• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Come on, Creationists!

A Vestigial Mote

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
firedragon said:
If you take the full sentence you will understand. Let me try and repeat what I said.
Click to expand...
I didn't get it either, I'm afraid, @firedragon. So you're 0 for 3 here.

May as well break it down for you, to see where you were completely unclear and left massive room for interpretation (or worse):

firedragon said:
Specifically YEC's are addressed. Thus, 13 or 14 billion years vs 6,000 years is good enough to take the Big Bang Theory and the YEC theory refuting them.
Click to expand...
Focusing on the part currently in bold/italic/underline above - what does it mean to "take" the Big Bang Theory? Where are we taking it? Are we somehow snatching it out of thin air? Are you meaning "accept" here? To "take" something is to "accept as correct" in this case?

Now focusing on the next part in this utterly confusing mess of words:
firedragon said:
Specifically YEC's are addressed. Thus, 13 or 14 billion years vs 6,000 years is good enough to take the Big Bang Theory and the YEC theory refuting them.
Click to expand...
Okay... so in the sentence that contains this next bolded/italicized/underlines bit, we are still under the verb "take" (the one that caused the confusion already). So then to tack on "and the YEC theory", with the wording as it is here, it seems as though you want us to apply the verb "take" to this as well. So now we're in a whole world of confusion - wherein we're not even sure what it means to "take" as presented, and we're apparently expected to do this "taking" to BOTH the Big Bang Theory and the blathering of Young Earth Creationists simultaneously.

And lastly, you have this:
firedragon said:
Specifically YEC's are addressed. Thus, 13 or 14 billion years vs 6,000 years is good enough to take the Big Bang Theory and the YEC theory refuting them.
Click to expand...
Refuting who? Refuting those who "take the Big Bang Theory", or are you saying that the Big Bang Theory is refuting the YECs? Are we "taking" the Big Bang Theory, which refutes YECs? Or are we "taking the Big Bang Theory and the YEC theory" (your wording exactly here), and refuting them both?

So, on the one hand, you seem to be saying that the 13-14 billion versus 6,000 year claims is a good indicator that somebody in the equation is incorrect, and that that should be obvious, and with as relaxed as you were in posting this, it seems as though you fall on the 13-14 billion year side... but then you go on to say something that honestly seems to fly in the face of that idea entirely with the way it is worded.

And you were just so sure of yourself:
firedragon said:
If you dont understand this simple thing, I dont know what else could be said.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
Even added your standard "Cheers" to the end... like a mic drop or something.
 
ppp

ppp

Well-Known Member
robocop (actually) said:
I won't answer because I am conflicted.

I am a first place Latter-day Saint and a second place Raelian.
Click to expand...
Seriously? That is amazing!

I was about to ask how you could possibly reconcile the two...but I thinking about it I can see the intersection. Especially with the interplanetary afterlife. Neat!
 
A Vestigial Mote

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Wildswanderer said:
Ridiculous is believing that life came out of nowhere for no purpose with no one guiding the process.
Click to expand...
And why is that ridiculous? Doesn't that match up to exactly what we are able to witness in the universe around us? That all of these processes of chemical reactions, crystals growing, planets orbiting one another, cycles of weather on planets, stars shining forth, (and on our planet specifically) organisms procreating - all of it happens and no one can detect a single hand in play making it all go 'round.

So why, pray tell, would it be "ridiculous" to posit that perhaps there was no hand ever involved? It would seem much more ridiculous to me to have never, ever encountered such a hand, but to posit one anyway.
 
ppp

ppp

Well-Known Member
Wildswanderer said:
Ridiculous is believing that life came out of nowhere for no purpose with no one guiding the process.
Click to expand...
What's that got to do with anything? If you are gonna kvetch about something, then at least be honest enough to get the position you are complaining about right. The fact that you have to resort to guile and deception only speaks to the rickety character of you own beliefs.
 
W

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
A Vestigial Mote said:
And why is that ridiculous? Doesn't that match up to exactly what we are able to witness in the universe around us? That all of these processes of chemical reactions, crystals growing, planets orbiting one another, cycles of weather on planets, stars shining forth, (and on our planet specifically) organisms procreating - all of it happens and no one can detect a single hand in play making it all go 'round.
Click to expand...
Not true. On the quantum level observation effects reality... defying All laws of physics...All that we see is happening for a reason, because Someone is observing and guiding it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top