Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

xingu wrote:

real life wrote:
xingu wrote:
Could BD or RL please tell me if you believe that the sun, moon and stars were created after plants and flowering trees, as the Bible says?

I think I answered this for you recently.

Yes, one day after.

I think plants could easily live for one day without the sun, especially if light is already present (having been created the first day).

So your saying the all physical science is wrong

No, I'm not. You've claimed that I said it, but I never have.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

real life wrote:
xingu wrote:
Can you tell me if you believe God made the sun stand still for a day?

No.

So the Bible is wrong on this matter.

Quote:
Joshua 10:12
Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

If you believe the Bible was wrong here .....

No, I believe that the story uses figurative language.

I know there are others who interpret it literally. I don't.

0 Replies

There are whole bunches of plants and bacteria that dont need the sun. They are chemophyles. The plants and animals that live along volcanic
hot springs are thermo-chemophylic, and deep dwelling sub sand plants are xerophyllic deriving their energy from the transfer of chemical energy among silica minerals.

Sunlight is only one source of energy on the planet and during its history. Cyanobacter were (we conclude from their source areas) a colonizing plant mass that overgrew their own ancestors and lived partuially by chemodigestion and photo respiration. They made the bridge from chemophyllic plants to chlorophyll metabolisys. How do we know? we can count the number ofc12 and Ca ions in crystals around stromatolite reefs.

Early life on the planet was probably polymerization and enzyme reactions and GNA-RNA-DNA came later (and probably in succession)

0 Replies

real life wrote:

xingu wrote:
real life wrote:
xingu wrote:
Could BD or RL please tell me if you believe that the sun, moon and stars were created after plants and flowering trees, as the Bible says?

I think I answered this for you recently.

Yes, one day after.

I think plants could easily live for one day without the sun, especially if light is already present (having been created the first day).

So your saying the all physical science is wrong

No, I'm not. You've claimed that I said it, but I never have.

Yes you are saying it. If you claim that plants and flowering trees existed before the stars in the universe, before the sun and the moon, than you are making that statement. There is no science that accepts that.

If there is please enlighten us.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

xingu wrote:
real life wrote:
xingu wrote:
Can you tell me if you believe God made the sun stand still for a day?

No.

So the Bible is wrong on this matter.

Quote:
Joshua 10:12
Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

If you believe the Bible was wrong here .....

No, I believe that the story uses figurative language.

I know there are others who interpret it literally. I don't.

How do you know it was figurative. Does the Bible tell you where God exaggerated and embellished and where he didn't?

In other words what's true and what's balderdash in the Bible?

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

real life wrote:
xingu wrote:
real life wrote:
xingu wrote:
Can you tell me if you believe God made the sun stand still for a day?

No.

So the Bible is wrong on this matter.

Quote:
Joshua 10:12
Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

If you believe the Bible was wrong here .....

No, I believe that the story uses figurative language.

I know there are others who interpret it literally. I don't.

How do you know it was figurative. Does the Bible tell you....?

How do you tell when any other author is using figurative language, xing?

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Hi Ros:
Isn't it fair to say that 'poofism' as it were. could have happened either way, whether you believe in Creation or creation?

No, because science doesn't ever accept magic as an answer. Even when science doesn't have a theory to explain something (such as the origin of the Universe), it still doesn't posit theories which use magic in them. Science simply stops at its boundaries and says, "I don't know". And that's a much more flexible stance than to assume a "bounded" condition.

The whole reason science has been so successful as a tool for understanding the world around us is that magic (or poofism) is simply not an acceptable answer in science.

Every time you invoke magic as the answer to something, you stop the process of understanding. The philosophy of magic held the human race back for eons and created a plethora of reinforced emotional realities which became entrenched in human culture, in some cases to the exclusion of physical evidence (delusion). We call them religions.

To say, "I don't know", is not equivalent to saying, "It was magic (supernatural)".

0 Replies

Wow, ros, that was incredible insightful and very well worded. I hereby declare you The Favorite.

0 Replies

very tight and to the point ros. We may wish to put that on our bumpers Smile

.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

How do you tell when any other author is using figurative language, xing?

It's difficult sometimes but in others it's obvious, depending on how good the author is. When I read some of my Old West history I cringe when I come across hack authors. They're the ones who'll tell you Billy the Kid killed 21 men, not counting indians. It's a lie, they know it, but they put it in anyway.

Now your telling me God resorts to exaggeration and embellishment. If that's the case God is not the author of the Bible; it's a bunch of hack writers trying to make their war god look like a bad ass (no different from the Old West hack authors). The only thing that god likes to do is kill people. He kills them for minor reasons. Or maybe the Bible is exaggerating again when speaking about the reasons God kills all those people.

