Intelligent Design

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen wrote:

Why do you think all the scientific evidence for the world being older than @ 6,000 years is there if young Earth creationism is literally true?

For two quick examples:

Why does carbon dating work as it does?

Why are geologists better at guessing what sort of animals will be found in rocks of a certain type and age than theologans?

Now we're talking.

Creationism isn't always defined as a young earth view. Someone with a view of a literal 6 day creation would possibly lean towards that but doesn't have to necessarily hold that view for reasons that I detailed earlier in this thread.

Genesis 1:2 "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

The creation story does not start with detailing God starting with nothing. We have the earth and water. Possibly just a land mass and water but we can only guess as to the specific details. One thing that we are not given is when this formless entity was created or if it has always been just as God is, I for one do not know. I believe that the Bible and science do not contradict each other. What can lead to contradiction is the interpretations held by many theologians etc... but their doesn't even have to be a contradiction.

So the Bible leaves open the length of time that the formless earth has been in existence as well as many other things that we may go into.

1 Reply

@click here,

click here wrote:

Now we're talking.

Creationism isn't always defined as a young earth view. Someone with a view of a literal 6 day creation would possibly lean towards that but doesn't have to necessarily hold that view for reasons that I detailed earlier in this thread.

Genesis 1:2 "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

The creation story does not start with detailing God starting with nothing. We have the earth and water. Possibly just a land mass and water but we can only guess as to the specific details. One thing that we are not given is when this formless entity was created or if it has always been just as God is, I for one do not know. I believe that the Bible and science do not contradict each other. What can lead to contradiction is the interpretations held by many theologians etc... but their doesn't even have to be a contradiction.

So the Bible leaves open the length of time that the formless earth has been in existence as well as many other things that we may go into.

Pic and mix..pic and mix..Six days ..what did he actualy do in six days? earth days ..24 hours each day..considering light was one of the last jobs..The heavens what day was that? You are either making it a literal translation or not..make your mind up ..

0 Replies

@thysin,

Click Here, to be fair I think there is a difference between pointing out that there is wiggle room in Genesis for vast periods of time (as you allude to the first day does not occur until Gen 1.5, so presumably Gen 1.1 to 1.4 could cover a period of trillions of years) and addressing a question like why does carbon dating work the way it does?

I think that almost any creation story can be defended by assuming that the gaps in the story provide room for clearing up any odd questions.

As an example:

Hindu Sceptic: Surely if Vishnu created the waters of the oceans by churning milk with the help of a hundred-headed snake we would have some evidence of this?

Hindu Pundit: Well, the scriptures don't mention what happened for thousands of years since then - perhaps Brahma made some huge dholes who lapped it all up.

This isn't logic - it is imagination (in so far as the two are mutially exclusive, I'm talking dictionary definition type stuff here - not looking for a semantical argument - of course imagination is required in many coldly logical areas, and vice versa, but I do think think there are still distinctions).

As further example - Genesis provides two different accounts of the creation of woman:

Gen 1.27 "God created ... male and female" (during the 6th day).
Gen 2.22 "and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from the man, made he a woman" (some time after the day of rest and the planting of Eden).

MULTIPLE EVES!
Now this just looks like a mistake - but of course Bible experts - using their imagination - invent apocryphal stories about different first women. The girl from G1.27 is rejected for some reason (the stories differ - including one about a woman created viscera first, and who therefore revolted Adam, and Lilith, who would not adopt the submissive role considered apt for God's plan) and Eve is made in G2.22 to prevent Adam's subsequent loneliness.

So yes, you can make up rationales for gaps or inconsistencies in scripture, or imagine ways in which the meaning of scripture differs from the literal words - but this doesn't logically answer questions.

IMAGINATION VERSUS LOGIC!
You say xris has no more logical account of the formation of the universe. But scientific discoveries about things like the speed of light, the expansion of the universe, the distribution of matter in space and so on combine into a hypothesis about the Big Bang which stands up to a lot of testing.

The only way scripture can be made to answer such questions is by tacking on completely untestable theories to it - such as a theory that time before the first day equates to a particular length.

