|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 51 (9221 total) |
| |
danieljones0094 | |
Total: 920,782 Year: 1,104/6,935 Month: 385/719 Week: 27/146 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3994 days) Posts: 2822 Joined:
|
quote: 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.
quote: No, the infinite is unlike the finite in kind than degree; they do not share the same attributes. The infinite is unique.
quote: Your conclusion is devoid of any reasoning. 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'. This can be rationlized by the simple example of a pristine, absolute 'ONE' entity; this actually does not exist in the universe. All things in the universe require an interaction with something else to produce an action; a true absolute one, with no internal or external componenets, indivisible and irreducible, and which can produce an action with no help from another interacting entity, does not require this facility. This is the deeper meaning of 'GOD IS ONE', well stated as the fulcrum description of the God definition. ONE = infinity; it does not exist in the universe technically. Dwell on it from a scientific/mathematical view.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3994 days) Posts: 2822 Joined:
|
quote: There is no such mechanaism, a factor which anti-creationists fully rely on. IMHO, if there is no alternative to Creationism, than it stands; creationism is also a scientific premise [cause & effect], while its antithesis [causeless effect] is not. 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. Anti-creationists do not provide such a counter: they reject and object with no alternatives provided. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2819 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 2819 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3994 days) Posts: 2822 Joined:
|
quote: 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. 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. There is no such thing as nature in actual terms - this is just a metaphor we use to explain a state of being or an existing structure. An eco-system is the result of balanced interactions between many items with attributes - these are only conducive to a transcending governing source, else science is obsolete.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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. No, what he is saying is that we can CLEARLY demonstrate natural selection through experimentation. You can tell that 'cos of the way he said: "we can CLEARLY demonstrate natural selection through experimentation".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3994 days) Posts: 2822 Joined:
|
quote: Now I see why you are so confused. You are mixing your bibles up. Genesis does not say what you do. In fact when one examines the calandar structure in Genesis, there is no possibility of not ascribing it only to a solar system with rotating and revovling sphears. The Hebrew bible is unique among all scriptures in not saying the earth is flat - get your facts righted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3994 days) Posts: 2822 Joined:
|
One can clearly tell there is no such thing as NS; there is only a seed factor with a directive program which governs the resulting offspring. 'A SEED SHALL FOLLOW ITS OWN KIND' is the earliest scientific equation pertaining to reproduction which humanity possesses. ToE missed it and never even mentions it. Try doing w/o it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2819 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 2819 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
One can clearly tell there is no such thing as NS; there is only a seed factor with a directive program which governs the resulting offspring. 'A SEED SHALL FOLLOW ITS OWN KIND' is the earliest scientific equation pertaining to reproduction which humanity possesses. ToE missed it and never even mentions it. Try doing w/o it! If you rewrite that in English, I shall tell you why it's wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3994 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Re english.
I don't read 'the four corners of the earth' as a reference to a square. You do. You have a problem relating to creationism which is very close to theological disdain seen among the many religions. Your understanding of science is very questionable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3994 days) Posts: 2822 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3994 days) Posts: 2822 Joined:
|
quote: Wow. Really? Gee thanks. However, one cannot point to nature for instigating an offspring while disregarding the host seed, now can they?
quote: Nature done it. A seed follows nature's kind. A seed following its own kind is "complete and utter bullshit"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2819 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025