Do creationists have anything new?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I can understand how someone that is an unbeliever, and someone that has a limited knowledge of scripture can think of God as a monster. Personally speaking I will take God anyway when one considers the alternatives.

Why accept a monstrous god? You believe by faith. Why not believe in a god that isn't a monster. How about one that doesn't know everything and has no way to prevent all of the harm that comes to people? That's a god I could empathize with - one doing all He can.

Or how about a god that gave its life creating our universe, an act so tedious and draining that it killed Him leaving us on our own. That's another god I could respect and feel affection for.

The god of the Old Testament is as Dawkins and others have described it: harshly judgment, willing to torture, quick to anger, self-admittedly jealous, genocidal, misogynistic, etc.. It's a long list of undesirable qualities

I realize that reality concerning gods doesn't depend on what we wish, but why should one hope that the god described therein exists? We would be safer without it. I would gladly give up a shot at heaven for a guarantee not to go to hell if I believed in both. Heaven just doesn't sound all that good.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Behe has repeatedly been proven wrong with his "irreducibly complex" arguments, both in the lab and in the courts. And no creationists have yet to produce one piece of verifiable evidence. It produces nothing, while biological evolution studies continue to improve human healthcare, crop production, etc.

I realize that you are already aware of the following, but I wanted to spell it out:

There will be no irreducible complexity in biological systems if there is no intelligent designer, and since that is likely the case, we will likely never find any until we make it. Man may become the first to create irreducibly complex life on earth. Man may learn to manipulate DNA in ways that nature cannot.

Man already the only known source of specified complexity in living things (Venter left a noncoding verbal messages in the DNA of his semisynthetic microorganisms as "watermarks" to distinguish them from wild strains) : https://singularityhub.com/2010/05/...acteria-has-secret-messages-coded-in-its-dna/

Irreducible complexity is likely dead already. It has no scientific or mathematical definition, and there would be no way to identify it in a biological system if it were present.

One can only claim it, and doing that hasn't worked out so well for the movement. The eye, the bacterial flagellum, the coagulation cascade, and the immune system are well publicized examples of biological complexes originally called irreducibly complex that were shown not to be.

Another problem for the movement is that an object may be irreducibly complex in the sense that it doesn't function if you remove one of its parts, but that that might not be the case if you add something first that was formerly present but has now dropped out.

The example of the Roman arch can be used. The arch is irreducibly complex in the sense that the stones each support one another, and removal of any of them causes the arch to come tumbling down:

Behe: "By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

But replace the removed scaffolding used to construct it - a wooden arch support onto which stones can be added - and the problem vanishes. Sometimes, reducing decrementally requires increasing first.

How can one ever declare any biological system irreducibly complex given it can't be demonstrated more strongly that failing to find a path back to simplicity that nature can follow, which can always mean that we just haven't found that path, not that it doesn't exist.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't believe Jesus was the son of God, he was God. Therefore, I don't believe much of the New Testament. I believe the Old Testament Lord is God.

If it's not too personal to answer, do you call yourself a Jew, Christian, or neither? I've never read these answers before form anybody else. Mostpeople generally accept the New Testament or reject Christ as messiah.

 

[Repox]

If it's not too personal to answer, do you call yourself a Jew, Christian, or neither? I've never read these answers before form anybody else. Mostpeople generally accept the New Testament or reject Christ as messiah.

I don't think there is a religion for me. I accept the OT lord, reject the son of God, but accept Jesus as God. I don't believe anyone holds those beliefs, especially the belief that Jesus was God. I also reject the trinity. I guess I am a real loner.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't think there is a religion for me. I accept the OT lord, reject the son of God, but accept Jesus as God. I don't believe anyone holds those beliefs, especially the belief that Jesus was God. I also reject the trinity. I guess I am a real loner.

OK, thanks, although I don't know what you are rejecting by rejecting the son of God but not Jesus as God.

 

[Repox]

OK, thanks, although I don't know what you are rejecting by rejecting the son of God but not Jesus as God.

OK, thanks, although I don't know what you are rejecting by rejecting the son of God but not Jesus as God.

I think it is important, it is what Christianity is all about. If there is no son of God, there would be no sacrificial lamb for humankind. Also, Christianity doesn't believe God is a duality, it is a Trinity.
I have researched the four gospels and find them to be inaccurate, they were written to promote son of God stories.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think it is important, it is what Christianity is all about. If there is no son of God, there would be no sacrificial lamb for humankind. Also, Christianity doesn't believe God is a duality, it is a Trinity.
I have researched the four gospels and find them to be inaccurate, they were written to promote son of God stories.

Same problem for me. I don't know what you are telling me you believe and don't believe. I think you're saying that Jesus never came to earth and that the New Testament is fiction, and perhaps also that you reject the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

But we can drop it here if you prefer. I was just curious what you believed so that we might discuss it. For example, if you reject the Gospels, what do know about Jesus and how? From reading Paul? I'm not sure that I understand your position well enough to think that that question would be meaningful to you.