Moulding a story in this manner may be an impressive work of imagination - but it is not logic.

So can you logically explain why carbon dating works how it does?

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen wrote:

To be fair click here, I think there is a difference between pointing out that there is wiggle room in Genesis for vast periods of time (as you allude to the first day does not occur until Gen 1.5, so presumably Gen 1.1 to 1.4 could cover a period of trillions of years) and addressing a question like why does carbon dating work the way it does?

I think that almost any creation story can be defended by assuming that the gaps in the story provide room for clearing up any odd questions.

For example:

Hindu Sceptic: Surely if Vishnu created the waters of the oceans by churning milk with the help of a hundred-headed snake we would have some evidence of this?

Hindu Pundit: Well, the scriptures don't mention what happened for thousands of years since then - perhaps Brahma made some huge dholes who lapped it all up.

This isn't logic - it is imagination.

As further example - Genesis provides two different accounts of the creation of woman:

Gen 1.27 "God created ... male and female" (during the 6th day).

Gen 2.22 "and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from the man, made he a woman" (some time after the day of rest and the planting of Eden).

Now this just looks like a mistake - but of course Bible experts - using their imagination - invent apocryphal stories about different first women. The girl from G1.27 is rejected for some reason (the stories differ) and Eve is made in G2.22 to prevent Adam's subsequent loneliness.

So yes, you can make up rationales for gaps or inconsistencies in scripture, or imagine ways in which the meaning of scripture differs from the literal words - but this doesn't logically answer questions.

You say xris has no more logical account of the formation of the universe. But scientific discoveries about things like the speed of light, the expansion of the universe, the distribution of matter in space and so on combine into a hypothesis about the Big Bang which stands up to a lot of testing.

The only way scripture can be made to answer such questions is by tacking on completely untestable theories to it - such as a theory that time before the first day equates to a particular length.

Moulding a story in this manner may be an impressive work of imagination - but it is not logic.

Which is why I never said that I am trying to convince anyone using logic that the creation story is a better choice. I am just doing my best to try and provide another side.

We are also not molding the Bible to fit what we view in science. We are molding what we view in Science to fit with the Bible. We do not know exact details though we assume they are there. What better way to start to define those details by using science to aid us in that way?

As to what you say about the 2 different accounts on the creation of woman:
I was not aware that most bible experts refer to them as different women, if they do then I disagree. I view chapter 2 (as well as everyone else I know) as a detailed account of the creation of woman.

Look at Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

I do not think that people view that as a first time that God created earth and then later on he created what we read about later in ch 1 as a different creation. I see verse 1 as a title or heading of what is to come. Just like I see Ch 2 as a detailed account of creation of woman.

I didn't respond to what you said about carbon dating because I was first clearing up that creationists do not always define the earth as 'young' and secondly I have no idea what kind of response you are looking for.

It appeared as though Xris believes that science is disproving creationism every day. I am here to say that, I especially, use science to improve my view of creationism all the time.

Again I am not here to logically prove the validity of creationism or even attempt to. Merely to show how creationism can co-exhist with science.

Ofcourse I am using my imagination. Read what I said many times earlier in this thread: these are just theories, many of which I came up with on the spot.

---------- Post added at 07:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:58 AM ----------

xris wrote:

Pic and mix..pic and mix..Six days ..what did he actualy do in six days? earth days ..24 hours each day..considering light was one of the last jobs..The heavens what day was that? You are either making it a literal translation or not..make your mind up ..

You must be confused with the creation story. Maybe you should read the first 2 chapters of Genesis really quick so you can see that I am not picking and mixing as you say.

I am quite sure that I have made everything clear and have not sat on the fence in anyway. I really recomend you read the first 2 chapters and not just skim over them so that you can have an idea of what you are trying to debate as you are inferring a very many untruths as to my stance.

2 Replies

@click here,

You are not using science you are picking what is appropriate for your theories.When ever you make one statement and it is questioned you refine it and back track on the assumption you are just trying..How many hours did he take to make the heavens?How many hours to make man? These are really simple questions that i never ever believed i would even need to ask a reasonable human being..Dont fudge these questions please ,a straight answer for once..