If your going to tell me your God is telling a whopper about Joshua how do you know he's not doing the same about creation. It should be pretty evident to anyone with an ounce of common sense that there's no way plants and trees were created before the sun, moon and stars.

Sometimes I see religion a grand experiment. Make up something incredibly stupid, totally outside the bounds of common sense and reason, and see how many people will embrace it because they think their souls will be damned by a "loving" God if they don't.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
Hi Ros:
Isn't it fair to say that 'poofism' as it were. could have happened either way, whether you believe in Creation or creation?

No, because science doesn't ever accept magic as an answer. But science MUST consider that anything (even if it's "magic") is potentially viable if it is as yet scientifically unproven. (Such as creation.) Even when science doesn't have a theory to explain something (such as the origin of the Universe), it still doesn't posit theories which use magic in them. Hmmm. Many examples come to mind that disagree with your thoughts here. Personal flight, space travel, communication via airwaves... All were considerd to be "magic" prior to discovery and invention. Science simply stops at its boundaries and says, "I don't know". Strongly disagree ros. If science said "I don't know", would surgery be here? Penicillin? Cell phones? And that's a much more flexible stance than to assume a "bounded" condition. Not sure what you mean here.

The whole reason science has been so successful as a tool for understanding the world around us is that magic (or poofism) is simply not an acceptable answer in science. "Magic" as it were is the proverbial carrot for all of science.

Every time you invoke magic as the answer to something, you stop the process of understanding. In the matter of creation; no one inferred that magic is the answer. At this point in time - what happened in relation to creation is "magic". The philosophy of magic held the human race back for eons and created a plethora of reinforced emotional realities which became entrenched in human culture, in some cases to the exclusion of physical evidence (delusion). We call them religions.

To say, "I don't know", is not equivalent to saying, "It was magic (supernatural)" To say, "It could be "magic" is not equivalent to saying It cannot not exist.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

real life wrote:
How do you tell when any other author is using figurative language, xing?

It's difficult sometimes but in others it's obvious, depending on how good the author is.

Exactly.

So, tell me again why you have a problem understanding that the Bible sometimes uses figurative language.

You seem to think that if one believes the Bible that means it is all interpreted literally. It's not the case.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

But science MUST consider that anything (even if it's "magic") is potentially viable if it is as yet scientifically unproven. (Such as creation.)

Yes, this is allowed within methodological naturalism, even though "magic" is not allowed in scientific theories.

Science doesn't rule out the possibility of the supernatural, it only rules out the use of the supernatural in theory construction.

baddog1 wrote:

Hmmm. Many examples come to mind that disagree with your thoughts here. Personal flight, space travel, communication via airwaves... All were considerd to be "magic" prior to discovery and invention.

They weren't considered magic by science, they were considered magic by people who belived in magic.

baddog1 wrote:

Strongly disagree ros. If science said "I don't know", would surgery be here? Penicillin? Cell phones?

Just because science doesn't understand something doesn't mean we stop trying to figure it out. Sheesh, that would be just as bad as calling it magic.

baddog1 wrote:

"Magic" as it were is the proverbial carrot for all of science.

No it's not. The unknown is the carrot. And the unknown is not the same thing as magic.

baddog1 wrote:

In the matter of creation; no one inferred that magic is the answer. At this point in time - what happened in relation to creation is "magic".

You seem to be equating the unknown to magic. Are they the same thing to you?

baddog1 wrote:

To say, "It could be "magic" is not equivalent to saying It cannot not exist.

Correct, and science never said, the supernatural cannot exist. It simply says that the supernatural won't be used in any scientific theory as an explanation for anything.

One stance is called Naturalism. The other is called Methodological Naturalism. Science is based on Methodological Naturalism.

0 Replies

Edited for grammar snafu:

rosborne979 wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
Hi Ros:
Isn't it fair to say that 'poofism' as it were. could have happened either way, whether you believe in Creation or creation?

No, because science doesn't ever accept magic as an answer. But science MUST consider that anything (even if it's "magic") is potentially viable if it is as yet scientifically unproven. (Such as creation.) Even when science doesn't have a theory to explain something (such as the origin of the Universe), it still doesn't posit theories which use magic in them. Hmmm. Many examples come to mind that disagree with your thoughts here. Personal flight, space travel, communication via airwaves... All were considerd to be "magic" prior to discovery and invention. Science simply stops at its boundaries and says, "I don't know". Strongly disagree ros. If science said "I don't know", would surgery be here? Penicillin? Cell phones? And that's a much more flexible stance than to assume a "bounded" condition. Not sure what you mean here.

The whole reason science has been so successful as a tool for understanding the world around us is that magic (or poofism) is simply not an acceptable answer in science. "Magic" as it were is the proverbial carrot for all of science.

