My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)

To make your point, you have to establish a time frame for sexual reproduction vs. asexual reproduction.

Have at it.

The vegetation emerged before photosynthesis; the latter happened later, after the vegetation was already completed, yet was not living.

Does this sentence make sense to you?

Give us a break. Even you can't believe this bullshit.

Time forms cannot apply because they vary, thus of no impact; the duality emulating asexual can be repeated in a lab in an instant. Rather, the fact there can be no action without an interaction [affirming the duality premise] is the fulcrum impacting factor here. The asexual premise contradicts this duality factor, which is seen throughout the universe and in all science viewed workings.

Per discussion with Admin, the closure previously scheduled for later tonight (US time) has been delayed.

The new plan is a 48 hour period during which any member who chooses to, can post ONE final summary message. These messages should not be replies to previous messages.

I repeat, ONE message per member (or suffer the consequences)!

Adminnemooseus

If one reads V14 in Genesis, it does not refer to the sun; only the sun's luminosity is referred to here, which many have eronously read as the sun appearing after the vegetation:

quote:

---

1/14: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years

---

This says the luminosity was critically focused to cater to the sustainence of the life already made [vegetation] and those that were to follow. Now, when read carefully, it becomes a most intelligent premise, in fact one which cannot be otherwise. This says the reason our planet has life is because the light and darkness were made to support life, while this was not the case with other planets. Everything found on earth can be seen elsewhere, which contradicts the absense of life elsewhere. H20 [water] is abundantly available on other planets; the critical fcusing of light and other elements however did not occur elsewhere as it did on earth; obviosly!

Thus vegetation preceded photosynthesis.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Time forms cannot apply because they vary, thus of no impact; the duality emulating asexual can be repeated in a lab in an instant. Rather, the fact there can be no action without an interaction [affirming the duality premise] is the fulcrum impacting factor here. The asexual premise contradicts this duality factor, which is seen throughout the universe and in all science viewed workings.

This may make sense to you, but I'd guess it doesn't make sense to more than a handful of people worldwide.

Your faith in the bible has crossed into the certifiable range, and you have totally lost touch with reality.

Per parental advice from long ago, I won't be picking on you further in this thread.

The question remains:

Can an action occur without an interaction, namely with one singular, indivisible and irreducible entity - namely with a ONE only?

If not, than Genesis wins. There is no alternative to the duality factor.

QED.

In summary, anyone looking through IamJoseph's posts will see exactly what we are talking about.

Creationists are incapable of honest discussion. They have to bend over backwards to try and force their fantasy view of the world into the reality around them that they end up making up words and definitions to do so.

Then they complain when the rest of us point out that they are lying.

Basically it comes down to this - they aren't worthy of debate.

They should simply be laughed at and denied access to public education.

I see that the "HUGE problem with creationist thinking" in the opening post of this thread was that there is no way to determine which creation story to teach. The thread evolved to showcase each poster's main difficulty with creationist thought.

My main problem with creationism is the compulsion that creationists both suffer and seek to impose: that their story of origins is literally correct and must be taught to children in public schools. I don't really care about it otherwise. I don't care about the difficulties presented by debate with creationists because there is no debate with creationists.

Whatever line of approach a reasoning person takes, the reply remains essentially the same--God showed me the way and told me to spread the word by any means necessary. Creationists are the jihadists of discourse, and I just don't care.

The creationist approach to debate is repetition. Creationists reject science, and reason won't persuade them to do otherwise: the irony of rejecting science's methodology while enjoying its benisons is matched only by possessing an evolved brain that they refuse to use for anything other than superstition.

But I don't care about that, either. My problem is not with creationist thought, but creationist action.

I can sum up my HUGE problem with creationist action by paraphrasing the roadside sign I saw in a recent photo on Facebook:

"Religion is like a penis.

It's fine to be happy to have one, and it's okay to take it out and wave it around.

But don't try to shove it down my kid's throat."

As one member puts it:

Basically it comes down to this - they aren't worthy of debate.

And yet, that member has on this forum a total of 2,912 posts. 53 of them on this one thread alone.

Then they complain when the rest of us point out that they are lying.

So, in summation, it seems we Creationists ARE worthy of debate after all, and looks like we aren't the only ones misrepresenting.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Well, we've seen precious little in the way of any creationist trying to come up with an answer to the question in the OP.

The guy who came nearest to even attempting to answer the question was Mazzy, although as his answer involved the Buddha being overweight it combined the inaccurate with the ad hominem.

He soon reverted to form, though, with mere whining about evolution and statements such as: "For me it does not matter which creation model is correct, as long as none of my ancestors were apes."

I suppose credit should be given to IamJoseph, who produced the foolowing staggering monstrous falsehood as a reason for his partiality to Genesis: "Genesis, unlike other ancient writings, includes names, places, dates, numbers, rivers, mountains, geneologies ..." OK, it's a load of cobblers, nor would it be a convincing argument even if it was true, but it is a reason. Credit where credit is due.

---

The difficulty of answering the question stems directly from the nature of creationist apologetics. 99% of creationism is not, nor ever has been, an attempt to validate creationism. No-one's out there trying to find evidence that snakes could once talk, or that fish were created four days after light. Creationism goes: "Evolution is wrong because [insert common creationist error here]. Therefore ... magic!" And even if this line of reasoning was correct, there would be no reason to infer any particular brand of magic, nor even that the magician should be of the order of being that we would classify as a god.

This explains why some people have given up on creationism in general and advocated ID. ID might be defined as that subset of creationism which consists only of saying: "Evolution is wrong because [insert common creationist error here]. Therefore ... magic! Oh, or maybe space aliens if a judge is listening." (Making ID the only idea in the history of ever which has tried to gain intellectual respectability by invoking space aliens.)

Even so, ID is still partial in a way that would be unwarranted by the IDists own (overt) premises: for example, when did you ever see an IDist use the phrase "designer or designers"? Arguably, then, their rhetoric still discriminates without scientific basis in favor of monotheists over polytheists.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It would seem that while the creos' honestly believe they are correct their ability to articulate and avoid mischaraterising both facts and posters hampers them somewhat.

Or, the impacting aligning pov of the anti crowd conforms with a negative impact re: initial conditions initiated in the openning aligning to an initial perception of reality as it confirms to the seed factor i.e. the first record of science.

Abe: yeah, I know the seed factor bit makes the rest of the sentence harder to undserstand but I love the phrase.

Edited by Larni, : seed factor addmission.

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Edited by Larni, : spellink

Algae is a plant.

But not an herb. Algae are thallophytes whereas herbs and other land based plants are tracheophytes. They are about a closely related as humans are to earthworms.

What should be taught in schools is what all Christian and Catholic beliefs are based on; the Bible. This is pretty much throughout every denomination of Christianity and in every type of Creationistic approaches.

What should be taught in schools is what all Christian and Catholic beliefs are based on; the Bible.

If we're going to mix religion into science we should at least use the right religion.