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

You are not using science you are picking what is appropriate for your theories.When ever you make one statement and it is questioned you refine it and back track on the assumption you are just trying..How many hours did he take to make the heavens?How many hours to make man? These are really simple questions that i never ever believed i would even need to ask a reasonable human being..Dont fudge these questions please ,a straight answer for once..

I do not know exactly how many hours he made man in. All I have said is that he made man sometime within the span of 24 hours on specifically the 6th day.

1 Reply

@click here,

click here wrote:

I do not know exactly how many hours he made man in. All I have said is that he made man sometime within the span of 24 hours on specifically the 6th day.

And you in all honesty want me to comment on that and have a serious debate?

0 Replies

@click here,

click here wrote:

Which is why I never said that I am trying to convince anyone using logic that the creation story is a better choice. I am just doing my best to try and provide another side.

You said (I paraphrase but I think accurately) that the Big Bang theory was no more logical than your chosen view.

EDIT TO ADD: Here's the specific quote:

Quote:

My Motives within this thread: I am aiming to show you that your theory is not more logical then what I believe.

It is fair to say that there are competing views - I reckon - but I don't think it's fair to claim that they are of equal worth in terms of logic. One is a story - the other is a hypothesis backed up with lots and lots of evidence.

The story may be true - but if it is true it flies in the face of logic. The story is only true if magic is true (which it may be - though I prefer deduction and reasoning to magic myself).

Quote:

We are also not molding the Bible to fit what we view in science. We are molding what we view in Science to fit with the Bible.

I'm sorry to be blunt - but you are molding the bible. You said the period up to the first day might have been long enough to account for scientific guesses as to the age of the earth.

You said it a few posts back.

If you were molding science to fit the bible you would say, as some do, that "scientific laws were different during the time of genesis - for example the speed of light was much faster back then, giving us the impression light has travelled for billions of years, when in fact it has just travelled for thousands".

As it was you applied elasticity to the bible, not to science, in the example you provided.

Quote:

We do not know exact details though we assume they are there. What better way to start to define those details by using science to aid us in that way?

Because you either have to pervert science or scripture to make the fit.

Quote:

As to what you say about the 2 different accounts on the creation of woman:
I was not aware that most bible experts refer to them as different women, if they do then I disagree. I view chapter 2 (as well as everyone else I know) as a detailed account of the creation of woman.

In that case, why does it contradict with chapter one?

On which day was Eve created, day 6 - as stated in Gen1 - or sometime after day 7 - as stated in Gen2?

Quote:

I didn't respond to what you said about carbon dating because I was first clearing up that creationists do not always define the earth as 'young' and secondly I have no idea what kind of response you are looking for.

It's a simple challenge really. If - as you suggest - your view is as logical as xris' view of creation, why does carbon dating work as it does - in your view?

Quote:

Again I am not here to logically prove the validity of creationism or even attempt to. Merely to show how creationism can co-exhist with science.

Ofcourse I am using my imagination. Read what I said many times earlier in this thread: these are just theories, many of which I came up with on the spot.

I agree that creationism can coexist with science, but only if it cedes points regarding logic or any sort of scientific credibility. Science as we know it cannot apply to the period of biblical creation - it was magic and God must have set science up to give a false impression of what occurred. If this is so science can only be reliable in regard to the present, not the past.

If science is reliable about the past biblical creation is, at least in part, a work of imagination.

0 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;56880 wrote:

I don't find it easy to parse Lee's [Les ] posts - but if his overarching point is that god need not be a god who disavows cruelty in order to be god - then I see the point. Unpleasantness does not disprove god. It makes the idea of an omnipotent omnibenevolent god harder to grasp.

One argument for god that I do not respect is that of how perfect everything is.

Referring back to the OP, my point was that God doesn't have to be as the God religion and the religious insist; after all, they don't really know from personal experience what the creator is like. They take concepts worked out by religious authorities over the centuries and treat them as truth; yet an examination of the authorities gives us no reason to believe they knew what they were talking about either!

