Do creationists have anything new?

[A Vestigial Mote]

I don't think that their glory will not last for much longer though.

Hmm... double negative. You're not saying what you think you're saying.

 

[Skwim]

Hmm... double negative. You're not saying what you think you're saying.

Sure (s)he did. "I think that their glory will last much longer."


.

 

[MansFriend]

You have been interacting with "creationist clowns", and not those that adhere to the truth of Genesis. All creationist doctrines are foolish, in error, and misrepresent the book of Genesis. The book of Genesis does not have any "Creation accounts". Genesis chapter two is about the history of modern mankind, starting in 7200 BC, with the making of Adam, then the modern animals, and then Eve. Chapter one is not "Creation Week", but seven different days, taken from seven different weeks, taken from seven different time periods of Earth.

Before trying to learn about the seven days in Genesis, first become familiar with the Seven Feasts of Yehovah, as given to the nation of Israel. The order of the days in Genesis follow the order of the feasts. Only the Fourth Day was from Creation Week.

Herman Cummings
[email protected]

This is somewhat close but still off the mark from how I understand things.
The Creation account is a symbolic blue print of how PEOPLE would become organized over 7 millennia.
This is affirmed by Genesis 2:4 that explicitly lays it all out as a symbolic representation of PEOPLE saying: "These are the generations..."
There is overlap between two adjacent cycles of Creation where the 1st Day and the 7th Day are concurrent: The Alpha and Omega Millennium.
There is a redeemed Adam (Elohim) and His Christ (Seth or Son of Man) in the beginning who rule and reign during the 1st Millennia.
There is a new Adam (Michael) and His Son (Abel) in the ending who lay the new foundation of the new Creation in the 6th Millennia but who fall and are martyred.

There is a lot more to this, but this at least gives you a glimpse.

 

[MansFriend]

To add to my previous post...

This means Biblical "cosmology" only draws upon the physical cosmos for purposes of having symbols.
When the Bible talks about...

"the greater light to rule the day"
"the lesser light to rule the night"
"the stars"
"fishes"
"fowls"
"creeping things"
"man"
etc. etc.

...it is talking about PEOPLE.

And, if you look at each Day of Creation, you are finding out which millennia the people those symbols represent manifest.
For example, who during the 4th Millennia asked people to consider Him the "Light and Life of the World"?
Further, what religion came about in the 5th Millennia that resulted from the "fishers of men" who put fishes on their cars?
What major world religion comes in the 6th Millennia that claims to be the fullness of the Father and to have dominion over all Creation?
Except that major world religion transgresses and is ousted from its Garden of Eden and is thrust to a lone and dreary wilderness?
And, what major world religion spawns a faithful "manchild" while in the "wilderness" and another son who is a deluded liar and a murderer?

I could go on and on....

The point is, all of the language of holy writ is encoded meanings that need to be deciphered.
All those who fail to recognize some level of encryption has taken place will draw many erroneous conclusions.
Biblical creation has no direct bearing whatsoever to the actual creation of our physical cosmos.
Therefore, there is no actual need for any conflict to exist between Biblical Creation and actual cosmology.
So, I tend to say to my alleged Bible believing brothers and sisters, please leave cosmology to the cosmologists.

 

[Deeje]

Hmm... double negative. You're not saying what you think you're saying.

So my whole post was about one typo? Yep, nit pickers will do that.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Metaphysics, the supernatural, abnormal entities and spirits are extraordinary claims.

Some of the people who study spiritual metaphysics, the supernatural and super-normal, and the philosophies of those beliefs etc of have PhDs and multiple advanced degrees. These are the kind of people who I would want to 'vet'** or support my claims of the subject I was debating. Or If I were claiming various facts and figures etc on other 'normal' subjects while discussing or debating a subject that supported my claims I should 'vet' or support the more questionable claims I make with experts. If anyone wants to fact check me great! That is not an insult because l don't make stuff up (lol).

