Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Design on a Dime
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 16 of 113 (414571)
08-04-2007 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Hyroglyphx
08-04-2007 2:30 PM


Re: Toughies
I don't know that you mean? Do I believe in evolution? Yes, I do, to an extent. Darwin made some excellent observations with finches and iguanas and what not. He determined how different traits could arise due to mutation (though he didn't fully understand the concept at the time), isolation, etc. But he somehow came to the conclusion that everything is ultimately related to some primordial bacterium, because without it, you must concede that there is/are a Creator(s). This is the issue I have with mainstream Darwinism.
Obviously the question of common descent has nothing to do with the question of the existence of a Creator, and your conjectures about Darwin's motives are both false and irrelevant to the truth of his ideas.
I say "irrelevant" because it makes no odds whether he was motivated by the purest of scientific motives, by a wish to undermine theism, or by a barely-repressed sexual attraction to monkeys. What's important is that he was right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-04-2007 2:30 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 113 (414581)
08-05-2007 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by anastasia
08-04-2007 12:17 AM


Biblical Creation Events
anastasia writes:
I was thinking of having a round-table type discussion with other creationists/IDists of any persuasion, about the specifics of the creation event.
Do you mean events? Like the event of the creation/beginning of the universe, creation of the cosmos, creation of planet earth, creation of solar bodies relative to planet earth , creation of plants and fish and finally creation of animals, birds and man. As I understand the Genesis record there were many creation events each in it's own time and implying an eternal universe and creator/designer.
anastasia writes:
Here are some sample questions:
How long did the creation event last?
Universe = never happened - always existed with God forever managing via creating, revising and destroying for his own purpose and pleasure.
Sun & moon, Solar System and possibly Milky Way = day four, undetermined in length as were the first three days, the sun and moon first created in day four and becoming the measure for length of days et al thereafter.
Earth = Unknown
Plants = one solar day
Birds & Sea life= One solar day.
Animals and mankind, one solar day.
anastasia writes:
When did it occur?
Universe= Again never, being eternal.
Planet Earth = Non-solar days one and two.
Plants=Non-solar day three
Sun, Moon, Solar System and possibly Milky Way= partially non-solar day four.
Birds, sea life = Solar day five
Animals and man = Solar day six.
anastasia writes:
Do you believe it is 'finished', or ongoing?
Ongoing, the next prophesied creation event being the new heavens, new earth and an unimaginably splendorous new Jerusalem, all after millenial messianic rule and subsequent destruction of planet earth, Solar System by fire.
anastasia writes:
How much intelligence or preplanning went into the creation itself?
Imo Biblical account implies all things intricately and intelligently designed individually into completed state absent of NS and RM et al.
anastasia writes:
How much was left to chance?
Total chance = none so far as original creation goes. Some micro adjustment/evolution ongoing.
anastasia writes:
Did God build up the design in small stages which are observable by science, or create 'whole' specimens?
Whole
anastasia writes:
Is God in any way part of the creation, guiding its progress?
All the way, madear, all the way (ABE via his multipresent Holy Spirit).
Thanks for asking all the above. It may clarify positions of us for future reference.
Btw, when do we get your answers to the above questions?
The hour is late & tired. Did brief review for mistakes. Hope not too messed up.
Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.
Edited by Buzsaw, : fix length of time for plants.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by anastasia, posted 08-04-2007 12:17 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 08-05-2007 12:17 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 25 by anastasia, posted 08-05-2007 2:15 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 18 of 113 (414583)
08-05-2007 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Buzsaw
08-05-2007 12:01 AM


genesis 1... reading metaphorically
if we're going to use genesis, let's pay attention to the things it actually says, shall we?
Universe = never happened - always existed with God forever managing via creating, revising and destroying for his own purpose and pleasure.
"the heavens" which contain the sun and moon and stars are created on day two.
quote:
And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
Genesis 1:6-8
Earth = Unknown
earth is created on day three.
quote:
And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good. ... And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
Genesis 1:8-10, 13
Plants=Unknown
plants are also created on day three.
quote:
And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
Genesis 1:11-13
these actions appear to be complete, as god then moves on.
Universe= Again never, being eternal.
Planet Earth = Non-solar days one and two.
Plants=Non-solar day three
Sun, Moon, Solar System and possibly Milky Way= partially non-solar day four.
Birds, sea life = Solar day five
Animals and man = Solar day six.
why the distinction when the text does not make it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 08-05-2007 12:01 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Buzsaw, posted 08-05-2007 12:37 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 113 (414615)
08-05-2007 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by arachnophilia
08-05-2007 12:17 AM