The most trusted figures of course are the original masters, like Jesus. But he does not say much about God beyond the value of love, faith and devotion -- as though all we really need to know is how to connect to God (otherwise, I'm sure we'd been given a precise description).

So in line with the OP, do we have another way to hypothesize about God than endlessly arguing about concepts nobody has a clue are true? I know of one way, and that is through applying an inferential technique.

We might begin, for example, by imagining no religion ever was, no God concepts exist, and allow only talk of what a creator consciousness would have to be like to produce planet Earth, life, and consciousness. When I say "would have to be like," I mean what abilities, what traits, what qualities would be needed to, say, initiate a Big Bang? To organize chemistry into a cell? To provide a living pulse to all life forms? To cause consciousness to emerge from a brain?

It's an interesting exercise, especially if you insist all explanations jive with what we know to be true, such as physics. So if the universe is within some sort of consciousness field, and, for example, relativity is true, then what must this creative force be structured like to produce the effects of relativity?

As you can see, the exercise get very difficult because what we really need is just a few simple principles that in the end would explain all phenomena; otherwise, since there are a great variety of phenomena, we'd have a mega-complex God model to explain everything, and that makes it far more improbable than a Godless model of creation.

Here's a couple of suggestions for those "simple principles." We know everything vibrates, so we might imagine a creator consciousness is vibrant. We also observe the universe seems arranged in polarities, from proton-electron and the poles of magnetism, to male and female etc., so we might imagine the creator consciousness exists with some sort of polar structure. If God is a consciousness "field" we might imagine God created bodies with central nervous systems to pull consciousness from the general field into a single, isolated space for the purpose of individuating it.

What is "evil" in this model? Well, it is the result of that naive individuated consciousness identifying with his body, and not experiencing how he is "one" with all other aware life. He ignorantly sees himself and his needs as all important, and feels little awareness of his unity with others (or the great consciousness field he's been drawn from). In that "selfish" state his actions can hurt others, and we call that evil.

What is love (in this model)? The extent to which we've rediscovered our oneness with our creationary origin (and therefore all others too).

Concerning your comments about perfection, the God we are imagining is clearly not perfect, all powerful, or all knowing because creation isn't (and besides, modeling this way God only need be as knowing and powerful as it takes to bring about creation). But we can also see something else about God in creation (in this model), and that is it works through evolving things (like all consciousness does). So while things might appear imperfect now, that doesn't mean things are not being perfected.

Anyway, my overall point was that to talk about the possibility of a conscious universe doesn't require us to talk religion, or be unrealistic or unnatural in our explanations.

2 Replies

@LWSleeth,

LW i can see you are like me trying to imagine this creator or force in a light we could possibly contemplate.My trouble is if i try to imagine a thinking creator i start asking the same damned questions i asked the accepted gods of faith.It could never be benevolent in the sense we understand benevolence nor could it believe it was doing us a favour in creating us imperfect as he has.If it has intelligence it can comprehend compassion and there is very little to be found in the individuals suffering we see.Are we the creators? are we the scattered body of the creator?would we be prepared to give up our oneness and be a trillion souls facing life's tribulations for the experience of life? or is nature our creator a force that has no thoughts but just a desire to create and create over and over again..I can imagine heaven without a god so why do keep smashing my head against the unknown trying to fathom him here?

0 Replies

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth wrote:

Anyway, my overall point was that to talk about the possibility of a conscious universe doesn't require us to talk religion, or be unrealistic or unnatural in our explanations.

I think your inferential model is much more interesting than a Cistine Chapel ceiling sort of a god.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

[SIZE="3"]

xris;56968 wrote:

LW i can see you are like me trying to imagine this creator or force in a light we could possibly contemplate.My trouble is if i try to imagine a thinking creator i start asking the same damned questions i asked the accepted gods of faith.It could never be benevolent in the sense we understand benevolence nor could it believe it was doing us a favour in creating us imperfect as he has.

Okay, but let's get really neutral for a minute. By that I mean, throw out every idea you've ever had about "God" or how God "should be," and imagine without emotion.

