Creationists' theory in detail

[zaangalewa]

How human beings describe the world with words is not the problem. Formal structures like human language or human mathematics or human laws and other thoughts, which we use to make declarations, are unimportant. The important thing is what is behind the words - what is the nature of all the things, when we speak about - what is the reality of this all. And the reality is very simple in this case: All human beings are religious - whether we like this or not is not the point. It's for me personally for example absolutelly impossible to believe the universe is a senseless thing - and I guess that's for everyone else impossible too. I doubt about the seriousness of people who say nothing makes sense. Without any doubt the world all around us (including us on our own) has a structure. We are the universe. Everyone of us is universe. And the universe has no outside, so it is not possible to get an objective position. Everyone and each thing is always in the middle of the universe (because it expands from all points into all directions). So why needs everyone a whole universe all around? Very simple: otherwise we could not live and not ask such stupid questions. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, then are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Religion is the rebound in god - or the rebound in spirituality: A Buddhist for example is not an atheist, if he believes not in god. And someone, who never believes in anything, what others say to him, is just simple a poor guy, who has on his own not a real idea. This form of belief has nothing to do with religion. But it is without any doubt a form of religious belief not to believe in god and to formulate a not knowable sentence like "God is not existing". If you had really watched the world, in which you live, with the own open eyes, then you never (or nearly never) heard a Christian say "God exists". We do not reduce god to such a formula. We speak about the belief in god. Someone who says "I believe in god" says he trusts in god. He makes not a philosophical or scientific statement with such a sentence. He speaks about his hopes and his way to live. He speaks about humanity and family, about friends, his community, his country, the society and about good ways and bad ways for human beings, who are not lost in the universe, because everyone is a child of god.

'''atheism'' is not a religion

Do you think the human rights are important? Give me an atheistic (an anti-spiritual) reason for this, what you think in this context.

human rights??? how does that get into the discussion?

Think about. I say: God created the natural human rights.

ok............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Okay. You are a funny man.

 

[harmonica]

'''atheism'' is not a religion

Do you think the human rights are important? Give me an atheistic (an anti-spiritual) reason for this, what you think in this context.

human rights??? how does that get into the discussion?

Think about. I say: God created the natural human rights.

ok............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Okay. You are a funny man.

no----you just said ''think about it'''
think about what????

 

[ding]

What has always fascinated me is that some people of faith will look at the world they believe their creator made and completely ignore what he created and how he created it based on their interpretation of a book copied and recopied for millennia by fallible men.

You mean like Thomas Aquinas?

Not impressed. A fine philosopher but a poor scientist.

Not what I asked. I asked did you mean like Aquinas did?

I'm no Aquinas authority but it seems he makes the same error as all non-scientists. He has faith in the truth of the Bible and uses his reason to validate it. Ideally he should start with the world around him and work backwards from that. I'd wager every non-scientist who has ever tried has come up with a unique answer. In other words, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, unless you know the Bible you could never discern God.

He didn’t use the Bible. Which is why I asked you the question.

 

[Mac-7]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Why do you want to know?

arent you a believer in the random, dumb luck theory of evolution?

 

[zaangalewa]

Do you think the human rights are important? Give me an atheistic (an anti-spiritual) reason for this, what you think in this context.

human rights??? how does that get into the discussion?

Think about. I say: God created the natural human rights.

ok............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Okay. You are a funny man.

no----you just said ''think about it'''
think about what????

Let it be. Makes no sense.

 

[harmonica]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Why do you want to know?

arent you a believer in the random, dumb luck theory of evolution?

I know..that's it ..I know it
what's dumb is believing in a Star Trek Energizer

 

[alang1216]

What has always fascinated me is that some people of faith will look at the world they believe their creator made and completely ignore what he created and how he created it based on their interpretation of a book copied and recopied for millennia by fallible men.

You mean like Thomas Aquinas?

Not impressed. A fine philosopher but a poor scientist.

Not what I asked. I asked did you mean like Aquinas did?

