My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)

Okay, then we could just as easily say:"Its like finding a pile of eroded gravel at the bottom _the white cliffs of Dover_ and allocating it to a Jewish Wizard".There. Perfectly the same.

So, let me understand you position better.It seems like you are saying that:
A) If something changes, then it must be finite.
B) We can observe change within our Universe, therefore it is finite.
C) There can not be both a finite thing and an infinite thing in existence at the same time.Does that sum it up?

quote:

---

Okay, then we could just as easily say:

​

"Its like finding a pile of eroded gravel at the bottom _the white cliffs of Dover_ and allocating it to a Jewish Wizard".

---

Fine. Now show us how your smart response makes this cliff the first recording of them white cliffs - or that this fantastic Jewish song classic is the first song ever recorded. Easy, huh?

quote:

---

It seems like you are saying that:
A) If something changes, then it must be finite.

---

Absolutely. If one does not understand that they don't infinite or finite, both definitions introduced in Genesis, which is apparently also out your radar.

quote:

---

B) We can observe change within our Universe, therefore it is finite.

---

That's a half sentence full of half smart nonsense. In fact, we know of nothing in the universe which is infinite and not subject to change.

quote:

---

C) There can not be both a finite thing and an infinite thing in existence at the same time.

---

What I said was a finite cannot contain an infinite. It is proof there is no infinite part in this finite realm. One of them is subject to change, the other not.

quote:

---

That doesn't make it scientific.

​

In order for the claim to be scientific, you would have to be able to present an experiment through which we could falsify at least one of the mechanisms behind the claim.

​

What mechanisms are given in Genesis?
What experiment can we run to test one of those mechanisms?

---

Its 100% borne out by science.Its very easily proven, both that the concept was introduced in Genesis and that it is scientifically correct and vindicated today. If the text is correctly read, it is said when there was no other entities around at one time: this is borne out by the claim of the BBT as a minimum; namely that if the BANG was the first one, it also follows there was no other BANGS around. Otherwise the entire BBT becomes superfluous, or worse, even meaningless.But Genesis goes further than that in showing us what 'first' really means: the term 'first' cannot apply here, because first means there were others and that the first bang was first among others. This is technically incorrect - its not like a sprint race where one player comes first among other sprinters: that is not the 'first' which applies here. Note that the first day is NOT listed as first day in the Genesis text, but stated as 'day one'. Why is that - is it a typo? And how come the next day is again NOT listed as 'day two' - which it should as the follow-up from the previous verse in Genesis, but instead listed as 'second day'; third day, forth day, etc - another set of typos? - or, come be honest for a change - you missed the irony of it's deep science?So yes it does make it a most scientifically profound one!

quote:

---

There's no aeriel photography at all in either of my King James or RSV. Could you scan what's in your version and post it here?

---

You are quoting books which are new and subject to being lost in translation. Maybe you can explain how Genesis can tell us the correct location of a mountain and a river which are mentioned for the first time in all writings? I find such a feat nigh impossible even at the dating of the dead sea scrolls period, 250 BCE. That is why I used the term 'aeriel' - because it defies our sensibilities and is ironic if not astounding and mysterious. I don't leave out the juicy bits as you do.

quote:

---

I KNOW YOUR GREAT GRAND PARENTS - THEY BECAME OLD THEN DIED AWAY - BUT I HAVE NOT CHANGED.

​

I know from experience that when you capitalise your scripture it means you are making it up.

---

Better, you know from experience you have no response. Only the last line was in caps as a conclusion, and I never made it up - Genesis did. It is also correct.

If you're implying that he's misrepresenting Hoyle, I doubt it. The man really was crazy as a loon.

The subject heading is totally ridiculous:My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)There is no way one can understand the first verse of chater two, other than it is a conclusion of the first chapter and a follow-up to it. Get real:

quote:

---

Genesis Chapter 2
1 And the heaven and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

---

As if that is not enough, the next verse is this beauty, even listing the next day what was ended in the previous chapter. Chapter 2 goes mathematical, starting with 7th day after listing 6:

quote:

---

2 And on the seventh day God finished His work which He had made

---

And none responded intelligently!

First you show me where it mentions a car in Mars in the Bible.You can only judge my analogy against the original analogy.Good luck.

Since you say that the finite can not contain an infinite, and you say that an infinite is not subject to change in any part at any time, then an infinite can not contain a finite by your standards.If an infinite contains a finite and the finite is subject to change, then the infinite would also be subject to change.So, the Universe is subject to change. It can not contain something infinite. It can not be contained in something infinite.So, you are saying that God is finite.

quote:

---

In what way is it not science.

---

I think that I already pointed out clearly, if you still can't get to the point but with strawman arguments, I can't help that much.Science is the use a very specific method to confirm a specific kind of truth, that is, the kind of truth on how things repeating themselves by following rules (such as physics laws and natural rules). If you can't falsifyably and predictably reproduce any random species specified by anyone, you can't claim that there is a repeating process called "natural selection" or "evolution".By far ToE can't predictably reproduce a human, a monkey, a dog, a cat...you name it. It simply says, ToE doesn't possess the predictability to be called a science. And since your can't predictably reproduce over 99.99% species on earth (i.e. you lack predictability on 99.99% species) while you declare that ToE shall work on 100% species on earth, that's not science.If you can't establish a model capable of repeatedly and predictably reproduce any specified species, there's no way that we can scientifically falsify your claiming that a repeating process called evolution ever exists.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.Edited by Hawkins, : typosEdited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

Not so fast. Read what I wrote.In order for the claim to be scientific you would have to be able to present an experiment through which we could FALSIFY at least one mechanism.I'm not asking you to come up with an experiment which confirms your claims. Your claims are circular at best. Weaselly shifting definitions at worst.No, if you want to be science, you need to provide us with an experiment that can DISPROVE the mechanism which the Jewish Wizard used for Creation.Do you have such an experiment?Can you even describe for us the mechanism in terms other than "Jewish Magic"?

quote:

---

Not so fast. Read what I wrote.

​

In order for the claim to be scientific you would have to be able to present an experiment through which we could FALSIFY at least one mechanism.

​

I'm not asking you to come up with an experiment which confirms your claims. Your claims are circular at best. Weaselly shifting definitions at worst.

​

No, if you want to be science, you need to provide us with an experiment that can DISPROVE the mechanism which the Jewish Wizard used for Creation.

​

Do you have such an experiment?

​

Can you even describe for us the mechanism in terms other than "Jewish Magic"?

---

That's why creation is a religion instead of a science.On the other hand, scientific falsifyability refers to how you failed the prediction. That is, if you failed to predict the outcome by the use your laws/rules developed, your laws/rules are automatically falsified.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

That's retarded. Literally.First of all, we can CLEARLY demonstrate natural selection through experimentation.Take ANY population which contains genetic variability. Expose them to ANY source of harm or potential benefit. Apply time.The INITIAL POPULATION will have a specific set of genetic variables. The RESULTING POPULATION will have a different specific set of genetic variables.That's a prediction and it supports natural selection and evolution.Here's your falsifiability: At the end of the experiment, no matter how long it runs, the genetic variability in the INITIAL population is EXACTLY the same as the genetic variability in the RESULTING population. Ridiculous.Can geologists reproduce the Grand Canyon? No? Does that mean that Geology is not science?
Can Volcanologists reproduce Hawaii?
Can Astronomers reproduce a supernova in a different galaxy?
Can a meteorology reproduce a hurricane?ToE does not need to reproduce an existing species in the lab to demonstrate that the mechanisms which are in play are there.Your idea of what is or is not science is not based in reality.