If you were able to create a living body that could individuate beings from a general consciousness field, and once individuated and realized, this created being could last from now to forever, then the suffering of a lifetime might be worth the effort.

And let's say you can't create instant perfection, but need the beings you create to help perfect planet Earth, learn medicine and technologies to make life on Earth safe and comfortable, learn how to eat well and exercise, learn how to be a loving yet guiding parent, learn how to work for the good of all, maybe learn to meditate in such a way that one re-merges with the field one has come from, and so on.

We look at the great many people who've fought and died for freedom, for example, and think it was worth it for the gains we've made. But all the humans who've died in "project Earth" are a waste? But maybe not. Maybe human death is not the end, as some have said.

Maybe once we make Earth a beautiful place to be born to, and when we've realized we are here to develop as loving, conscious individuals who will live with God forever, suffering will be reduced to a minimum. But now, it takes sacrifice, just as Jesus sacrificed to show us all not to fear suffering and death. As the Buddha sacrificed to show us what could be realized by turning inward. As a great many saints have sacrificed for the cause, yet to be perfected, that God set in motion.

xris;56968 wrote:

If it has intelligence it can comprehend compassion and there is very little to be found in the individuals suffering we see.

But that isn't so. There are some amazing human beings. Remember, in the scheme of evolution, intelligent human beings are a relatively new development. Give us time, I think we are in the throes of transitioning between being pure animal, and realizing our true consciousness nature.

xris;56968 wrote:

Are we the creators? are we the scattered body of the creator?would we be prepared to give up our oneness and be a trillion souls facing life's tribulations for the experience of life? or is nature our creator a force that has no thoughts but just a desire to create and create over and over again..I can imagine heaven without a god so why do keep smashing my head against the unknown trying to fathom him here?

I feel your angst, but I think you can only gain faith if you can learn to experience God. Experience is what grounds us in reality, nothing else seems to suffice. Here's a story for you from the great inner practitioners the Jewish saint the "Baal Shem Tov" taught (taken from the books by Martin Buber Tales of the Hasidim):

"A man came to Rabbi Levi Yitzhak and complained: 'Rabbi, what shall I do with the lie that keeps sneaking into my heart?' He stopped and then cried aloud: 'oh, and even what I just said was not said truthfully! I shall never find truth.' In despair he threw himself on the ground. 'How fervently this man seeks the truth,' said the rabbi. With a gentle hand he raised him from the ground and said: 'It is written, the truth will grow out of the ground.'"[/SIZE]

1 Reply

@LWSleeth,

Sorry but you say ignore all the preconceptions of a creator and then proceed to excuse this god of his questionable reasoning.I dont want to reinvent him, i want to see him clearly.Suffering for many is the only thing they ever experience while others live a charmed life with everything given to them ,health wealth happiness..Can you tell me why one should learn suffering and the other benefits? You are describing a creator i dont recognise or i do by past religious indoctrination...We have come full circle,i thought you where looking it appears you have found your creator, he does not fit my logic..i wish you well but his not my god..

1 Reply

@xris,

[SIZE="3"]

xris;57052 wrote:

Sorry but you say ignore all the preconceptions of a creator and then proceed to excuse this god of his questionable reasoning.I dont want to reinvent him, i want to see him clearly.Suffering for many is the only thing they ever experience while others live a charmed life with everything given to them ,health wealth happiness.

What "reasoning" are you attributing to God? You are assuming a lot about what has created us, but here is something we definitely know:

We exist by virtue of activity beyond our own capability to perform. So something besides us is responsible for our existence.

Would you prefer to not exist at all rather than exist in an imperfect setting?

What if this is the best the creator can do to help bring about our existence? It cannot make things perfectly fair, it cannot create without suffering, it cannot establish a perfect creation without having it evolve through stages to get to perfection, and it cannot evolve us at all past what we are are given as humans, which means we have to take over the responsibility for completing our perfection, both with ourselves and for making planet Earth a wonderful place FOR ALL to live and die. Clearly we have a lot of growing to do.