 

[Repox]

Same problem for me. I don't know what you are telling me you believe and don't believe. I think you're saying that Jesus never came to earth and that the New Testament is fiction, and perhaps also that you reject the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

But we can drop it here if you prefer. I was just curious what you believed so that we might discuss it. For example, if you reject the Gospels, what do know about Jesus and how? From reading Paul? I'm not sure that I understand your position well enough to think that that question would be meaningful to you.

Sorry to make it so complicated. I believe Jesus was God, God is a duality, and there is no son of God. Therefore. much of the NT is in error. If you reject the Gospels, you have lost nothing because Jesus wasn't the son of God. If you want to learn about the real Jesus (God), read prior gospels, Jesus sayings mostly about the "Kingdom of God." Apparently Jesus movement leaders didn't like them, so they proposed new definitions and stories about Jesus. Instead of Jesus being a wise or sage man, they made him the son of God. Then, they concocted the crucifixion story. It is kind of complicated, you have to follow changes in Jesus stories to understand how definitions changed. See The Lost Gospel Q by Burton L. Mack. I am a scholar, therefore, I do professional research, which has enabled me to find errors in the NT.

 

[Thehoodedmonk]

I believe what God is trying to do is create the perfect existence. But it is not possible to create the perfect existence if one does not know the difference between good and evil. So how does one show the difference between good and evil? What one does to prove the difference between good and evil is to create one who will prove that evil does not work, and that person is Satan the Devil. God created a beautiful creation, here on earth, then he cast down Satan and his angels upon this earth. Does one create a beautiful machine then cast a monkey wrench into it? Yes, if one wants to prove monkey wrenches destroy beautiful machinery. Satan is the monkey wrench, and he and his evil have proven that evil does not work. Of course if one does not comprehend what good is, or what evil is, one would not be getting anything out of life. As it is written: "They shall call evil good, and good evil."

 

[Skwim]

I believe what God is trying to do is create the perfect existence. But it is not possible to create the perfect existence if one does not know the difference between good and evil.

I assume you're saying that in order to have good one must have evil. According to the Genesis story in the beginning god fully intended that man and woman live without evil: in a state of absolute goodness. After creating them he even blessed them. The implication here being that good can indeed exist without evil. It was only after the apple incident that A&E blew god's plan to smithereens by introducing evil into the mix. So it is possible to create the perfect existence without knowing the difference between good and evil. If it wasn't god wouldn't have attempted it. Unless, that is, he's a bit inept.

God created a beautiful creation, here on earth, then he cast down Satan and his angels upon this earth. Does one create a beautiful machine then cast a monkey wrench into it? Yes, if one wants to prove monkey wrenches destroy beautiful machinery. Satan is the monkey wrench, and he and his evil have proven that evil does not work. "

So, if this was his plan all along, knowing that A&E were going to sin, why blame them? Making them ashamed of their nakedness, make childbirth painful, make man have to farm the soil, and kick them out of Eden. It's like putting candy in front of a baby knowing he'll grab for it, and when he does you slap him across the face, never change his wet diaper, and only feed him when you feel like it. When people are set up to surely fail it isn't moral to blame for doing so.

.

 

[Reggie Miller II]

I assume you're saying that in order to have good one must have evil. According to the Genesis story in the beginning god fully intended that man and woman live without evil: in a state of absolute goodness. After creating them he even blessed them. The implication here being that good can indeed exist without evil. It was only after the apple incident that A&E blew god's plan to smithereens by introducing evil into the mix. So it is possible to create the perfect existence without knowing the difference between good and evil. If it wasn't god wouldn't have attempted it. Unless, that is, he's a bit inept.


So, if this was his plan all along, knowing that A&E were going to sin, why blame them? Making them ashamed of their nakedness, make childbirth painful, make man have to farm the soil, and kick them out of Eden. It's like putting candy in front of a baby knowing he'll grab for it, and when he does you slap him across the face, never change his wet diaper, and only feed him when you feel like it. When people are set up to surely fail it isn't moral to blame for doing so.

.

So Skwim, when are you going to have all of your hatred for God out of your system?

What happened to you to cause you to hate God so much?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So Skwim, when are you going to have all of your hatred for God out of your system?

What happened to you to cause you to hate God so much?

Santa Clause must have talked him into it. I'll discuss it with Batman

 

[Skwim]

So Skwim, when are you going to have all of your hatred for God out of your system?

When you stop constructing ad homs to cover up your inability to confront issues head on.

What happened to you to cause you to hate God so much?

The same thing that causes you to hate your mother and father.

.

 

[Reggie Miller II]

When you stop constructing ad homs to cover up your inability to confront issues head on.


The same thing that causes you to hate your mother and father.

.

So you won't say. Got it.

 

[Derek500]

So you won't say. Got it.

Actually, Skwim did answer it eloquently. Skwim wrote: " The same thing that causes you to hate your mother and father."

That is a very good answer. So, he did say. A great answer.

You don't like the answer; that's why you try to wave it away.

 

[Reggie Miller II]

Actually, Skwim did answer it eloquently. Skwim wrote: " The same thing that causes you to hate your mother and father."

That is a very good answer. So, he did say. A great answer.

