Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
30 online now:
Aussie, Diomedes, DrJones*, PaulK, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (6 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,775 Year: 16,811/19,786 Month: 936/2,598 Week: 182/251 Day: 11/59 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3754
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 4 of 687 (520544)
08-22-2009 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICANT
08-21-2009 10:48 PM


What's the time frames, and how about common ancestry
What is you opinion on:

The age of the universe?

The age of the Earth?

The age of the first life on Earth?

The age of the first human (Homo sapiens)?

Do the modern great ages (gorillas, chimps) and modern humans have a common ancestor?

Moose

{Note to self - The Randman topic, Yec/Not Yec? - A "let's keep it short topic".

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Note to self.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICANT, posted 08-21-2009 10:48 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 10:53 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3754
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 94 of 687 (520853)
08-24-2009 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by ICANT
08-24-2009 12:57 PM


Re: What's the time frames, and how about common ancestry
The subtitle goes back to my message 4, which you pretty much totally dodged. Therefore I repeat message 4:

Minnemooseus writes:

What is you opinion on:

The age of the universe?

The age of the Earth?

The age of the first life on Earth?

The age of the first human (Homo sapiens)?

Do the modern great ages (gorillas, chimps) and modern humans have a common ancestor?

These are core questions in the creationism/evolution debate. Give me some sort of specific answers to each, even an "I don't know". Dodge the questions and I'll just write you off as being irrelevant in any scientific discussion of the universes history.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by ICANT, posted 08-24-2009 12:57 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by ICANT, posted 08-26-2009 11:47 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3754
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 255 of 687 (521902)
08-30-2009 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Straggler
08-30-2009 7:13 AM


The 1 sentence summary of the topic title question?
Your entire EvC campaign for years has been based on your objection to the universe having an uncaused "beginning" on the basis of such a thing never having been observed.

Unless some quality dispute of this comes from ICANT, I will have to take the above quoted as being ICANT's position in the creation debate.

In other words, he has no substantial dispute with the scientific findings about the history of the universe and everything of the universe, if it is granted that God is ultimately behind it all.

The prominent exception is that ICANT does seem to subscribe to a literal Noahtic flood somewhere in the past 5000 years.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Straggler, posted 08-30-2009 7:13 AM Straggler has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by ICANT, posted 08-31-2009 1:10 AM Minnemooseus has responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3754
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 315 of 687 (522526)
09-03-2009 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by ICANT
08-31-2009 1:10 AM


Your creationist position relative to the mainstream creationist position?
ICANT writes:

My personal opinion is that the universe has always existed eternally in some form.

I personally have no objection to that.

I got no problem with someone who puts forth any of the exotic possibilities for the universe beginning to exist.

This tells me you are agnostic about whether God is behind the ultimate universe origin. Regardless if such is true, such is my position.

The mainstream creationist position is that of YAC/YEC (young age creationist/young Earth creationist). You apparently are outside of that mainstream.

I ask the questions I did because I wanted to clarify what if any your objections were to the mainstream scientific positions.

The age of the universe? – Mainstream science has it that the universe as we know it is about 13.5 billion years old. My interpretation is that such DOES NOT conflict with your eternal universe position – The 13.5 billion year universe could be the current version of your larger eternal universe. Again, I personally have no conflict with such a position.

The age of the Earth? – Mainstream science has it that the Earth as we know it is about 4.5 billion years old. Does your position conflict with that or are you willing to accept that?

The age of the first life on Earth? – Mainstream science has it that life on Earth goes back 3+ billion years. Does your position conflict with that or are you willing to accept that?

The age of the first human (Homo sapiens)? – Mainstream science has it that the Homo sapiens species goes back many 1000’s of years (I don’t offhand have a good number). Anyway, this is far outside the mainstream YAC/YEC timeframe of 5 to 10 thousand years. Does your position conflict with that many 1000’s of years timeframe or are you willing to accept that?

Do the modern great ages (gorillas, chimps) and modern humans have a common ancestor? – Mainstream science has it that such is the case. Mainstream creationist position is that humanity was God’s special creation and that the great apes of man have no common ancestor. Do you agree or disagree with the mainstream science position?

Moose writes:

The prominent exception is that ICANT does seem to subscribe to a literal Noahtic flood somewhere in the past 5000 years

What's that got to do with my position on creation?

Mainstream creationist position is that the Noahtic flood was a literal event and that it was a sort of a modification or re-creation event. Mainstream science finds that such a flood never happened. What is your position concerning such a flood?

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by ICANT, posted 08-31-2009 1:10 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 09-03-2009 8:40 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 319 by ICANT, posted 09-03-2009 10:14 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3754
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 474 of 687 (523514)
09-10-2009 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 472 by ICANT
09-10-2009 8:31 PM


Re: Evidence God produced Life
ICANT'S position on abiogenesis (life from non life) It didn't happen.

I have no problem in accepting that there was a transition from nonlife to slightly protolife to protolife to life via a purely natural (non-God involved) process. Scientific experimentation might someday show how it MIGHT of happened, but I don't think there will ever be found any solid evidence of how it did happen - It's too tiny of a detail that happened too long ago.

BUT, another possibility is that this nonlife to life transition happened and was guided by God. Again, evidence to support such is never going to be found.

The question is, do you deny that an abiogenesis process could have been God's way of starting off life on Earth? The Godly alternatives seem to be that or a creation ex-nilo (life from nothing). Are you to say you're certain of God's methodology?

Besides, others have pointed out Biblical scripture that God created man "from the dust of the Earth". There you have it - life from nonlife.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 472 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2009 8:31 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2009 9:32 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3754
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 584 of 687 (525084)
09-21-2009 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 582 by DrJones*
09-21-2009 12:58 PM


Spinning a bucket of water
because the water is accerating away from the center of rotation even when the bucket is rotating at a constant speed.

I'm suspecting that this statement is rather seriously flawed. I think the force vector is inward and in line with the rope (or whatever) that the bucket is being spun by, Therefore the acceleration is also in that same direction.

Note that the inner end of that rope is note a fixed point, but rather is itself a circle. Also, the force on the pail is actually a composite force of gravity and of that of the rope.

A real physics type can surely explain it better.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 582 by DrJones*, posted 09-21-2009 12:58 PM DrJones* has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 587 by DrJones*, posted 09-21-2009 3:56 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 622 by Thugpreacha, posted 09-25-2009 3:11 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019