So here you are existing by the grace of this creator, doing the best it can, complaining about what is wrong instead of appreciating what is right. You can either spend your life wallowing in self-pity or you can embrace life and make the most of it. Or, if you hate it so much, you can kill yourself. You have choices -- choose one and stop blaming God for feeling disappointment that in reality is of your own making.

xris;57052 wrote:

Can you tell me why one should learn suffering and the other benefits? You are describing a creator i dont recognise or i do by past religious indoctrination.

Who says you should learn suffering? I am learning happiness, it is a a much better course of study. Smile

xris;57052 wrote:

We have come full circle,i thought you where looking it appears you have found your creator, he does not fit my logic..i wish you well but his not my god.

That's right. I searched and found a way to experience God, instead of sitting around complaining, self-pitying, and theorizing about it. I turn inside each morning, find the place that is and always will be one with God, and then I work for union with that incredible place. When my mind does achieve union with my heart what I find is a loving, beautiful being intent on benevolence with a bunch of human brats determined to have their way and f*ck the planet and themselves up . . . AND WHO THEN . . . have the audacity to blame God for the messes they create.[/SIZE]

1 Reply

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth wrote:

What "reasoning" are you attributing to God? You are assuming a lot about what has created us, but here is something we definitely know:

We exist by virtue of activity beyond our own capability to perform. So something besides us is responsible for our existence.

Would you prefer to not exist at all rather than exist in an imperfect setting?

What if this is the best the creator can do to help bring about our existence? It cannot make things perfectly fair, it cannot create without suffering, it cannot establish a perfect creation without having it evolve through stages to get to perfection, and it cannot evolve us at all past what we are are given as humans, which means we have to take over the responsibility for completing our perfection, both with ourselves and for making planet Earth a wonderful place FOR ALL to live and die. Clearly we have a lot of growing to do.

So here you are existing by the grace of this creator, doing the best it can, complaining about what is wrong instead of appreciating what is right. You can either spend your life wallowing in self-pity or you can embrace life and make the most of it. Or, if you hate it so much, you can kill yourself. You have choices -- choose one and stop blaming God for feeling disappointment that in reality is of your own making.

Who says you should learn suffering? I am learning happiness, it is a a much better course of study.

That's right. I searched and found a way to experience God, instead of sitting around complaining, self-pitying, and theorizing about it. I turn inside each morning, find the place that is and always will be one with God, and then I work for union with that incredible place. When my mind does achieve union with my heart what I find is a loving, beautiful being intent on benevolence with a bunch of human brats determined to have their way and f*ck the planet and themselves up . . . AND WHO THEN . . . have the audacity to blame God for the messes they create.

Firstly im not blaming god for anything because he does not exist as you describe him..BUT if he is as you describe ide like to say many do suffer, maybe not you but many only know suffering.....Why the test ? if he is truly spectacular wave a wand and lets go straight to salvation.....Yes i would deny my existance if i could stop one child suffering terrible pains and injustice, dying alone .....Your description of god is not suitable, he claims benevolence but can not even tell us for whose purpose we exist ..his or ours..Sorry i misunderstood you i thought you where looking..

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;57077 wrote:

Firstly im not blaming god for anything because he does not exist as you describe him..BUT if he is as you describe ide like to say many do suffer, maybe not you but many only know suffering.....Why the test ? if he is truly spectacular wave a wand and lets go straight to salvation.....Yes i would deny my existance if i could stop one child suffering terrible pains and injustice, dying alone .....Your description of god is not suitable, he claims benevolence but can not even tell us for whose purpose we exist ..his or ours..Sorry i misunderstood you i thought you where looking..

Well, I understand your distress over the state of things, but I still would rather exist than not. I have suffered, but I also have discovered a way to be happy inside. If I were still "looking" it would be for a way to be happy despite external circumstances.

1 Reply

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth wrote:

Well, I understand your distress over the state of things, but I still would rather exist than not. I have suffered plenty, but I also have discovered a way to be happy inside. If I were still "looking" it would be for a way to be happy despite external circumstances.