Re: genesis 1... Reading Literally
arach writes:
"the heavens" which contain the sun and moon and stars are created on day two.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
Genesis 1:6-8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earth = Unknown
earth is created on day three.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good. ... And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
Genesis 1:8-10, 13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plants=Unknown
plants are also created on day three.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
Genesis 1:11-13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
these actions appear to be complete, as god then moves on.
The distinctions are clearly implied in the text.
Genesis 1:1 begins with an introductory statement to the effect that when the earth and heavens were created God did it. The actual day one does not begin until the Spirit begins to move upon the desolate void earth. The days are relative to the work being done on each day.
All we know for sure about the length of days one, two, three is that their was no means of determining the days since the sun, moon, solar system, and stars relative to earth did not exist and the length of day four is undetermined also. Therefore the length of those days in not known except for which day.
I edited a change on length of days on plants as that was my mistake in my statement. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
Genesis 1:1's introductory statement is about the cosmos and the planet earth, not the firmament between the earth waters and sky waters/clouds which are relative to only the earth's atmosphere, so day three is not when planet earth was created nor is day two when the cosmos heavens were created.
This thread topic is about your take on the creation account. Why not itemize your own as I have done? Btw, I did have plant day as solar day 3, i.e. one 24 hour day later in my original statement.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 08-05-2007 12:17 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by arachnophilia, posted 08-05-2007 7:09 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 20 of 113 (414618)
08-05-2007 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Straggler
08-04-2007 4:16 AM


Re: Not a Hijacker
Straggler writes:
I thought I would try answering your questions from the context of the creationist position as I (and other non-believers) understand it to be. In the name of clarifying their position maybe a creationist can then tell us where I have got it wrong?
Well, mostly I am hoping that every statement made by a believer won't be met with 'but that is speculation', because I think we know that. The only difference between us is that we {Christians} use the Bible as part of our basis for speculating.
I think your answers are interesting. It is almost as if you have more willingness or ability to believe and imagine, than the actual Christians do, because, perhaps, you are not used to the pressures we have of framing questions or thoughts in an acceptable manner.
Literalists claim six days but there seems to be some internal dispute as to exactly what a 'day' means in the absence of the objects normally needed to define such things (i.e. the Sun)
Sure, and for the record, my own belief has never been that the 'day' was literal, but growing up I imagined it much shorter than I do now.
Around 6 thousand years ago according to calculations of age and geneology stated in the bible starting from Adam. 4002BC I believe was once the official date of creation according to the church?
If we start with a premise that the 'day' is much longer, we could end up with 6000 some years since the 'creation' of man, but the earth could be much older.
I don't remember hearing anything in my church about official dates, but the whole geneology bit is fascinating. What would it take in our day to actually have that kind of shameless guesswork believed?
As I understand it creationist believe that no new 'kinds' are possible but that microevolution and some form of speciation (in the sense of related creatures diverging to the point of being unable to breed together) will continue.
Just out of curiousty, ARE new kinds possible?
Hmm. Enough to make the ongoing existence of humans a certainty at the very least. I would guess most creationists would believe that the initial setup was 'planned' in the sense that it was intended to a very high degree but that subsequent events have been left to the laws of nature initially setup.
That's about what I would say. IN relation to the next question of 'chance', I think God is in some way a tinkerer.
I think this is the key difference between fundamentalists and the majority of believers who accept the conclusions of mainstream science to some degree.
Yes, but I hope or dare say that it is almost impossible to believe any longer that 'whole' creatures were created from nothing.
Hmm. That is difficult. At a 'changing natural laws' or 'interfering in natural processes' level the answer has to be 'no'. But at the same time belief in a personal God does imply that God has a personal interest in the lives of individual humans and the ability to change their lives as the result of prayer or other communication. Unless God is just providing spiritual comfort but not intervening physically in any way this seems internally contradictory so it may well be that I have got that wrong.
Miracles would cover any event that presumes a change in natural laws. That's not where I was going, but I will add to this later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Straggler, posted 08-04-2007 4:16 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Straggler, posted 08-05-2007 2:30 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 21 of 113 (414626)
08-05-2007 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by jar
08-04-2007 11:12 AM