** Vet........
[vet]
check · examine · scrutinize · investigate · inspect ·

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

>>>>>>>>>PARTIAL QUOTE>>>>>>>>

...Yep that's it - that's what we were "whining about"...and BTW - shouting it doesn't make your statement any more correct. Here's another example...Well now, if we are talking about telling lies...your contention that the Piltdown fraud was "ignored" for decades is utter rubbish. In 1913>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>SNIP FOR BREVITY<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I couldn't find a copy of that paper online but here's a link to a 1917 paper that refers to it - the author in this case thought Piltdown to be genuine but the first paragraph shows that even in the first two or three years after the "find" the scientific community was skeptical.

By 1953, the "find" was thoroughly discredited scientifically and publicly - just 4 decades after the "lie" was perpetrated. Even so, Piltdown remains one of the worst examples of scientific fraud going uncorrected for a relatively long period. But even that compares very favourably to a couple of millennia - the time it has taken so far and the frauds committed to writing in "Holy Scripture" are still believed "in some circles" despite having been debunked centuries ago!

Still I am correct. 40 years of deception and fraud. And the entire point I was making is that if science describes the way one understands reality, ie uses science to 'make sense of the universe', one risks his or her idea of reality to be fraudulent. Yes science corrects itself, even if sometimes it takes forty to seventy years but it does. However there might be a problem. What if the correction was just as fraudulent or mistaken as the original mistake? How many well meaning science minded people died in that 40 years believing a lie?

As far as religion is concerned the bible or Koran (Quran) or the (Egyptian) book of the dead or any major organized religion is science oriented. Neither does the leadership of such religions claim their holy scriptures describe the sciences. So your attempt to disrupt or to ? religion fails.

 

[Jose Fly]

Still I am correct. 40 years of deception and fraud. And the entire point I was making is that if science describes the way one understands reality, one risks his or her reality to be fraudulent.

So relative to the topic of this thread, we all know that Piltdown Man is a century old story that creationists love to point to, and have been doing so for decades upon decades. The question is......to what end? Like I asked earlier, Piltdown Man was a deliberate fraud, therefore............?

Above it seems like your answer is something like that because Piltdown Man was a fraud, science is untrustworthy as a means of determining reality. Is that correct?

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

So relative to the topic of this thread, we all know that Piltdown Man is a century old story that creationists love to point to, and have been doing so for decades upon decades. The question is......to what end? Like I asked earlier, Piltdown Man was a deliberate fraud, therefore............?

Above it seems like your answer is something like that because Piltdown Man was a fraud, science is untrustworthy as a means of determining reality. Is that correct?

Come on you are not dumb and maybe this will dash your hopes but I am not either! I have addressed every concern you mentioned sometimes more than once in this thread. So let me try this again. I and other religious types use piltdown because its a well known fraud. There other examples of fraud, some fairly recent I could have used along with unintentional mistakes but then I would spend the next 20 replies verifying vetting and posting validations. Its just more simple to use piltdown to get the point across. The point is ; #167 " And the entire point I was making is that if science describes the way one understands reality, ie uses science to 'make sense of the universe', one risks his or her idea of reality to be fraudulent."

Why is that important? An extreme example but one that will get the true point across is the following; imagine that the entire theory of evolution was proved to be fraudulent. Yes, yes, yes, I know that is outlandish, but this is a thought experiment. So would you still say it doesn't matter, science will correct itself (eventually)? I am not saying give up science because we have built our world around it for better or worse. It provides a lot of food ...for the rich and wealthy, wealthy compared to Haitian or Ethiopia standards. It provides Air conditioning from the hot sun in places like Africa, India and Cambodia...well for maybe 20% of the population...But one day if greed does not destroy us first maybe science will redeem itself....that's a big MAYBE!

 

[siti]

An extreme example but one that will get the true point across is the following; imagine that the entire theory of evolution was proved to be fraudulent. Yes, yes, yes, I know that is outlandish, but this is a thought experiment. So would you still say it doesn't matter, science will correct itself (eventually)?