Every time you invoke magic as the answer to something, you stop the process of understanding. In the matter of creation; no one inferred that magic is the answer. At this point in time - what happened in relation to creation is "magic". The philosophy of magic held the human race back for eons and created a plethora of reinforced emotional realities which became entrenched in human culture, in some cases to the exclusion of physical evidence (delusion). We call them religions.

To say, "I don't know", is not equivalent to saying, "It was magic (supernatural)" To say, "It could be "magic" is not equivalent to saying It cannot exist.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

xingu wrote:
real life wrote:
How do you tell when any other author is using figurative language, xing?

It's difficult sometimes but in others it's obvious, depending on how good the author is.

Exactly.

So, tell me again why you have a problem understanding that the Bible sometimes uses figurative language.

You seem to think that if one believes the Bible that means it is all interpreted literally. It's not the case.

And I ask you, how do you know what is figurative and what is not?

Did God put in a special footnote and say I'm talking figuratively here because I love to exaggerate?

Why should God have to exaggerate? Was he proud of Joshua killing those people and wanted his audience to know that he gave Joshua a special advantage, an advantage you say didn't happen.

Remember the Bible is very clear in stating that the sun stood still. If you say this didn't happen then God lied.

0 Replies

Ros:

Let's back up for the sake of clarity.

Do you believe that creation (of the universe, earth, everything that we know...) is 'magic'?

Do you believe the same for Creation?

Is 'magic' the same as 'poofism'?

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Ros:

Let's back up for the sake of clarity.

ok

baddog1 wrote:

Do you believe that creation (of the universe, earth, everything that we know...) is 'magic'?

No. I don't know what caused the BB to occur, and I don't know what came before it. I do know (beyond any reasonable doubt) how the Earth formed, and how live evolved. So those things are not unknown.

baddog1 wrote:

Do you believe the same for Creation?

I don't know, because I don't understand the distinction you are making. I don't quite understand what you mean when you say, "Creation" with a capital "C".

baddog1 wrote:

Is 'magic' the same as 'poofism'?

Yes. "Poofism" is the term I use to represent belief in magic (or the supernatural). It sounds better than "Magicism", but amounts to the same thing.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
Hi Ros:
Isn't it fair to say that 'poofism' as it were. could have happened either way, whether you believe in Creation or creation?

No, because science doesn't ever accept magic as an answer. But science MUST consider that anything (even if it's "magic") is potentially viable if it is as yet scientifically unproven. (Such as creation.) Even when science doesn't have a theory to explain something (such as the origin of the Universe), it still doesn't posit theories which use magic in them. Hmmm. Many examples come to mind that disagree with your thoughts here. Personal flight, space travel, communication via airwaves... All were considerd to be "magic" prior to discovery and invention. Science simply stops at its boundaries and says, "I don't know". Strongly disagree ros. If science said "I don't know", would surgery be here? Penicillin? Cell phones? And that's a much more flexible stance than to assume a "bounded" condition. Not sure what you mean here.

The whole reason science has been so successful as a tool for understanding the world around us is that magic (or poofism) is simply not an acceptable answer in science. "Magic" as it were is the proverbial carrot for all of science.

Every time you invoke magic as the answer to something, you stop the process of understanding. In the matter of creation; no one inferred that magic is the answer. At this point in time - what happened in relation to creation is "magic". The philosophy of magic held the human race back for eons and created a plethora of reinforced emotional realities which became entrenched in human culture, in some cases to the exclusion of physical evidence (delusion). We call them religions.

To say, "I don't know", is not equivalent to saying, "It was magic (supernatural)" To say, "It could be "magic" is not equivalent to saying It cannot not exist.

I have to say, I expected better. These responses to Ros' statements fall a bit short. I'm not even sure how you could write them in honesty. Flight and EM communication were only considered to be magic by the very same people who believed in the magic of creation. And I'd like to point out that much of surgery is here exactly because we do not know. There is an entire field of exploratory surgery. We try to learn as much about our body and its workings as possible because there are things we don't know. Right now, we don't know how to combat HIV, but we're not stopping. We keep moving, learning and adapting until we figure it out.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
Ros:

Do you believe that creation (of the universe, earth, everything that we know...) is 'magic'?

No. I don't know what caused the BB to occur, and I don't know what came before it.

Was the BB a result of natural forces operating within the laws of science?

If the laws of science (i.e. naturalism) were NOT operative prior to the BB, then isn't the cause of the BB 'supernatural' by definition?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Was the BB a result of natural forces operating within the laws of science?

No one knows.

Our current understanding of the laws of nature and science are insufficient to fully explain how the big bang MAY have occured.

You are doing what Baddog is doing...trying to tie what science currently does not know or fully understand to 'poofism'. Religionists have done this forever, and as science discovers better ways to explain nature religionists will move onto some other unknown science.

Your argument is the equalivant of the earth being the center of the universe.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know