I'm no Aquinas authority but it seems he makes the same error as all non-scientists. He has faith in the truth of the Bible and uses his reason to validate it. Ideally he should start with the world around him and work backwards from that. I'd wager every non-scientist who has ever tried has come up with a unique answer. In other words, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, unless you know the Bible you could never discern God.

He didn’t use the Bible. Which is why I asked you the question.

I'm guessing these are what you refer to:

1. Motion: Some things undoubtedly move, though cannot cause their own motion. Since, as Thomas believed, there can be no infinite chain of causes of motion, there must be a First Mover not moved by anything else, and this is what everyone understands by God.
2. Causation: As in the case of motion, nothing can cause itself, and an infinite chain of causation is impossible, so there must be a First Cause, called God.
3. Existence of necessary and the unnecessary: Our experience includes things certainly existing but apparently unnecessary. Not everything can be unnecessary, for then once there was nothing and there would still be nothing. Therefore, we are compelled to suppose something that exists necessarily, having this necessity only from itself; in fact itself the cause for other things to exist.
4. Gradation: If we can notice a gradation in things in the sense that some things are more hot, good, etc., there must be a superlative that is the truest and noblest thing, and so most fully existing. This then, we call God
5. Ordered tendencies of nature: A direction of actions to an end is noticed in all bodies following natural laws. Anything without awareness tends to a goal under the guidance of one who is aware. This we call God

These are arguments from ignorance. We don't know so it must be God.

 

[ding]

You mean like Thomas Aquinas?

Not impressed. A fine philosopher but a poor scientist.

Not what I asked. I asked did you mean like Aquinas did?

I'm no Aquinas authority but it seems he makes the same error as all non-scientists. He has faith in the truth of the Bible and uses his reason to validate it. Ideally he should start with the world around him and work backwards from that. I'd wager every non-scientist who has ever tried has come up with a unique answer. In other words, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, unless you know the Bible you could never discern God.

He didn’t use the Bible. Which is why I asked you the question.

I'm guessing these are what you refer to:

1. Motion: Some things undoubtedly move, though cannot cause their own motion. Since, as Thomas believed, there can be no infinite chain of causes of motion, there must be a First Mover not moved by anything else, and this is what everyone understands by God.
2. Causation: As in the case of motion, nothing can cause itself, and an infinite chain of causation is impossible, so there must be a First Cause, called God.
3. Existence of necessary and the unnecessary: Our experience includes things certainly existing but apparently unnecessary. Not everything can be unnecessary, for then once there was nothing and there would still be nothing. Therefore, we are compelled to suppose something that exists necessarily, having this necessity only from itself; in fact itself the cause for other things to exist.
4. Gradation: If we can notice a gradation in things in the sense that some things are more hot, good, etc., there must be a superlative that is the truest and noblest thing, and so most fully existing. This then, we call God
5. Ordered tendencies of nature: A direction of actions to an end is noticed in all bodies following natural laws. Anything without awareness tends to a goal under the guidance of one who is aware. This we call God

These are arguments from ignorance. We don't know so it must be God.

Not really. I was thinking bigger picture. But you already agreed to that.

I was just pointing out that your original assertion was flawed because we can know God from what he created through reason and experience. No book needed. And we can use science to study what was created to inform our reason.

You know bias goes both ways, right?

 

[ding]

These are arguments from ignorance. We don't know so it must be God.

Often times ignorance is insolent, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[ding]

Aquinas asks, "Why are there rules?" And he concludes "There are rules because there is something beyond Nature that is a Rulegiver. And that is what everybody means by God."

 

[progressive hunter]

youre assuming that the rock layers are an accurate depiction of how life evolved on the planet,,,
which brings us back to is evolution even true,,,

thats called circular reasoning and fails as a fact based scientific practice,,

Incorrect. The fossils found in rock layers are an accurate reflection of what was living at the time the layers were deposited. If those fossils and their timing don't fit into the theory of evolution, the theory would be falsified, not the data. So far, of the trillions of fossils we have found, everyone fits neatly into the ToE. No circular reasoning.