So on that basis I assume that you would equally dismiss the entire spectrum of religions since there have unquestionably been frauds in that field, so suppose the entire notion of religion was proved to be fraud - yes, yes, yes, I know that the vast majority of them already have been proved to be fraudulent but there is still a chance that one of them might turn out to be honest and true - so would you still say it doesn't matter, religion will correct itself (eventually)? Or what about an even more mundane thought experiment, do you flatly refuse to put your money in the bank because there have been proven cases of fraud by bank employees? Or do you put your life on the line by refusing any medical treatment because there have been fraudulent doctors? I'm sorry Mr Mr - but your argument is the very epitome of silliness - and that, like evolution, is an observable fact - not a mere thought experiment!

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

So on that basis I assume that you would equally dismiss the entire spectrum of religions since there have unquestionably been frauds in that field, so suppose the entire notion of religion was proved to be fraud - yes, yes, yes, I know that the vast majority of them already have been proved to be fraudulent but there is still a chance that one of them might turn out to be honest and true - so would you still say it doesn't matter, religion will correct itself (eventually)? Or what about an even more mundane thought experiment, do you flatly refuse to put your money in the bank because there have been proven cases of fraud by bank employees? Or do you put your life on the line by refusing any medical treatment because there have been fraudulent doctors? I'm sorry Mr Mr - but your argument is the very epitome of silliness - and that, like evolution, is an observable fact - not a mere thought experiment!

Firstly God can not and has not be proved false. God is the main player unlike in science where there is no central leader or component that causes a system failure for lack of a better word. The moral of this reply is this; if anyone can prove God does not exist I will be the first to become atheist.

 

[Thehoodedmonk]

I've been (in various ways) interacting with creationists for over 20 years now. Part of doing that included reading up on the history of creationism and the people who advocate it, so I consider myself to be pretty well versed in creationism and the arguments its adherents put forth. But in looking over the threads here and the discussions therein, something stands out to me......while the creationists who show up and argue for creationism may change over time, the actual arguments they make don't. IOW, the cast changes, but script remains the same.

I've seen many of my fellow science defenders express frustration and/or boredom with how this all goes, where a set of creationists will show up, make a set of arguments, we counter them, and those creationists eventually leave only to be replaced by a new set of creationists who make the same arguments all over again.

Just today I see Guy T. argue that if something isn't experimentally reproduced, it's not science. I've been seeing that sort of ignorant argument from various creationists for years.

I see Deeje saying there are no transitional fossils and making claims about "kinds". Again, I'm sure most of us science defenders have heard that from creationists countless times.

The creationist argument that evolutionary theory is facing "imminent demise" is ridiculed as "the longest running falsehood in creationism", because it can be traced back to 1825! Yet creationists still repeat it today (e.g., the "Dissent from Darwin" list).

For the creationists, I have to ask a couple of things. First, do you even realize that these tired old arguments and talking points have had absolutely zero impact on science? Creationists have been making claims about transitional fossils for over a century, and what impact have they had on paleontology? None. So what exactly do you think will change by repeating them yet again?

Finally.....do you have any new arguments? As noted above, none of your old arguments have impacted science in any way at all, so do you keep repeating them simply because you have nothing else?

 

[Jose Fly]

The point is ; #167 " And the entire point I was making is that if science describes the way one understands reality, ie uses science to 'make sense of the universe', one risks his or her idea of reality to be fraudulent."

Right, exactly as I described.

So now the question is, do you apply this same line of reasoning to other areas? For example, if we can find cases of deliberate fraud within the history of say.....Christianity, would you apply the same standard you do to science, and conclude that those who rely on Christianity to understand reality run the risk of their idea of reality being fraudulent?