Re: Not so toughies.
jar writes:
Unknown.
How much was left to chance?
Unknown.
It is 100% true that most of these questions are currently unanswerable if we are looking for answers from science.
Of course there is no evidence of 'special creation', but I allowed for it. I was primarily looking for beliefs which included scientific findings, rather than hard-core doubt either way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 08-04-2007 11:12 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 08-05-2007 1:52 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 22 of 113 (414628)
08-05-2007 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by ringo
08-04-2007 12:37 PM


Ringo writes:
Think of God as Donald Trump. He builds a factory to make Trumpmobiles. On opening day, he cuts the ribbon and gives reporters a tour. ("This is the machine that installs the hood ornament.")
Does he get in there with a wrench to adjust every windshield wiper?
Micromanagement on the part of the designer would only indicate a poor design.
You and Straggler seem to have misunderstood that question. A God who has to go back in to adjust is still a detached God, who transcends creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 08-04-2007 12:37 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by ringo, posted 08-05-2007 2:08 PM anastasia has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 23 of 113 (414629)
08-05-2007 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by anastasia
08-05-2007 1:47 PM


Re: Not so toughies.
It is 100% true that most of these questions are currently unanswerable if we are looking for answers from science.
They are unanswerable even if we look outside science. Oh, folk can make up fantasy answers, but so far no one has shown any method of testing those asserted answers other than testing them against reason. logic and reality.
That returns us to science.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by anastasia, posted 08-05-2007 1:47 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by anastasia, posted 08-05-2007 2:28 PM jar has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 24 of 113 (414632)
08-05-2007 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by anastasia
08-05-2007 1:51 PM


anastasia writes:
A God who has to go back in to adjust is still a detached God, who transcends creation.
No, I didn't misunderstand. I'm saying that a god who has to go back and fix his mistakes is no God at all. He's a mechanic. He's a creation of man, created in the image of man.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by anastasia, posted 08-05-2007 1:51 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by anastasia, posted 08-05-2007 2:19 PM ringo has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 25 of 113 (414633)
08-05-2007 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Buzsaw
08-05-2007 12:01 AM


Re: Biblical Creation Events
Whew, pretty in depth, but I expected it from you.
I really did want to start this thread so that for once it was OK for believers to to be as wild as they liked. Spring break.
Buzsaw writes:
Universe = never happened - always existed with God forever managing via creating, revising and destroying for his own purpose and pleasure.
If science proves that the universe had a beginning, what would you do with your current belief? As it stands, is universe = infinite, eternal, uncaused not dangerously similar to casting God as the universe?
Ongoing, the next prophesied creation event being the new heavens, new earth and an unimaginably splendorous new Jerusalem, all after millenial messianic rule and subsequent destruction of planet earth, Solar System by fire.
The Bible does say there will be new 'worlds' in future, but I think you feel that creation is currently at a stand-still? It may be a silly or odd question, but I am tempted lately to view Genesis as happening in 'real' time, having the creation of animals etc. occur over millions of years, and not in one event at some 'beginning of time'.
Whole
How do you really 'know' this?
All the way, madear, all the way (ABE via his multipresent Holy Spirit).
Thanks for asking all the above. It may clarify positions of us for future reference.
Btw, when do we get your answers to the above questions?
The hour is late & tired. Did brief review for mistakes. Hope not too messed up.
I am kind of with you on the 'Spirit' part, but I don't know how you reconcile the 'finished in 6 days 'creation, with God still guiding creation? What is here, obviously changes, and if it is 'God doing it', then creation is not finished.
I have included some of my ideas, but none of them are conclusions. I fell asleep last night while puttng the kids to bed, so I lost my train of thought as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 08-05-2007 12:01 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 26 of 113 (414636)
08-05-2007 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by ringo
08-05-2007 2:08 PM


Ringo writes:
No, I didn't misunderstand. I'm saying that a god who has to go back and fix his mistakes is no God at all. He's a mechanic. He's a creation of man, created in the image of man.
I wasn't talking about mistakes though! If you think nature is full of mistakes, that would reflect on God whether He comes back to adjust personally, or created the mechanisms which do the adjusting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by ringo, posted 08-05-2007 2:08 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by ringo, posted 08-05-2007 2:36 PM anastasia has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 113 (414637)
08-05-2007 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by NosyNed
08-04-2007 2:55 PM


Re: Creation ex nilho
Then I take it that you believe he did this over and over and over again through a long time span?
If God is infinite, then there exists the possibility that He has created and destroyed enumerable creations of His, unbeknownst to us, and that the only reason we are unaware of it, is because it is not applicable to us.
But that's purely speculative, so I don't entertain the thought much. But, yes, I've thought about it.
You talk about canines and felines: once there were neither. So you believe they were created separately long after, say, birds?
I don't understand your question. Can you rephrase this for me, please?

