Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2019 8:19 PM
21 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, edge, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx, Theodoric (7 members, 14 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,098 Year: 5,135/19,786 Month: 1,257/873 Week: 153/460 Day: 95/58 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
8910Next
Author Topic:   Why'd you do it that way, God?
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3260 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 91 of 137 (541629)
01-04-2010 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Meldinoor
10-03-2009 4:24 AM


"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?"

If God is doing the choosing, then both are undeniably divine creation events. That was easy & fun.

Unless God just happened along, which wasn't part of your setup.

The Gradual process is the one where magma cools at a suitable rate, so as not to explode as if a molten planet was dunked in water. Also some process was needed for creating dirt. And ground stone for body and organics for water retention. Good soil takes some amount of time.

How much "time" it took for all this time to pass is up for debate.

How much "time" did it take for
The cure of two blind men
The deaf and dumb man
The blind man of Bethsaida
The raising of the widow's son at Nain
The man with the dropsy
The ten lepers
The healing of Malchus
Water made wine
Impotent man at Bethsaida cured
Man born blind curedLazarus raised from the dead
Syrophoenician woman's daughter cured

These things take time to heal. How much time?
Go Figure.


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 94 by MikeDeich, posted 01-04-2010 10:59 PM Sky-Writing has responded

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3260 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 92 of 137 (541633)
01-04-2010 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Dr Adequate
01-04-2010 8:29 AM


Re: God is Lawful Good
[The clock didn't start ticking till we choose not to be in fellowship with God. Before that, time didn't exist... As we know it.]

"And now you're making up your own theology."

I read. The Bible says there was no death before the fall.
I think that qualifies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-04-2010 8:29 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Coyote, posted 01-04-2010 9:59 PM Sky-Writing has responded
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-05-2010 1:33 AM Sky-Writing has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 214 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 93 of 137 (541645)
01-04-2010 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Sky-Writing
01-04-2010 7:59 PM


Before the fall?
I read. The Bible says there was no death before the fall.
I think that qualifies.

What about all of those billions of years of fossils? Dead critters, all.

And all nicely ordered, with extinctions and evolutions and all the rest?

And how about the T. rex teeth? Perfectly adapted to browsing and grazing? Check out the teeth on mammoths and mastodons for a comparison--known to be browsers and grazers--and get back to us with your evidence on this one.

Believe what you want, but don't try to claim it is science, or supported by science, unless that is what the scientific evidence shows.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-04-2010 7:59 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-04-2010 11:08 PM Coyote has responded

  
MikeDeich
Junior Member (Idle past 2667 days)
Posts: 24
From: Rosario, Argentina
Joined: 10-31-2009


Message 94 of 137 (541650)
01-04-2010 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Sky-Writing
01-04-2010 7:21 PM


"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?"

If God is doing the choosing, then both are undeniably divine creation events. That was easy & fun.

Unless God just happened along, which wasn't part of your setup.

The Gradual process is the one where magma cools at a suitable rate, so as not to explode as if a molten planet was dunked in water. Also some process was needed for creating dirt. And ground stone for body and organics for water retention. Good soil takes some amount of time.

How much "time" it took for all this time to pass is up for debate.

So what does this mean? Are you saying you agree god might work in naturalistic processes or not? So the seven days of the genesis story could be say 4 or 5 billion years? How does this relate to the OP, as opposed to being intentionally abstract to confuse the issue.

You also offer several links to biblical archaeology sites, while simultaneously bashing other non-specific scientists. Do you realize much of archaeological work invloves radio-carbon dating & other methods that have been used in other fields lending support to the the scientific consensus of evolution? In fact there is quite a bit more archaeological evidence to support the evolution of man than there is for the bible. Accepting some science while dismissing the same science in a different context is a clear confirmation bias. Biblical archaeology may find actual places mentioned in the bible, but that does not prove the stories in it. Im sure you disagree. Or are you agreeing in part that supported naturalistic processes have been ultimately inspired, set in motion, or handled by god?

To throw out my two cents, & this is only my opinion. I think god would obviously use natural processes. The evolution of life on earth, regardless of how it started, is far more magnificent than some childish hocus pocus. & ultimately if a God exists, & I believe one does, it is far more complex & amazing than any human mind can comprehend in this lifetime. But again only my opinion, & I dont believe in the fundamental credibility of the bible, so feel free to ignore. I have enjoyed some alternative views that have been presented in this thread however.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-04-2010 7:21 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-04-2010 11:26 PM MikeDeich has responded

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3260 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 95 of 137 (541652)
01-04-2010 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Coyote
01-04-2010 9:59 PM


Re: Before the fall?
"....what the scientific evidence shows."

