IamJoseph
THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE TO CREATIONISM. AND THIS IS SCIENTIFICALLY SO!
CREATIONISM DEPENDS LESS ON MIRACLES THAN ITS ANTITHESIS!
YELLING DOES NOT MAKE AN ARGUMENT VALID JOE!
It is not the OT but our current conclusions what constitutes science (in relation to the universe emergence and of life), that is most focused and dependent on miracles. The notion that one can illustrate (no proof exists) in some mode how matter can become life, as a counter-proof to Genesis, is absolute gibberish when better examined.
Talk is cheap. Please,
explain how it is gibberish when better examined.Also, could you detail how science is dependent upon miracles Joseph?
here is no difference in how matter becomes life, with how matter emerged from nothing - these rest on the same paradigm. And when we look at any further reasonings here, we have an escapism from science to a poor emulation of genesis' 'something from nothing' premise: that matter always existed. This is escapism - suddenly, at the most critical juncture, we are told matter (particles?) has always existed, while still condoning this as a scientific explanation!
So exactly how does God come about then Joe? Is he something? Was he once nothing? God existing forever is no less a problem that matter always existing as you so erroneously put it. Matter
as we know it has not always existed.
But even the notion of infinite matter (sic) is unscientific. When further examined, we arrive at the point where it is not the infinite aspect which is operational and applicable here: nothing happens with matter per se - we find that matter changes only by the impact/interaction of another force upon it.
Really? Explain how matter changes fundamentally when forces act upon it would you?
Take it further now. We are told that energy is matter in an altered state
Man you are so far off the mark as to be coming up behind yourself now. Please tell us where in science it says that energy is matter in an altered state.
Scientific validity:
1. 'SOMETHING FROM NOTHING'. I note that when creation is described in Genesis' creation chapter, it begins with the preamble of an infinte Creator ('In the beginning Gd), and no tools or products or forces are mentioned when Light, for example, is created. So yes, this ia 'snap of the finger' magic - but it is scientifically superior to the same snap finger magic which lies at the bottom of its antithesis: at least it has an academic, if non-provable, CAUSE for the EFFECT!
So what is the cause of God Joe?
'A SEED SHALL FOLLOW ITS OWN KIND'. This too is scientifically vindicated and validated. And this is in our midst: we can 'see' that repro and transmissions of all things occur via the seed.
And the offspring of each seed is a little different than the one that preceeded it, changing through the millenia and over eons from simple seed to more complex.
'MAN AND WOMEN CREATED HE THEM'. This says that everything began with a DUALITY. There is no SINGULARITY, and nothing can happen without a duality factor. It is not unscientific - its antithesis is!
I really do not know what is meant by singularity here so I am stumped on how to respond. Perhaps you would be good enough to clarify hmmm?
'LET THERE BE LIGHT'. That this is the first entity, even preceding the sun and stars, is very reasonably borne out with no alternative. The stars could produce no light if it were not already pre-existant in some essential form.
Since light is the result of energy levels shifting in the orbits of electrons of atoms then this is pretty much dead in the water my lad.
Maths validity:
That the OT contains literally 100s of 1000s of numbers (dates, distances, dobs & dod's)
Should not be too hard to give an example then eh?
That The Ten Commandments are declared as occuring on a 'SATURDAY', and this corresponds with every other number and date in the OT and its 3000 year diarised calendar, down to the 'DAY' - is a showcase of unequalled math. We could not perform this feat today for a 3000 year period.
Please Do show the math will you?
Historical Validity.
We are disputing the OT historicity's accuracy with minutae examples, while disregarding that it is 99% correct - and that the error of some instances can be esewhere from the OT. The fact is, we have historical data here which is largely authentic and vindicated - and that most of this historical info is not available elsewhere - not for 3000 years of other, independent recordings, untill archeology arrived!
LArgely authenticated AND vindicated you say. Again please show us will you?
We reject or redicule the above factors from a zeal to negate all theologies
How do you conclude that asking for and questioning assumptions and conclusions is ridicule Joe? It is called using your head rather than swallowing whole someone else's ideas of the world.
t is not a scientifically validated rejection, but an agenda based one. It is hardly based on any scientific reasonings, which has become the mainstay of disputation. And we do this by citing some miracles listed in the OT, while disregarding the miracles hiden in its antithesis!
Better, we explain scientifically, how the universe could have emerged from a non-existing Singularity, and how that impossible Singularity could 'ALTER' itself without another impacting entity
I have already asked for clarification here so we will skip reiteration for now.
So please explain it already will you?
I am not trying to dogmatically justify a theology or lessen the sacredness of science or math or logic. It is about what alternative there is, against an astonishing document which is eronously placed as just another religion. IMHO, there is no alternative to Creationism.
Science math and logic are not sacred Joe they are just useful in explaining things.
"Good displays of data help to reveal knowledge relevant to understanding mechanism, process and dynamics, cause and effect." We see the unthinkable and think the unseeable. "Visual representations of evidence should be governed by principles of reasoning about quantitative evidence. Clear and precise seeing becomes as one with clear and precise thinking."
Edward R. Tufte
™ Version 4.2
