Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9024 total)
64 online now:
AZPaul3, frako, jar, vimesey, xongsmith (5 members, 59 visitors)
Newest Member: Moe's URL Addresss
Post Volume: Total: 882,826 Year: 472/14,102 Month: 472/294 Week: 228/136 Day: 4/32 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question for creationists: Why would you rather believe in a small God?
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 8 of 301 (702682)
07-10-2013 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by yenmor
07-08-2013 12:38 PM


Well, the Bible portrays a God who created a universe which doesn't exist. In order to believe in the Bible, they have to believe in that God; in order to believe in that God, they have to believe in that universe. It's not clear why they have to believe in the Bible, but it's obviously very important to them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by yenmor, posted 07-08-2013 12:38 PM yenmor has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 10 of 301 (702688)
07-10-2013 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by marc9000
07-10-2013 7:15 PM


I think it gets a little vague when we claim to analyze something (glimmers of light) that took thousands or millions of years to reach us.

And yet statements about the universe based on looking at the universe are somewhat more likely to be reliable than statements based on ignoring it.

I believe that book contains all I need to know concerning how to live my life to please God ...

By performing animal sacrifice?

You are to slaughter the young bull before the Lord ... You are to wash the internal organs and the legs with water, and the priest is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, a food offering, an aroma pleasing to the Lord.

... how to relate to others ...

By hating your entire family?

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

... to manage finances ...

By complete fiscal imprudence?

Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? ... Take therefore no thought for the morrow ...

Do you do any of this stuff? OK, at least tell me you don't eat bacon.

Much of what passes for science today is actually atheism - a public establishment of it. That's the only thing (U.S.) creationists are attempting to stifle. Not necessarily in a religious interest, but in a constitutional interest.

It's mighty good of you to stick up for the Constitution. I particularly admire your relentless struggle to have the words IN GOD WE DON'T TRUST removed from our currency. The Constitution is sacrosanct, not least the clause forbidding Congress to establish irreligion ...

... oh, wait, it seems we don't live in Opposite World.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by marc9000, posted 07-10-2013 7:15 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 22 of 301 (702867)
07-11-2013 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
07-11-2013 9:32 PM


I'm not sure you said what you intended to say here, but if Nature were as easy to read as a book it wouldn't have taken so long for science to discover all the things it finally laboriously discovered.

On the other hand, if your book was as easy to read as nature, then Christians would have achieved the same degree of unanimity on questions of doctrine that scientists have achieved on such questions as "is the Earth young or old?"; "are we really descended from filthy monkey-men?" and that all-time favorite "are creationists a bunch of amusing loonies?"

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 07-11-2013 9:32 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 07-12-2013 12:04 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 33 of 301 (702939)
07-12-2013 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
07-12-2013 12:04 AM


Also nothing to do with the readability of the Bible.

But it does have something to do with the readability of nature. I mentioned it to show that it's easier for scientists studying nature to achieve consensus on what nature means than it is for Christians studying the Bible to achieve consensus on what the Bible means.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 07-12-2013 12:04 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 34 of 301 (702940)
07-12-2013 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Faith
07-12-2013 4:50 PM


On some subjects true Christians all agree, that's the way it is.

All? Then either these subject are remarkably few in number, or the true Christians are. Either way, it seems the Bible is not so clear and informative as one would wish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 07-12-2013 4:50 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 48 of 301 (702996)
07-13-2013 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Faith
07-13-2013 12:00 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Sorry, Tangle, it is you who are wrong. The vast majority of scientific knowledge is perfectly in tune with Creationist principles, and no Christian denies any of it.

Can you show me the last post you made on a scientific subject where you did not contradict what scientists have to say about it?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 07-13-2013 12:00 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 07-13-2013 12:19 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 50 of 301 (702999)
07-13-2013 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
07-13-2013 12:14 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Wherever there are Old Earth assumptions we disagree, but the bulk of science has nothing to do with such assumptions. Genetics doesn't need them, most Geology doesn't need them ...