See.....this is the ONLY point at which we differ.
The rest, we fully agree on. I even get my data
from "your" team. It makes more sense from my
view. The other side goes against the laws of
physics. Everything degrades down. Nothing
evolves up to more a more complex system.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Coyote, posted 01-04-2010 9:59 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Coyote, posted 01-04-2010 11:33 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded
 Message 99 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-05-2010 1:36 AM Sky-Writing has responded

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3260 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 96 of 137 (541655)
01-04-2010 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by MikeDeich
01-04-2010 10:59 PM


Are you saying you agree god might work in naturalistic processes or not?

They are HIS processes either way ya look at it. The only question being, did this time take place over what we call billions of years, or did this massive amount of time all get squeezed into one miraculous event? If the miracles of the new testament happened instantly, then the same is likely true of Genesis.

If my pal Jesus causes lame man to suddenly get up and walk, who cares if a team of Doctors with a CAT scan decide the mans bones have been healed for months? They aren't WRONG about the science. I saw the man healed. My viewpoint is different from theirs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by MikeDeich, posted 01-04-2010 10:59 PM MikeDeich has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by MikeDeich, posted 01-05-2010 7:26 AM Sky-Writing has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 214 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 97 of 137 (541656)
01-04-2010 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Sky-Writing
01-04-2010 11:08 PM


Re: Before the fall?
Everything degrades down. Nothing
evolves up to more a more complex system.

Sorry, that would be false.

And don't claim that science shows this; it just demonstrates your flawed understanding of science.

If you are relying on the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that 1) isn't what it says, and 2) doesn't apply to an open system. (The sun makes the earth an open system.)

If you are relying on biology and paleontology, it is no better for you. The trend from, say 3.5 billion years ago, does include increasing complexity.

But you never addressed T. rex and those teeth, an issue from my previous post. If there was no death before the mythical fall, what are they doing with those highly specialized teeth?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-04-2010 11:08 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.0


Message 98 of 137 (541661)
01-05-2010 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Sky-Writing
01-04-2010 7:59 PM


Re: God is Lawful Good
I read. The Bible says there was no death before the fall.

(1) Where?

(2) How would that substantiate your claim that there was no time before the Fall?

(3) I thought you were objecting to the Omphalos hypothesis?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-04-2010 7:59 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-06-2010 11:20 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.0


Message 99 of 137 (541663)
01-05-2010 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Sky-Writing
01-04-2010 11:08 PM


Re: Before the fall?
See.....this is the ONLY point at which we differ.
The rest, we fully agree on. I even get my data
from "your" team. It makes more sense from my
view. The other side goes against the laws of
physics. Everything degrades down. Nothing
evolves up to more a more complex system.

This is not actually data produced by our team (Team Science! Go Team!)

It's actually a falsehood that non-scientists have made up as part of their endless futile attempts to deny reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-04-2010 11:08 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-06-2010 11:02 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
MikeDeich
Junior Member (Idle past 2667 days)
Posts: 24
From: Rosario, Argentina
Joined: 10-31-2009


Message 100 of 137 (541670)
01-05-2010 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Sky-Writing
01-04-2010 11:26 PM


They are HIS processes either way ya look at it. The only question being, did this time take place over what we call billions of years, or did this massive amount of time all get squeezed into one miraculous event? If the miracles of the new testament happened instantly, then the same is likely true of Genesis.

So you are agreeing it is a possibility? or not? We all understand you believe them to be HIS processes. But please explain, how would the miracles in the new testament prove that genesis was also LIKELY to be instantaneous? that is a big jump. Even according to the bible there were no people before god created the world and all its species (sorry kinds), to witness such an instantaneous miracle.....such as you directly witnessing your pal jesus fixing a broken leg.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-04-2010 11:26 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-06-2010 9:53 AM MikeDeich has not yet responded

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 3126 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 101 of 137 (541681)
01-05-2010 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by kbertsche
10-05-2009 12:38 AM


quote:
Here aret two reasons/advantages for God to use natural processes in creation:
1) Using "naturalistic processes" helps to establish them as "normal," and to underscore God's consistency and reliability as He runs His universe.
2) The vast time periods used for "gradual naturalistic processes" convey a similar message to vast size of the universe. As David said in Psalm 8, this reveals to us our insignificance. We are insignificant in the vast size of the cosmos, and likewise we are insignificant in the vast history of the cosmos. Our significance comes from God, not from our spatial or temporal place in the universe