You confuse disappointment with unhappiness..I am blessed with wonderful children and beautiful grandchildren.I have had my share of grief but those shrink into insignificance to others, such as those in the third world.I have no riches but i never cared for them, no swish car or expensive holidays..I am content.It could change at any moment but i dont thank god nor do i blame him, why should i if he does not appear for his thanks giving? I can live without the creators possibilities but i am the eternal optimist, I will find him.

1 Reply

@xris,

Dave Allen wrote:

It is fair to say that there are competing views - I reckon - but I don't think it's fair to claim that they are of equal worth in terms of logic. One is a story - the other is a hypothesis backed up with lots and lots of evidence.

The story may be true - but if it is true it flies in the face of logic. The story is only true if magic is true (which it may be - though I prefer deduction and reasoning to magic myself).

Someone in this forum recently said in another thread how animals have no clue at all as to the kind of intelligence we have. Would we be haughty to not even consider the idea of someone smarter then us?

We are only at the moment going under the logic that you and xris have presented. I have not posted any logic that one might use to aim towards a conclusion of a God. Your logic does not lead you to a conclusive proof which you have provided. I'm going to go ahead and say that my logic also does not yield a conclusive proof.

Dave Allen wrote:

I'm sorry to be blunt - but you are molding the bible. You said the period up to the first day might have been long enough to account for scientific guesses as to the age of the earth.

You said it a few posts back.

If you were molding science to fit the bible you would say, as some do, that "scientific laws were different during the time of genesis - for example the speed of light was much faster back then, giving us the impression light has travelled for billions of years, when in fact it has just travelled for thousands".

As it was you applied elasticity to the bible, not to science, in the example you provided. Because you either have to pervert science or scripture to make the fit.

I would say it is applying elasticity to interpretations of the Bible.
Interpretations of the Bible can be derived by other sources. So we are using science as one of the ways to form our interpretations. Science is not perverted nor is scripture. Laws of science can not be verified as truth before humans existed so there is no way to say that science has been perverted. The Bible is open to interpretations now some people could make outlandish interpretations or you can make reasonable interpretations. An outlandish example would be something like saying that Moses was telling a joke when he gave the 10 commandments. A reasonable example would be hypothesizing about the openness of the first 2 verses in Genesis.

Dave Allen wrote:

In that case, why does it contradict with chapter one?

On which day was Eve created, day 6 - as stated in Gen1 - or sometime after day 7 - as stated in Gen2?

Genesis 2:1
"Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. "
He finished everything on the on the 6th day and like I said then what is mentioned in Ch. 2 happened on the 6th day.

Dave Allen wrote:

It's a simple challenge really. If - as you suggest - your view is as logical as xris' view of creation, why does carbon dating work as it does - in your view?

Could you give me a quick example of a contradiction with carbon dating and creationism that I can work with?

2 Replies

@click here,

The logic of science can be examined by experiment and can be altered or refined, it is not written as the final answer nor does it claim to be correct only to be examined.The scriptures can be taken as gods words or mans attempt at making sense of this senseless world.I can prove by example that gravity can kill me but i cant prove that god has written one word of scriptures.It is only mans blind faith to believe what he has been told by his elders that can convince him it written by god.Men of faith are driven by desire not the search for truth,its indoctrination not knowledge that oils the wheels of religion.Science examines mans path through millions of years of progress and the bible reduces it to one part of a day by magic and only the truly faithful can be so blind as to try and find a certain logic in their scriptures.

0 Replies

@click here,

click here wrote:

Someone in this forum recently said in another thread how animals have no clue at all as to the kind of intelligence we have. Would we be haughty to not even consider the idea of someone smarter then us?

Yes it would, but that is a different issue I think. I can imagine being relatively ignorant (this sounds a bit arrogant - but it is just so - I can imagine it and accept that I could be what I imagine) - but just because I can do so it doesn't lead me to any sort of belief in anything. I can consider all manner of flights of fancy - but that doesn't lend them creedence. I can consider an ancient and powerful magical being - such as a fairy or a Hindu deity - but that makes it no more real. The more imaginings contradict with what I know of the world the less I will view them as convincing.

This is why, relatively speaking, I think Les' inferential model strikes me as more impressive in terms of a belief system. I'm not sure I could credit his experiences - because they seem very personal and individual - and I can see the attraction of Genesis over them in terms of storytelling - because Genesis is a great story.

