM Minority Report has responded

    
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2914 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 42 of 137 (538656)
12-08-2009 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Minority Report
12-08-2009 8:01 AM


Re: Is creation timelength relevant to God?
Actually, the creation of an evolving universe would require so much more effort and creativity, than one that started out pretty much like it was going to end, and only had to last for a few thousand years.

I find it amazing to think that God might have created the universe from a carefully engineered seed in such a way that the universe is able to continuously express the creativity of God. Because he kicked it off with so much foresight and ingenuity, God wouldn't have to interfere in the creation process, although this doesn't preclude him from playing with it if he wants. Even if humans are the only point of the universe and he had to sit around and "wait" for us (which I personally think sounds absurd), it would not be boring because:

1. So much happened between the Big Bang and the arrival of people (certainly much more than has happened since)

2. How can a timeless existence be boring in the first place?

Also, welcome back my friend. I'm glad to see you didn't drop out of the debate for good.

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Minority Report, posted 12-08-2009 8:01 AM Minority Report has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Minority Report, posted 12-09-2009 7:42 AM Meldinoor has not yet responded

    
Minority Report
Member (Idle past 1259 days)
Posts: 66
From: N.S.W Australia
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 43 of 137 (538690)
12-09-2009 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Meldinoor
12-08-2009 7:09 PM


Hello Meldinoor,

It's been a long time between posts. I took a break for a little while & am considering whether this forum is worth the effort. I have in the mean time been following a number of threads, but did not post as I was not prepared to invest the time required. Arphy & Slavesque et.al Seem to be handling themselves well, and can state things far more eloquently than I ever could. I'm eagerly awaiting to see your response to them in the big debate Re CMI v's skeptics.

Anyhow, not wanting to get too involved, but I'm wondering what is underlying your opening question? Your question implies that God does everything for a reason, and you perhapps feel that God must have a good reason to create through naturalistic mechanisms. But you cannot figure out just what that reason could be. Is there something else going on other than this?

I've tried to think of a good reason why, if God had created over a long period, but had no joy. I did however start thinking like some of the early church fathers, as to why God would take as long as six days? I also thought that if God did create as you beleive he did, then why would he link the sabbath to his creative acts? Why not instead say "I created the world and guided its developement over a long period of time, and by the way I want you to work six days and rest for one because I am God and I said so"! I could accept that. But doing one thing & telling us another, would make me highly skeptical of the whole story.

Meldinoor writes:

the creation of an evolving universe would require so much more effort


For us maybe, but for an omnipotent being, one scenario may not be any more difficult than the other.

and creativity

Yes, one scenario may require more creativity. But again, to an all knowing creator, how would it be of any consequence?

How can a timeless existence be boring in the first place?

I agree. However I do sometimes wonder whether or not I would be bored in heaven, not knowing exactly what we would be doing for all eternity(apart from praising God), as novelty for anything wears off pretty quickly for me here on earth. However we never seem to tire of sex, food, play.....

Regards Minority


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Meldinoor, posted 12-08-2009 7:09 PM Meldinoor has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1967 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 44 of 137 (541422)
01-03-2010 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Sky-Writing
10-06-2009 10:21 PM


age of the earth, standard creotard response #159
Hi Sky,

So sorry you don't like dating the age of the Earth with various dating methods, but you're lying if you think 6000 years is anywhere near the oldest dated rocks.

Here's a quote from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html with some basic creotard refuting on it regarding the age of the Earth:

quote:
How Old Is The Earth, And How Do We Know?

T he generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.

Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth. There is evidence that energy from the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface.

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.


so, directly and repeatably (your criteria, not mine) the Earth can be dated at at least 3.5 billion years.

Now your problem isn't that the rocks aren't old enough, but simply that you refuse to believe the well-rounded, complete, accurate, well-established, tested dating methods which Real Professionals(tm) spend their lifetime learning about and which, personally, I don't think a schmuck with the one book they've ever read under their arm has any business talking about.

Enjoy.

Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Sky-Writing, posted 10-06-2009 10:21 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1967 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 45 of 137 (541424)
01-03-2010 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by riVeRraT
10-06-2009 11:28 PM


stolen with glee
What I love about all these responses is audacity to come across like "we know it all" and that they are even in a position to judge such a thought.

According to science, the universe is HUGE, and we are but a mere speck, trying to look out into it. Shit we don't even know what's on the bottom of our own damn oceans, yet we can sit here and speculate about the composition of worlds lightyears away that cannot be seen with the naked eye with a degree of certainty and clarity which is astounding.

According to theists, their god's creation is a mere 6000 years old, flat, square and surrounded by water both above and below, a bronze-age supersition which has not only been proven wrong time after time but cannot even hope to match the splendour and majesty of what really is out there.

When people in this forum try to downplay the facts we now know about the universe I can't help but think how childish they and their god seems, they have no real idea of the true state of things and instead argue why God created it in so contradictory a way.

I can look at the smallest things, and the largest things, and just be in awe. I think it is a most beautiful amazing way of doing things, and we spend our lifetimes trying to figure it out. This is some of what I see when I ponder the naturalistic ways of creation.

I didn't make this video, but sit back and enjoy

Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by riVeRraT, posted 10-06-2009 11:28 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-03-2010 6:35 PM greyseal has responded

    
Prev12
3
456
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019