I don't think that makes sense. Our knowledge of how the naturalistic processes work is very recent - no more than 200 years or so, much of it in the last 100. That knowledge has not generally led people to the conclusions you reach. In fact it has led to the widespread secularization of Western society. So the message it conveys has effectively been 'there is no need for God to explain the Universe'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by kbertsche, posted 10-05-2009 12:38 AM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-06-2010 10:32 AM Peepul has not yet responded
 Message 124 by kbertsche, posted 01-07-2010 2:15 PM Peepul has not yet responded

    
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3260 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 102 of 137 (541782)
01-06-2010 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by MikeDeich
01-05-2010 7:26 AM


But please explain, how would the miracles in the new testament prove that genesis was also LIKELY to be instantaneous? That is a big jump.

1. It is said that Jesus is the Creator, so He was responsible for both events. Nothing is written that suggests slow gradual naturalistic processes have any value. In fact Jesus "fought" against these processes at every opportunity. His actions opposed many "Natural" events. Storms, aging, disease, and in the end, he even cried out to the Father that he didn't want to participate in the Death "thing" ......if it could be avoided.

2. The study of the creation story translation can be summarized with "When the word "day" is used with a specific number, it always has reference to a normal day."

This means that the jump is not big. With apologies to Science-Fiction-ists, The Creation Days are more likely to be acts of Special Creation, and less likely to be Some-Million-Year days.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by MikeDeich, posted 01-05-2010 7:26 AM MikeDeich has not yet responded

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3260 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 103 of 137 (541786)
01-06-2010 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Peepul
01-05-2010 9:16 AM


Gradualistic-ing
We are insignificant in the vast size of the cosmos, and likewise we are insignificant in the vast history of the cosmos.

This is entirely opposite of God's message to us, so the source of that thinking is from......another place.

And supposing it were true. What advantage would the species gain from thinking it was insignificant? So it's actually in opposition to the Evolution God's message as well. The Evolution God may well chalk you up as a weak minded mud worm and send in somebody with an ounce of Machismo and lop off your head and move into your house.

It may be that Sagan himself was feeling insignificant in the vast history of the cosmos. His mother was a street smart shrew that stole other girls boyfriends "just to prove she could do it." And his Father was an usher in a movie theater.

But then Jesus was born in a cattle stall so I guess humble beginnings aren't the worst thing.

Edited by -Sky-, : changes


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Peepul, posted 01-05-2010 9:16 AM Peepul has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by kbertsche, posted 01-07-2010 2:31 PM Sky-Writing has responded

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3260 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 104 of 137 (541791)
01-06-2010 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Dr Adequate
01-05-2010 1:36 AM


Falling came after the fall.
I do deny your impossible reality.
In my Scientific reality (Go Team Science!):

#1 Creation of matter and energy is impossible.
(So a "God" is needed to explain why we see matter.)
#2 Everything degrades down. Nothing evolves up to more a more complex system. (Evolution "up" is impossible)
#3 The Cosmos is headed to death, not life.
(Again, Evolution as a source of life is contrary to Science. Evolution as a way to cope with decay and death is valid. Life DOES change to cope with a decay in the environment. But no NEW information is created or added.)

The three laws of Thermodynamics
(There is a bit of Science/Religion about the big-bang here...but considering the source...)
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6e.html

Edited by -Sky-, : for the team


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-05-2010 1:36 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-06-2010 11:21 AM Sky-Writing has responded
 Message 107 by Peepul, posted 01-06-2010 12:46 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded
 Message 108 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-06-2010 1:24 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3260 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 105 of 137 (541792)
01-06-2010 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Dr Adequate
01-05-2010 1:33 AM


No death before the fall
(1) Where?

1. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."

"The wages [penalty] of sin is death"

"without the shedding of blood there is no remission [forgiveness] of sin"

"But every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his lust , and enticed. Then when lust is conceived, it brings forth sin, and sin when it is finished brings forth death".

Finally: "The last enemy to be destroyed is Death"

So what would this "enemy" be doing in the original Creation?
Would death be part of the evo-naturalistic-darwinian-god plan?
Why would enemies be special-created from the start?

Some people follow that reasoning, but wouldn't it be at least alluded to rather than clearly stated as the enemy?

Edited by -Sky-, : .


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-05-2010 1:33 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
56
7
8910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019