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 08-04-2007 2:55 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 28 of 113 (414638)
08-05-2007 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by jar
08-05-2007 1:52 PM


Re: Not so toughies.
jar writes:
They are unanswerable even if we look outside science. Oh, folk can make up fantasy answers, but so far no one has shown any method of testing those asserted answers other than testing them against reason. logic and reality.
I usually try not to make up answers, or get attached to anything I invent...let alone air it in public spaces. But what if science gave us every answer, and we had no gap for God?
I know you believe in creation, and I have never had the chance to ask outrightly what that entails for you, if it was not a creation which was in any way intelligent or planned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 08-05-2007 1:52 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 08-05-2007 2:54 PM anastasia has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 29 of 113 (414639)
08-05-2007 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by anastasia
08-05-2007 12:49 PM


Re: Not a Hijacker
I think your answers are interesting. It is almost as if you have more willingness or ability to believe and imagine, than the actual Christians do, because, perhaps, you are not used to the pressures we have of framing questions or thoughts in an acceptable manner.
My genuine aim is to be a help not a hindrance in this particular thread. I am glad that you think my contribution so far has met that aim.
I don't remember hearing anything in my church about official dates
Bishop Ussher calculated the date of the Creation at 23 October 4004. My understanding is that this was adopted as the official date of creation by at least one particular church but I am having trouble finding which one it was. It may well be that I have got my facts wrong.
Just out of curiousty, ARE new kinds possible?
I am not sure what exactly is meant by a 'kind'. It is a creationist term that frankly seems fairly loosely defined. As I understand it all forms of canine (dogs, wolves etc.) are one 'kind' whilst all forms of cats (tigers, panthers, lions etc. etc. etc.) are another 'kind'
Whatever the case this fundamentally disagrees with evolutionary theory which is based on descent from a common ancestor. According to evolutionary theory cats and dogs share a common mammalian ancestor and are thus related but seperate species of mammals.
The short answer to your question is 'yes'
New 'kinds' are possible and indeed have occurred (according to evolution) but the term 'kinds' is not a term that has any real meaning within evolutionary science.
That's about what I would say. IN relation to the next question of 'chance', I think God is in some way a tinkerer.
Presumably a chance event that would potentially lead to the extinction of the human race (a comet hitting the Earth for example) would be something that God would actively not allow.
That would be my take anyway.
Yes, but I hope or dare say that it is almost impossible to believe any longer that 'whole' creatures were created from nothing.
Well yes obviously I do agree. BUT this is linked to my question to NJ regarding the extent to which science is effectively irrelevent on the subject of how various life forms came to exist.
For the answer to this we need a real hardcore creationist rather than my adopted role version.
Miracles would cover any event that presumes a change in natural laws. That's not where I was going, but I will add to this later.
Yes I suppose that is what miracles are. I was thinking more along the lines of slightly influencing the life of an individual person on a day to day basis rather than drastic measures such as bringing back from the dead and such like.
BTW Whatever you say I quite like the title of the thread

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by anastasia, posted 08-05-2007 12:49 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by anastasia, posted 08-05-2007 2:49 PM Straggler has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 30 of 113 (414641)
08-05-2007 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by anastasia
08-05-2007 2:19 PM


anastasia writes:
If you think nature is full of mistakes, that would reflect on God whether He comes back to adjust personally, or created the mechanisms which do the adjusting.
Not at all. An experimentalist would watch his experiment unfold with out meddling. He'd be detached. But, if he attached himself to the experiment by making adjustments, he'd be acknowledging his mistakes.
Observation is a higher calling than adjustment. That's why writers are more memorable than psychiatrists.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by anastasia, posted 08-05-2007 2:19 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by anastasia, posted 08-05-2007 2:50 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024