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

I too see ID as a shy attempt of acknowledging Creationism - for which there are no scientific alternatives. At least they figured that out. There is only ONE kind of Creationism:That which states the creation is finite, lists actual historical names and items which could only exist or not exist in its described time and state and be able to withstand scientific knowledge with no contradictions 1000's of years later. That is why forum headings are seen as CREATION VS EVOLUTION 1000's of years later - like today.Pls call me when someone comes up with an alternative to Creationism based on an absolutely finite universe. I will hand you my nobel prize.

quote:

---

As I pointed out before, you can't prove that the Universe is finite. That's an unsupported claim.

---

Its not unsupported:1. The uni was not infinite 10 seconds ago - its expanding. Hello?!
2. Nothing in the universe is w/o subject to change: an infinite cannot change and still be infinite.
3. An infinite cannot contain finite stuff; a finite cannot contain infinite stuff.Your resting premise is unscientific because it ignores all scientific evidence and relies only on scaling every rock and hole in the universe.

quote:

---

Second, MANY MANY MANY people on the thread have already pointed out a number of errors in Creationism, not the least of which is the fact that there are multiple versions of Creationism with timelines that vary so absolutely radically as to completely negate one another.

---

There is no multiple versions but expansions and continuity only. The first chapter describes a non-personalized vista; the second graduates to a personlized one with human names. It is the correct way to describe origins; names are limited to 6000 years only. Relying on your bogus and desperate view to claim MANY MANY MANY is hardly any at all.

quote:

---

And, ALL of these timelines are based on the same single source of evidence which itself has been demonstrated to contain errors.

---

Challenge: name a single math error, never mind MANY, MANY, MANY!?

quote:

---

1) The universe can be both expanding and infinite at the same time.

---

No sir.

quote:

---

You are assuming that the expansion that happening around us is connected to some sort of edge getting further away.

---

No I do not make that assumption at all - its your own. There can be no edge beyond a finite universe, nor anything else outside which is contained inside. Infinite = 'ABSOLUTE' infinite. No space, no energy, no light, no darkness, no forces, no paralel or multiverse - nothing; this contradicts the finite factor; it does not exist.

quote:

---

There's nor reason to assume that. You can be a part of infinite space AND have things around you getting further away from you at the same time.

---

Then it was not infinite 10 seconds ago before it expanded.

quote:

---

2) Of course things can change within an infinite space. It's ridiculous to claim otherwise.

---

Then you misunderstand what change actually is. Technically, when something is changed - whatever changes it transcends it; the changed entity is no longer. That is the application here. Infinity is not subject to change - that is why everything in the universe is finite - it is subject to change;that is also why there is nothing in the universe which is not subject to change. Without change there can be no death or decay.

quote:

---

3) Of course an infinite space could contain finite stuff, however, there's no evidence that the Universe contains "finite stuff".

---

Everything we see in the universe is finite.

quote:

---

We can only see a certain amount of the Universe. Beyond that point, we have no idea how much "more stuff" there is or isn't.

---

Your math is poor. The age of the uni X expansion velocity gives a reasonably good ratio of the universe's limits.

quote:

---

So, again, your claim that the universe is "finite" is NOT supported.

---

The term 'of course' is moot here. Of course a finite universe is supported by most minds; the BBT is based on it. Of course it is not appreciated for its clear negation the uni just happened: there is no science or logic of any kind whatsoever in a finite realm happening of its own. Its like finding a car on Mars and allocating it to weird weather patterns. Try explaining the issue from a finite universe position - see how everything falls in a heap. That's why!

I accept the Genesis claim as scientific and profound the universe began and continues by magestic laws and engineering, because when I look around - it is absolutely vindicated everywhere, aside from being a most scientific premise.I also accept Genesis' claim that once there were no laws and nothing was identifiable as a seperate entity. Stars did not exist during the BB event because there was no 'star laws' yet, so to speak. Space bodies did not revolve around other space bodies because there was yet no 'LAW OF GRAVITY'.Science is a definition of how laws operate. No laws = no science. This makes science just one of many other faculties, like math, history, geography, etc. Nothing more. It is an error to worship science as a causative mechanism.

No such thing as Infinity Plus 10 or minus 10. Your slight of hand casino science only proves my case: your infinity was not infinity 10 seconds ago. Plus/Minus Infinity is also a contradiction in terms.Why not reconsider it before being on auto-defense. Think 'ABSOLUTE' finite instead, and by a process of elimination decide what other explanation can be subscribed to the emergence of the universe, if any, other than creationism. Be assured I won't go on auto-defense and treat an intelligent answer respectfully. Hint: Its a scientific issuee, not a theological one! Just because we cannot prove infinity in a vase, it does not mean we must thereby accept a totally unscientific premise never seen anywhere, which itself is unprovable. The sound premise applies. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

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. Wizards are not brave enough to do that - they cannot put such stiff on the table and have them vindicated 1000's of years later. No one has aside from Genesis. The first recording of the River Tigris and Mount Ararat are listed in their correct locations with amazing aeriel photography directions. Do you have an analogy another writing can match that?

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.When one nominates static [changes], without realizing it they are talking about a 'finite' entity only. In contrast, the only mark of infinity is 'change'. Think of an infinite mouse and a finite elephant: if the mouse can be squashed it means it was not infinite; if the mouse prevails the elephant which is later dead, it means the elephant was finite. Only 'change' impacts here.Further, the only way one can describe infinity 3000 years ago, is to say:
I KNOW YOUR GREAT GRAND PARENTS - THEY BECAME OLD THEN DIED AWAY - BUT I HAVE NOT CHANGED.

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.

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!

quote:

---

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.

---

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:

---

If an infinite contains a finite and the finite is subject to change, then the infinite would also be subject to change.

---

No, the infinite is unlike the finite in kind than degree; they do not share the same attributes. The infinite is unique.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.