Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8928 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-24-2019 4:16 PM
26 online now:
Faith, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,369 Year: 15,405/19,786 Month: 2,128/3,058 Week: 502/404 Day: 17/89 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question for creationists: Why would you rather believe in a small God?
ringo
Member
Posts: 17168
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 16 of 301 (702803)
07-11-2013 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
07-10-2013 10:16 PM


Faith writes:

He communicates through Nature too, but being fallen we can't be sure we're reading Nature accurately. That's why He kindly gave us a written testimony.


Given our fallen nature, why would we be able to read written testimony better than we read nature?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 07-10-2013 10:16 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Thugpreacha, posted 07-12-2013 1:26 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17168
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 29 of 301 (702903)
07-12-2013 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Thugpreacha
07-12-2013 1:26 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Phat writes:

And I think Faith is trying to explain her theory of why the secular scientists are wrong...being fallen, they couldn't read nature any better than they can read the Bible.


If I understand Faith (and I wouldn't be surprised if I don't) she believes that she is fallen too but Jesus has helped her back up.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Thugpreacha, posted 07-12-2013 1:26 PM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Thugpreacha, posted 07-13-2013 2:56 AM ringo has responded
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 07-13-2013 10:07 AM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17168
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 42 of 301 (702987)
07-13-2013 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Thugpreacha
07-13-2013 2:56 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
Phat writes:

Early humans somehow knew this storyline, and attempted to write about it in the best manner with which their early evolved brains(created, if you prefer) could grasp.


I don't think there's much difference in brain evolution between the early Hebrews and us. It's what we have observed in nature (despite Faith's clams) that has enabled us to conclude that much of what the Hebrews wrote was wrong.

Phat writes:

Perhaps the definition of what is human versus what is evolved animal is differentiated by the idea of a name.


Huh?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Thugpreacha, posted 07-13-2013 2:56 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Coyote, posted 07-13-2013 2:05 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17168
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 45 of 301 (702992)
07-13-2013 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Faith
07-13-2013 10:07 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
Faith writes:

All I was saying was that God gave us the Bible BECAUSE Nature isn't readable. We'd see Him in Nature if it were.


We'd see Him in nature if He was there.

Faith writes:

And yes this is because our minds are fallen, we're spiritually blind, and intellectually hindered as well. That's why we need a revelation from God to understand things rightly.


And yet it's those who claim to have a revelation from God who don't see reality as it is. You have the dichotomy correct but you're looking at the back of the mirror instead of the front.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 07-13-2013 10:07 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17168
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 54 of 301 (703003)
07-13-2013 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Faith
07-13-2013 12:24 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Faith writes:

I said science doesn't need it.


So you're defining "science" as something that doesn't need science books or even scientists.

I suppose aircraft don't "need" service manuals or pilots either but they're not very useful without them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Faith, posted 07-13-2013 12:24 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 07-13-2013 10:58 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17168
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 72 of 301 (703056)
07-14-2013 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Faith
07-13-2013 10:58 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Faith writes:

ringo writes:

So you're defining "science" as something that doesn't need science books or even scientists.


No I did not say that. I said that the sciences don't need the Old Earth concept.

But the science books and the scientists say they do need the Old Earth concept. Effectively, you are throwing out the science books and the scientists with the bathwater.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 07-13-2013 10:58 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17168
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 89 of 301 (703088)
07-15-2013 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Faith
07-15-2013 10:07 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
Faith writes:

Actually I define real science as science that actually works in this world.


As I mentioned earlier, your definition of "real science" leaves out most of what scientists do and most of what shows up in science books.

Edited by ringo, : Spellings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 10:07 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17168
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 155 of 301 (703176)
07-16-2013 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Faith
07-16-2013 11:35 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
Faith writes:

I've brought up the Flood in terms of the evidence for it, not the source of the idea.


I think I've asked you this question twice before and you've never answered it: When you see a pile of leaves, do you take that as evidence that they all came from the same tree?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Faith, posted 07-16-2013 11:35 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17168
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 160 of 301 (703196)
07-16-2013 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Faith
07-16-2013 1:30 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Faith writes:

Of course I've given evidence, the main evidence being the very fact of the layers of separate sediments themselves....


So answer the question: When you see a pile of leaves, do you assume that they all came from one tree?

If not, why would you assume that all of the layers came from one flood?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Faith, posted 07-16-2013 1:30 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 07-16-2013 1:47 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17168
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 164 of 301 (703200)
07-16-2013 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Faith
07-16-2013 1:47 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Faith writes:

I don't "assume" it, I conclude it to be so because any other explanation makes no sense.


When you see a pile of leaves, do you "conclude" that they all came from one tree because any other explanation makes no sense?

What you've shown is evidence that floods happen. We already knew that. I've seen four myself.

What you haven't shown is evidence of one giant tree or one giant flood. That is what makes no sense. And you know it makes no sense because you don't use the same logic to conclude that all leaves come from one giant tree.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 07-16-2013 1:47 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Faith, posted 07-16-2013 1:56 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17168
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 169 of 301 (703205)
07-16-2013 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Faith
07-16-2013 1:56 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Faith writes:

worldwide strata is evidence of a worldwide flood.


Worldwide leaves are evidence of a worldwide tree? Come on.

Worldwide strata are evidence of floods - floods in different areas, overlapping floods, floods above and below deserts. They are not evidence of a worldwide flood any more than a worldwide tree.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Faith, posted 07-16-2013 1:56 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 07-16-2013 2:13 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17168
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 172 of 301 (703208)
07-16-2013 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Faith
07-16-2013 2:13 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Faith writes:

Nonsensical comparison. The strata are too uniform to be the result of separate incidents. Not identical, uniform.


On the contrary, the leaves are far more uniform than most flood layers.

Only your logic is nonsensical.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 07-16-2013 2:13 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17168
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 222 of 301 (703272)
07-17-2013 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Faith
07-17-2013 6:08 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
Faith writes:

At the time of the Flood the genetic diversity would have been enormously greater than it is now....


Why "would" it have been? What "would" have caused that greater diversity? What evidence do you have for your claim?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 6:08 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 12:06 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17168
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 229 of 301 (703281)
07-17-2013 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Faith
07-17-2013 12:06 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Faith writes:

It's of course hard to produce evidence for this...


Then how can you say what "would" have happened?

Faith writes:

... but logically....


Logic is only as good as its premises, which is why you need evidence before you can predict what "would" happen. Since you admittedly have no evidence that it did happen, your claim is empty.

Faith writes:

Tracing this back extrapolates to greater diversity the further back you go.


So, presumably the greatest genetic diversity was immediately after the Creation (because you can't extrapolate any further than that) and it declined steadily until the Flood?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 12:06 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019