This is technically true, geology has no need to assume that the Earth is old, because geologists can prove it.

However, your intention, I am sure, is to pretend that geologists have no need of this knowledge, while also pretending that it is a mere assumption --- that is, to tell two lies at once, not to tell the truth by their mutual cancellation. In this you are, of course, wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 07-13-2013 12:14 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 07-13-2013 12:23 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 57 of 301 (703013)
07-13-2013 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Faith
07-13-2013 12:23 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Yes, I do believe they don't need it.

They disagree.

I'll ask you again, why aren't there any creationist oil companies? You'd think that there'd be at least one, maybe based in Texas.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 07-13-2013 12:23 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 60 of 301 (703027)
07-13-2013 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Faith
07-13-2013 10:59 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Sorry, I disagree with you. 90% of Dr. A's Geology is presented without the Old Earth concept and is fine with a YEC.

As the author, may I say that that's complete bollocks?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Faith, posted 07-13-2013 10:59 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 07-13-2013 11:25 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 62 of 301 (703029)
07-13-2013 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Faith
07-13-2013 11:25 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
As I followed your thread on Geology I found nothing to object to as a YEC until very late in the thread. Fact.

Did you not read it, or just not understand it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 07-13-2013 11:25 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Faith, posted 07-13-2013 11:44 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 66 of 301 (703039)
07-14-2013 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Faith
07-13-2013 11:44 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Read it, understood it, appreciated it.

Clearly not.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Faith, posted 07-13-2013 11:44 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 67 of 301 (703042)
07-14-2013 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Faith
07-14-2013 12:39 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
Fact remains: 90% or more of the actual work done in the sciences is perfectly acceptable to a YEC.

Fact remains, I've seen YECs in the pursuit of YECism be wrong about geology, paleontology, genetics, thermodynamics, angular momentum, astronomy, anatomy, animal behavior, the speed of light, nuclear physics, gravity, meteorology, Newtonian physics, the theory of relativity, the history of science, the scientific method ... basically, it would be possible to get a good well-rounded scientific education just by studying why creationists are wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 07-14-2013 12:39 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 07-14-2013 4:05 AM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 71 by foreveryoung, posted 07-14-2013 1:06 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 73 of 301 (703058)
07-14-2013 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Faith
07-14-2013 4:05 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
Anybody's being wrong about anything doesn't change the fact that 90% of all the scientific work done is quite acceptable to YECs.

But I didn't just say they were wrong, I said they were wrong in pursuit of YECism. And pointing out the facts that contradict their fictions is not "quite acceptable" to them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 07-14-2013 4:05 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 74 of 301 (703059)
07-14-2013 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Faith
07-14-2013 12:55 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
No I meant 90%, a guess at how much of the science is uncontaminated with Old Earth / evolutionist assumptions. About that much of Dr. A's Geology Course was good stuff from a YEC point of view ...

You keep saying that. Very well, here's the textbook. Please nominate 90% of the articles in it as consisting of stuff that, from here on out, you will never argue with again.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 07-14-2013 12:55 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 07-14-2013 6:33 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 76 of 301 (703070)
07-14-2013 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Faith
07-14-2013 6:33 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Too much to ask.

Why? Oh, right, because you don't agree with 90% of the articles.

Otherwise it would be easy, You'd just have to point out nine articles you don't agree with, and tell me that the rest are fine. But you can't actually bring yourself to do that, can you?

Wherever facts are presented without the usual ridiculous ancient age suppositions attached to them, a YEC has no problem with them.

The facts are always presented without your hallucinations. You add those yourself.

And YECs have problems with lots of facts. Ever tried explaining to one of them what (for example) the second law of thermodynamics is, after creationist shit has been shoveled into his head on that subject? Or try to convince one that beneficial mutations exist, in a similar case? Neither of those things has any bearing on the age of the Earth, but they'll still provoke tantrums in the unfortunate fundie dupe.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 07-14-2013 6:33 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Coyote, posted 07-15-2013 12:13 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 12:22 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021