|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 51 (9219 total) |
| |
swooptaxi | |
Total: 920,731 Year: 1,053/6,935 Month: 334/719 Week: 122/204 Day: 14/28 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2815 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined:
|
quote:We can just as easily say: "Its like finding a pile of eroded gravel at the bottom of a cliff and allocating it to a Jewish Wizard." No, you cannot pose that as an analogy. Genesis, unlike other ancient writings, includes names, places, dates, numbers, rivers, mountains, geneologies and 1000's of such identifiable stats. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2815 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined:
|
quote:Infinity is not required to be static. You don't understand. The term static or unstatic is subject to something else being present, equally old and fastidious. But that would also mean the first entity was not infinite - because infinite occupies all finite space, and existed before space emerged. It is thereby not possible to have 'TWO' infinite entities, thus polytheism is wrong and only ONE can apply. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2815 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined:
|
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? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2815 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined:
|
In fact, we know of nothing in the universe which is infinite and not subject to change.
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2815 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
'Nuggin' writes: 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. 'IAmJoseph' writes: 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. 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"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2815 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined:
|
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". 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.
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2815 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined:
|
Your last clause, 'then an infinite can not contain a finite by your standards' is not a follow on. If an infinite produces a finite, the infinite remains unaffected - it is not subject to change. An infinite can not "produce" a finite. In order to do so, it would require change. There would have had to have been a period of time in which the infinite had not created the finite followed by a period of time in which the infinite had created the finite. You're the one who was saying that the Universe 10 minutes ago is different than right now, therefore it can not be infinite. Well, then no infinite can ever produce anything which changes - by your standards.
No, the infinite is unlike the finite in kind than degree; they do not share the same attributes. The infinite is unique. This statement does not address my point. You claim that infinites are not subject to change. Therefore an infinite can not contain nor produce anything finite, since that thing would be subject to change and would be present in the infinite. Again, these are your rules, I'm just using them against you.
Consider that the infinite, lets say represented here with God, does not change by virtue of finite items being produced. The infinite can produce and also un-produce without any rebound effect: this is the meaning of 'I HAVE NOT CHANGED'. Your standard of "no change" precludes God from saying "I have not changed." Communication requires sequence. God, by your standards, being infinite, is incapable of saying "I" followed by "Have" followed by "Not" followed by "changed". All of those words would have to be happening at the same time everywhere and constantly in the past, present and future. Communication is not possible under your laws of "infinite". Further, your claim that the finite was "produced" by but not contained in the "infinite" is ridiculous. The infinite, taking up INFINITE space, can not produce anything which exists anywhere other than within "infinite" space. Therefore, nothing it produces is subject to change because, again, your rule is that no change can occur within the infinite. So, either God is infinite and didn't create the Universe nor is able to communicate with us.OR God is not infinite and lied OR You are wrong about your "the infinite can not contain change" rule OR _IT'S ALL A BUNCH OF FAIRY TALES MADE UP BY JEWISH GOAT HERDERS!!!_
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2815 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined:
|
I point out that Galeleo did not prove the flat earth wrong by demanding proof of a flat earth; he proved that the earth is a speaherical entity which revolves around the sun. You need to look up your history. It was your side of this little debate that told him that the Earth was the center of the Universe in the first place. Because it was in the Bible. The same Bible which can never be wrong. Sounds like you are doing a hell of a job defeating yourself
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2815 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined:
|
Your glitch: The harm caused does not alter the premise you apply it to. What you are saying is that if you produce a master painting, and if John Doe destroys it with an axe, it means the painting was produced by John Doe and not by you. Amazingly, almost all anti-creationists swallow such hog wash as science. Wow, not even close. First of all, one painting is not a population of paintings.Second, paintings do not reproduce themselves. A better view is that both the created entities are given specific attributes which interact with specific results; neither of them are produced by nature or exist without a producer. If by "better" you mean "complete and utter bullshit" then yes. A population of e. coli which does not have the genes necessary to consume citrate by DEFINITION does NOT have the genes necessary to consume citrate. If they evolve those genes through the course of an experiment, that was NOT something which was a specific attribute of e. coli. To say that it was, is to say that ALL possible mutations of ALL genes are a "specific attribute" of "living things". Such a statement would be meaningless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2815 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined:
|
The Hebrew bible is unique among all scriptures in not saying the earth is flat - get your facts righted. "corners". Enough said. Spheres do not have corners.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2815 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined:
|
Enough not said. Please show us where it says the earth is flat in the Hebrew bible or anywhere in past history where people were persecuted for disputing this. You are confusing your bible and too embarrassed to admit this. Aside from the aforementioned Galileo you mean? Any discussion of the numerous problems within the Bible would need to be in a Bible errors forum. Since such a discussion here would get squashed for being off topic. If you'd like to start a "prove to me the Bible is wrong" thread, Im sure you'll get plenty of company.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2815 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined:
|
quote:First of all, one painting is not a population of paintings. Second, paintings do not reproduce themselves. Wow. Really? Gee thanks. You seemed confused.Do you understand now why you comments were so far fetched and frankly mentally deficient? instigating an offspring while disregarding the host seed "Host seed"? Give me a break. I'm not going to argue against an endless flood of make believe crap. If we discuss "host seed" you'll say the "host seed" is proven by the "divine power" which is supported by "essential essence" which in turn is evidenced by "the innate energetic". It's all woo woo blah.
A seed following its own kind is "complete and utter bullshit" Can you find me a single example of a seed which produces a plant which is not produced by the seed which produced it? Seems like you're arguing yourself into an ever shrinking spiral on that one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2815 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined:
|
Why don't you start a discussion how FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH = a square? Squares require equal sides. Four corners does not necessarily mean equal sides. Trapezoids have 4 corners and unequal sides. But, like I said, this and many other areas where you are apparently without education would be handled better in threads dedicated to them. This thread is about how Creationists can't seem to think straight. While your posts are great examples of this, correcting your endless examples is unfortunately not on topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2815 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
'Seed' refers to a male and female ['host parentage'] issue ['output'], which reproduces the offspring. There is no way around this equation, nor a better way to say it There are COUNTLESS examples of life forms on this planet that don't reproduce sexually and/or don't have traditional "male/female" sexes. So, I'd say there are PLENTY of ways "around this equation".
The same goes for the first recorded listing of life form groupings by terrain and habitat, as in Genesis, aka 'species' today Ridiculous. The Egyptians recorded all that stuff, you can still go see it. Not to mention it's also present in cave art in France, rock art in Australia, etc. You keep making these claims that Genesis was the first recorded instance of X, Y, Z, but Genesis is YOUNGER than Egyptian heiroglyphs. YOUNGER than the Book of the Dead (after all, that's where Moses got the 10 commandments). You need to rethink your timeline.
These are 100% vindicated today, while it would be astonishing if such premises were even considered and proven wrong. Genesis poses a double whammy of being correct as well as proving itself right in comparison to ToE. Must be very difficult for you to admit this - very fundamentalistic. You keep making this claim without anything to back it up. It's based on false assumptions by you and a woefully inaccurate timeline. How old do you think Genesis is? When was it written? By who?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2815 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Tell ME, how they get variation within a kind Um, why don't you start by telling us what "a kind" is? I thought you were arguing for ID, not Creationism. Again, the exact same thing, I know, but you seem to want to pretend they are different. "kind" is a Creationist term. Does ID use Creationist lingo now, too? Kind of undercuts your (not "you're") claim that the two are different. Are you saying that variation can happen in the "kinds" of animals that the "Jewish Designer" "Designed" in Genesis? LOL. You feel that sinking feeling? You're standing in quicksand.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025