Why is that important? An extreme example but one that will get the true point across is the following; imagine that the entire theory of evolution was proved to be fraudulent. Yes, yes, yes, I know that is outlandish, but this is a thought experiment. So would you still say it doesn't matter, science will correct itself (eventually)? I am not saying give up science because we have built our world around it for better or worse. It provides a lot of food ...for the rich and wealthy, wealthy compared to Haitian or Ethiopia standards. It provides Air conditioning from the hot sun in places like Africa, India and Cambodia...well for maybe 20% of the population...But one day if greed does not destroy us first maybe science will redeem itself....that's a big MAYBE!

I guess I'm still at a loss to understand your point then. Now it looks like you're saying, yes there are cases of fraud in the history of science, but it's no big deal because science eventually corrects itself, and because of that we shouldn't "give up on it".

So if science is no more or less prone to frauds than any other human endeavor, and it has a built-in process for identifying and correcting fraud, then what was your point in citing Piltdown Man?

 

[Thehoodedmonk]

All right, you want something new, well here it is: There is not one word in the Bible against evolution, in fact the Bible supports evolution! Here is the proof: After the flood God said to Noah "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. Why did God use the word "replenish"? The reason God used the word replenish is because everyone else had died in the flood. But it just so happens that God said exactly the same words to Adam and Eve: "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." Question: who was Adam and Eve replacing? The answer is the "ape men". It was God who created evolution, in fact as I see it, God himself is a product of evolution. If one understands what Satan is trying to do, and understands what God is trying to do one knows fairly well what is going on in a basic sort of way. Satan is trying to become god, God is trying to create the perfect existence. God has been at this endeavor for a long time and is going to achieve it, that is why it is called "The Great Day Of The Lord".

 

[siti]

Firstly God can not and has not be proved false. God is the main player unlike in science where there is no central leader or component that causes a system failure for lack of a better word. The moral of this reply is this; if anyone can prove God does not exist I will be the first to become atheist.

Who said anything about God? I was talking about religion. And the moral of this reply is - if you continually find yourself lacking "a better word", better keep the one you have to yourself and avoid making yourself look even sillier than you already did.

 

[siti]

Why did God use the word "replenish"?

Aha! You don't get us that easily! He used that particular word because he had the American Standard Version at the time.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So my whole post was about one typo? Yep, nit pickers will do that.

Technically not a typo. You spelled everything correctly... even used correct grammar. It was about you saying the complete opposite of what I figured you probably meant. And I only knew that from the context of the rest of the post. I honestly don't care whether you say things correctly or not... get your point across accurately or not, but I figured you might. Guess I was wrong.

 

[Reggie Miller II]

Do creationists have anything new?

Not in about 10,000 years or so...

 

[Thumper]

Firstly God can not and has not be proved false. God is the main player unlike in science where there is no central leader or component that causes a system failure for lack of a better word. The moral of this reply is this; if anyone can prove God does not exist I will be the first to become atheist.

Ok, but first you must define what you mean by "god" to a level that some determination of existence can be made.

The properties of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence themselves are not reasonable properties for consideration.

The quality of being omnipotent (all powerful) is an impossible property, either in reality or even in the imagination. Quite simply, can an omnipotent being make an object so big that even he can't lift it? Any answer leads to a being that is less than omnipotent. We know this as kids, but are quickly taught to not ask such questions.

Omniscient (all knowing) doesn't fair any better really. An omniscient being would know everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen. Which makes all human activity preordained, even me typing these words would be scripted and known by such a being from time immemorial.

Omnibenevolence (all loving) leads to the problem of evil. Which is, as Epicurus put it: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

And when you start to combine these properties with something like "creator of everything" and "hell" you invariably end up with a horrific monster deity that defies rational justification.

 

[Jenny Collins]

I don't recall saying that. Could you point out where I did?



There are many forms of creationism.



It's not so much that it's boring as it is an interesting fact that creationists seem to recognize that their arguments have had no impact on science and that they have nothing new, yet they continue to repeat the same failed arguments over and over and over. From a behavioral standpoint, it's rather fascinating.

You think they are failed, they dont