You don't like the answer; that's why you try to wave it away.

Hello Derek.
I don't hate anyone. So your/his point is moot. And for him to assume anything about me without knowing me indicates his desire for sarcasm and hatred of God without regard for the truth. You seem to sound the same.

 

[Skwim]

Hello Derek.
I don't hate anyone. So your/his point is moot. And for him to assume anything about me without knowing me indicates his desire for sarcasm and hatred of God without regard for the truth. You seem to sound the same.

"And for him to assume anything about me without knowing me indicates his desire for sarcasm and hatred of his mother and father without regard for the truth."

.

 

[Sapiens]

reply to Vancouversailor post #43

If it means anything to you I feel your parents were mistaken for 'shunning' you. Instead of distancing themselves from you they should of embraced you. 'Fundamental Christianity' like 'fundamental Islam' taken too far, not allowing dissent and discussion etc, often perverts the religions into something they were not meant to be IMO. I can say the latter with more confidence about Christianity as I am not an expert in Islam. I should say that I began life as an atheist/agnostic, and become hardened activist atheist before searching for something that made more sense to me. Anyway I suppose it helps me understand you because I feel evolution is correct and is compatible with religious belief. The reason I have little problem with evolution is Evolution really does not concern itself with how life began but what happened to life after it began. So I agree with 95% of the theory. One reason I became attracted to religious belief was the PhD enabled Christian apologists, such as William Craig and others successfully rebutting some of the more aggressive atheists. All that happened about the same time as God was declared Dead by time and every professor on campus with a scientific related degree as attempting to convince the students to hate those with a religious conviction. So being an average angry adolescent student that hated authority I began rejecting the authority of my atheist professors
After college I began researching all the major religions and settled on Christianity as my long term bud. Oh lastly Van I agree 100% with you about the DP. To support the DP makes one an accessory to murder when an innocent man is murdered by the state. However I am pro gun and pro other things~

But not, it seems, pro-truth. Your signature line attributes a quote to Einstein that is one of a bunch of unsourced quotes in the 2006 edition of "The World As I See It." It was no where to be found in the 1949 edition of the same title. This, and other Johnie-come-lately quotes, are certainly not by Einstein. My reseach indicates that it should properly be credited to Doris Lessing, British author and 2007 Nobel Prize laureate. Here is a timeline of the quote's evolution prepared by Quote Investigator:

Below is a summary list with dates of the pertinent quotations. The shared theme was an examination of the connections between chance, coincidence, Providence, and God. The term “Providence” refers to the guardianship and care provided by God, a deity, or nature viewed as a spiritual force. Statements in French are accompanied with a translation.

1777: What is called chance is the instrument of Providence. (Horace Walpole)

1795: Quelqu’un disait que la Providence était le nom de baptême du Hasard, quelque dévot dira que le Hasard est un sobriquet de la Providence. (Nicolas Chamfort) [Someone said that Providence was the baptismal name of Chance; some pious person will say that Chance is a nickname of Providence.]

1845: Le hasard, c’est peut-être le pseudonyme de Dieu, quand il ne veut pas signer. (Théophile Gautier) [Chance is perhaps the pseudonym of God when he does not want to sign.]

1897: Il faut, dans la vie, faire la part du hasard. Le hasard, en définitive, c’est Dieu. (Anatole France) [In life we must make all due allowance for chance. Chance, in the last resort, is God.]

1949: Chance is the pseudonym of God when He did not want to sign. (misattribution: Anatole France)

1976: He defined coincidence as a miracle in which God chose to remain anonymous. (Dr. Paul F. of Indianapolis, Indiana)

1979: A coincidence is a small miracle where God chose to remain anonymous. (Anonymous in “Shop with Sue”)

1984: A coincidence is a small miracle when God chooses to remain anonymous. (attribution: Heidi Quade)

1985: Coincidence is when God works a miracle and chooses to remain anonymous. (attribution: Bonnie Farmer)

1986: Coincidence is God’s way of remaining anonymous. (Charlotte Clemensen Taylor)

1997: Coincidences are God’s way of remaining anonymous. (attribution: Doris Lessing)

 

[Ekleipsis]

You should challenge somebody to prove something and watch what ensues

 

[Thumper]

I assume you're saying that in order to have good one must have evil. According to the Genesis story in the beginning god fully intended that man and woman live without evil: in a state of absolute goodness. After creating them he even blessed them. The implication here being that good can indeed exist without evil. It was only after the apple incident that A&E blew god's plan to smithereens by introducing evil into the mix. So it is possible to create the perfect existence without knowing the difference between good and evil. If it wasn't god wouldn't have attempted it. Unless, that is, he's a bit inept.


So, if this was his plan all along, knowing that A&E were going to sin, why blame them? Making them ashamed of their nakedness, make childbirth painful, make man have to farm the soil, and kick them out of Eden. It's like putting candy in front of a baby knowing he'll grab for it, and when he does you slap him across the face, never change his wet diaper, and only feed him when you feel like it. When people are set up to surely fail it isn't moral to blame for doing so.
.

'We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.” ~ Gene Roddenberry