(Sorry for the delay in replying but, for reasons unknown, I had you on ignore.)

that might be true if the geo column existed anywhere other than on the pages of a book

You're obviously not a geologist or someone who lives in an area of road cuts. Drive through western Virginia and every road cut will let you see a series of rock layers. No book required, you can see them for yourself.

arent you assuming those layers are the exact same as those on the other side of the planet,,and also arent you assuming they got laid down over millions of yrs???

YES YOU ARE,,,

Yes and no. The layers shown here are the exact same as those are found in Morocco. No assumptions needed, only your own eyes are needed.

Are these layers millions of years old? Without a doubt if you know geology. Just consider what they have been through. They were laid down as sediments in shallow seas and buried deeply enough to be fused into rock. Then they crashed into Africa and the seas dried up as the land rose. It continued to rise as the layers got folded into anticlines and, like the layers in the photo, synclines. Eventually mountains arose and were eroded once they stopped rising. Then North America and Africa split apart and the Atlantic grew, about as fast as your fingernails grow. That process alone took 60 or so million years. Add in the time for deposition and mountain building and the accepted date for these rocks, 300 million years, starts to make sense.

I'm just talking off the top of my head so the exact numbers are wrong but they are the correct order of magnitude and there is physical evidence to support everything I said. The one making assumptions is you.

no those are not the same layers as morroco,,,

I understand you want to believe what you say is true and thats to bad because theres a lot more truth out there that you choose to ignore,,

 

[Hollie]

Incorrect. The fossils found in rock layers are an accurate reflection of what was living at the time the layers were deposited. If those fossils and their timing don't fit into the theory of evolution, the theory would be falsified, not the data. So far, of the trillions of fossils we have found, everyone fits neatly into the ToE. No circular reasoning.

(Sorry for the delay in replying but, for reasons unknown, I had you on ignore.)

that might be true if the geo column existed anywhere other than on the pages of a book

You're obviously not a geologist or someone who lives in an area of road cuts. Drive through western Virginia and every road cut will let you see a series of rock layers. No book required, you can see them for yourself.

arent you assuming those layers are the exact same as those on the other side of the planet,,and also arent you assuming they got laid down over millions of yrs???

YES YOU ARE,,,

Yes and no. The layers shown here are the exact same as those are found in Morocco. No assumptions needed, only your own eyes are needed.

Are these layers millions of years old? Without a doubt if you know geology. Just consider what they have been through. They were laid down as sediments in shallow seas and buried deeply enough to be fused into rock. Then they crashed into Africa and the seas dried up as the land rose. It continued to rise as the layers got folded into anticlines and, like the layers in the photo, synclines. Eventually mountains arose and were eroded once they stopped rising. Then North America and Africa split apart and the Atlantic grew, about as fast as your fingernails grow. That process alone took 60 or so million years. Add in the time for deposition and mountain building and the accepted date for these rocks, 300 million years, starts to make sense.

I'm just talking off the top of my head so the exact numbers are wrong but they are the correct order of magnitude and there is physical evidence to support everything I said. The one making assumptions is you.

no those are not the same layers as morroco,,,

I understand you want to believe what you say is true and thats to bad because theres a lot more truth out there that you choose to ignore,,

A stunningly,,,,,empty,,,,attempt at argument,,,,,

 

[DOTR]

No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.

Proofs are for mathematicians. Evolution is a natural process, creation is a supernatural process. There are mechanisms proposed for evolution that conform to natural laws, no mechanisms are known for creationism beyond 'breathed life' or the like.

'Natural laws',eh? Yes, the Intelligent Design arguments explain those quite well, unlike the evolution theories, which just pull magical improbabilities out of their asses, and then demand 'gay marriage' out of the nonsense, for some reason, most likely insanity or ideological rubbish.

I have no idea what 'magical improbabilities' you speak of or why 'gay marriage' is relevant but if you imply that ID is not 'magical' I'd be very curious to know how it works. Or are you pulling it out of your ass?

Time stops at the speed of light...the universe is mostly completely invisible matter...if you simply look at something then you change it and cause it to collapse...electrons know they are being observed before they are actually observed in the double slip experiment...entangled particles communicate over any distance...a single celled creature evolved into squirrels and lilly pads.