Les' vibrating oneness is not such a good story maybe, but it does gel more with what I understand about life, the universe, and everything. It is a comfortable abstraction relative to the contradictory (and often capricious) character of the Biblical God. I strikes me as rather Taoist.

Quote:

We are only at the moment going under the logic that you and xris have presented. I have not posted any logic that one might use to aim towards a conclusion of a God. Your logic does not lead you to a conclusive proof which you have provided. I'm going to go ahead and say that my logic also does not yield a conclusive proof.

Sure, I have seen this argument a lot. Would it be fair to say that you are stating that because neither arguments can be feasably demonstrated that they are of similar value?

I don't find this convincing. I saw Douglas Adams refute it once by saying that "there is such a thing as the burden of proof".

So the theory of the Big Bang is just a theory, as is the theory that the moon is made of blue cheese.

Short of a trip in a rocket (and even that could be faked) there is no way I can really prove the fact that the moon is made of blue cheese - I have to go on faith that it is made of rock to some degree. But I feel it is a safe bet because that's what's suggested by all the evidence.

So the burden of proof for the theory that the moon is made of blue cheese lies in the hands of those who raise it, in my opinion. Until more evidence is in favour of the theory I am with those who say it's made up of rock.

In the same manner I feel that - if they are going to use logic or science as tools - the burden of proof that creation occured literally according to Genesis lies with those who propose the theory. Saying "well they are both theories and one is as good as the other" just doesn't seem to cut it with me - because I incline to the side that produces more evidence.

If the opinion that one theory was as acceptable as another was valid then we would have to throw out all notions of legal or academic standards as a logical end result.

Quote:

I would say it is applying elasticity to interpretations of the Bible.
Interpretations of the Bible can be derived by other sources. So we are using science as one of the ways to form our interpretations. Science is not perverted nor is scripture. Laws of science can not be verified as truth before humans existed so there is no way to say that science has been perverted.

See, to me this is itself bordering on a perversion - to say that it may have been different before records began and that may suit biblical knowledge. In coldly literal terms you are perverting science by saying "the laws must have been bent in order for it to work" without producing any evidence for why this opinion is so - beyond a well-loved story.

Again, all I would really say is the only way to account for it is to say it's outside of science. Magic. Supernatural. Or that it is a metaphore of scientific creation as understood by (relatively) pre-science storytellers (my own view).

That would work, but saying "it's all perfectly scientific - as long as you accept the possibility that science worked differently before records began" IS perverting science.

What would be more credible is just to say it happened and scientific knowledge cannot be used to examine how.

In my opinion, of course - but I suspect certain religious pundits attempt to gel science and religion because science has a hard credibility that religion lacks. However, in doing so I think they actually weaken their own case - because a story like Noah's Ark simply cannot be explained without claiming that the science used to justify it is flawed.

I think it is better to say that science and religion are two different ways of looking at the world. A guitar and a paintbrush are two different instruments for creating art - but you can't play Greensleeves with just a paintbrush.

Quote:

The Bible is open to interpretations now some people could make outlandish interpretations or you can make reasonable interpretations. An outlandish example would be something like saying that Moses was telling a joke when he gave the 10 commandments. A reasonable example would be hypothesizing about the openness of the first 2 verses in Genesis.

Genesis 2:1
"Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. "
He finished everything on the on the 6th day and like I said then what is mentioned in Ch. 2 happened on the 6th day.

But this interpretation flies in the face of what is actually written. Chapter two starts with the day of rest ("Thus the heavens and the earth were all finished ... and on the seventh day God ended his work") - but Eve is created some point after the seventh day. Read it and see. It also states that the animals and fowl are created after Adam.

Quote:

Could you give me a quick example of a contradiction with carbon dating and creationism that I can work with?

A quick one would be that all fossilised remains of grass that scientists have carbon dated put it as appearing on the Earth some time after a number of animals. Carbon dating also provides evidence that birds appeared after terrestial creatures, and that all these things have been about for millions of years.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know