I dont doubt any of the above. But I cant think of anything "magical" that would be weirder.

 

[DOTR]

Harmonica needs prayer. Major prayer. I'm going to add him to my list.

I couldn’t agree more. There are a few more you need to add to your prayer list.

Ok, just give me their names pls. Thanks!

Me! (every little bit helps)

 

[DOTR]

Are you this delusional at work?
I would fire you on the spot.

Not to worry, I wouldn't work for someone so clueless. Obviously the birth process works, just because you can't understand how it could develop naturally doesn't mean nobody can.

The birth process, as any obstetrician will tell you, makes no sense.

Neither does the human eye, yet both seem to work somehow. No intelligent designer would create either one.

Wrong bucko. It is a tremendously efficient design as evidenced by its success. YOU wouldnt create it that way...but you cant create an eye at all can you? So quiet down there in the peanut gallery.

 

[DOTR]

For years the appendix was the example of choice. Until we discovered that the appendix has a function.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's extremly stupid what you said here. You deleted the answer to this anti-question before you wrote it

That has absolutely no bearing. These are still assertions that you could not possibly know the truth of, yet you assert them as fact. And this bad behavior like you stems from faith, which is making you turn into a liar. Inspect your own bad behavior.

 

[james bond]

No. Except something is wrong with our ideas about entropy and the universe is not flat. And a cyclical universe would not explain why there's not only nothing. Why exists something? What's the "idea" (=reality) behind the existence of the universe and our own existence?

Are you looking at it correctly? When they say flat universe, they are taking a vertical slice. That does follow what the Bible says except that it curves near its edges. We agree on the flatness, but not on the borders. Creation scientists think the universe is bordered. I'm not sure what the curve means or how it is explained.

 

[james bond]

....that's exactly the point of the thread--they don't provide a theory of the creation of man/etc at all...they just try to disprove the theory of evolution

Here's mine about you, you, you.

 

[james bond]

youre assuming that the rock layers are an accurate depiction of how life evolved on the planet,,,
which brings us back to is evolution even true,,,

thats called circular reasoning and fails as a fact based scientific practice,,

Incorrect. The fossils found in rock layers are an accurate reflection of what was living at the time the layers were deposited. If those fossils and their timing don't fit into the theory of evolution, the theory would be falsified, not the data. So far, of the trillions of fossils we have found, everyone fits neatly into the ToE. No circular reasoning.

(Sorry for the delay in replying but, for reasons unknown, I had you on ignore.)

that might be true if the geo column existed anywhere other than on the pages of a book

You're obviously not a geologist or someone who lives in an area of road cuts. Drive through western Virginia and every road cut will let you see a series of rock layers. No book required, you can see them for yourself.

Your millions of years theory is worthless. It's convenient of you to start with what we have in place and no discussion of how it got there.

Anyway, how did these mountains occur? How do you explain those bent rocks?

Moreover, you ignore the seafloor and sedimentary particles. How are these related? Your geology is worthless.

You need to read more carefully, I gave an admittedly brief description of what geologists have learned about the history of these layers:

They were laid down as sediments in shallow seas and buried deeply enough to be fused into rock. Then they crashed into Africa and the seas dried up as the land rose. It continued to rise as the layers got folded into anticlines and, like the layers in the photo, synclines. Eventually mountains arose and were eroded once they stopped rising. Then North America and Africa split apart and the Atlantic grew, about as fast as your fingernails grow. That process alone took 60 or so million years. Add in the time for deposition and mountain building and the accepted date for these rocks, 300 million years, starts to make sense.​

More babbling. Are those your words? No.

All that copy and paste does is raise questions as what happened to Pangaea? How does one explain the deepest oceans and highest mountains? My complaint is your lack of detail and too much reliance on long time. It's evolution of the gaps. Am I just wasting my breath explaining long time is BS?

Moreover, it just assertions as we cannot observe 60 million years. Look what happens when a volcano happens which is much of our Earth. Now what happens when volcanoes happen underneath the sea?