Creationist survey

[pgrmdave]

Okay, you win. I cannot back up any of my arguments with research or facts, merely with feeling. As much as I try to translate my instincts into a coherent, cohesive argument, I fail miserably, you are right and I must change my views...the sun is spherical, there, I said it, now I can never go back.


But I still believe in god

[infamous]

When offering up topics for discussion that are logically not proveable, how absurdly cruel to wrongly criticize others for speculating about alternative views by telling them that they have no proof.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Freethinker

1) Which version of Creation? The one in Gen 1 or Gen 2? They contradict each other in terms of process. Which came first, next...

2) Even Gen 1's Creation myth does NOT coincide with our Scientificly supported process. The claim is bogus. Let's start easy so you can follow

Gen 1:1-3 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

So it starts out by stating that the EARTH was created at the very begining of the process. Yet we know that the earth did not exist until WAY after the BB. It goes on to say that god created water before there was light. Yet we know that particles, photons, LIGHT, were some of the first results of the BB. Before even complete atoms and WAY before heavier elements and complex molecules like H2O.

We could look at the other absurdities such as how the "Earth" could BE the "Earth" if it was "formless and empty". By it's very defintion, the Earth must have a VERY SPECIFIC form and be made out of STUFF (NOT "empty") How can something that is "formless" have a "surface"?

Do I need to go on?


No one can support a claim that the biblical creation myth and factual science "do agree". It's absurd!

However I also respect your right to ignore FACTS if you so choose.

FT,

Basically the BB does not fit at all. The first day, formless to light can fit a model of the
birth of a star. From there the Earth, and so forth. Basically describes the notion of
Evolution (which Creationists abhor). I will check out again both Genesis 1 & 2. Where I
remember they differ much is in the tale of serpent+apple+etc. I will read them again.

I was not attempting to say Religion is Scientific. Yes, that is silly. I am saying the stories
in religous texts descriptively coincide with know theories or facts. I am not forming conclusions
from this just stating them. You form your own conclusions.

I do see that Religion (all of them) need a bit more science and logic in their grounding to
be useful in the new millenium. Likewise some sense of spirituality needs to be inserted
into science as well. This may come in the form of discovery. Who knows...

Maddog

[Stargazer]

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

But I still believe in god

Which one and why?

[pgrmdave]

Does it matter? I believe in the god in which I believe, I don't know if he is the same as anyone else's, and I can't describe him perfectly, so I don't think I'll ever know. I believe because...it feels right. I can't explain it any better than that, and I know I could never sway anybody's thoughts. I was an atheist for most of my life, and was able to come up with all of the arguments that have been used against me, and I stumped many believers not too long ago. Only about two years ago did I lose faith in atheism, mostly because I had to accept that if this were a completly deterministic universe, then it could never have had a first event (big bang) without outside interferance. As for why I believe in god...I can offer no explanation, no rational, merely my reason - it feels right.

[Stargazer]

Atheism is a lack of faith - but you probably knew that, since you once were one. Also, we simply do not know how this universe came about, so the most honest answer right now should be "we don't know" instead of making something up - especially if it's only to feel good.

[pgrmdave]

It's not to feel good, there was a long period when I no longer denied the possibility of god, but I didn't believe in him, more of an agnostic than an atheist, but definitely not a christian. But then at some point in my life, it felt right to believe. Not good, necessarily, right.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Stargazer

So exactly how does the poetic accounts in the Bible (written by people who did not know more than we do now) and real science agree?

Seen as a series of stories, you can make the story fit the data.

Originally Posted by Stargazer

Not so. If you would have evidence of a creator, then we can discuss how to interpret them to understand the creator. Now when we don't any such thing, I suppose to say that there is a creator is completely superfluous and therefor not in agreement with the scientific method.
"God did it" is not an explanation of any observations, it doesn't predict anything and it just adds to the mysteries instead of explaining them.

You misunderstood. I am refering that you have an interpretation to what I said. I have
mine. I don't have a problem with you and yours. Why do you have a problem with mine.

Originally Posted by Stargazer

I don't understand why it's a volatile subject.

Duh... Maybe the number of post on this thread, where some of the responses have been
rather indignant.

Maddog

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Freethinker

I asked you to provide factual proof to the bible stories, (contemporary eyewitness) specifically it's Jesus fairytales. Rather than even bother trying the impossible, you have wasted all of our time with attempts to change the subject.

Why can't you either provide the requested factual information or admit it does not exist? (It's a rhetorical question, I KNOW why you can't, your a Christian)

The question as to whether it is exist is like attempting figure out how big is infinity or the
value 0/0 (indeterminate). I'm saying that such evidence could exist or not. I would though
hypothesize that if it did you wouldn't find such (at least not w/o some kind of time loop).

Maddog

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Freethinker

Believers never want to subject their personal philosophys to the same level of review as a non-believer will subject their personal philosophy. Excuses are always given as to why they can't or minimally should not. Yet non-believers never seem to have that failing or fear.

A non-believer will apply the same level of logic and reason to everything while a believer will draw that arbitrarly line in the sand and cry foul when expected to live up to a non-believers level of logic and reasoning.

Don't blame us that you can not support the philosophy you base your lifes work on. We are not the ones with that problem. And don;t expect us to acccept excuses either. We don;t need them, why should we accept others excuses?

All you are doing is showing us why belief is so empty.

Belief does not require evidence. Skepticism does.

However, to put any theory to task and corroborate as factual bears the brunt of all that
can shoot it down. It only takes evidence of one counterexample. This is why it is a lot
easier to disprove something than prove it.

I don't claim such in what I have posted this thread. Just a conjecture of a way one can
interpret various books from the bible as coinciding with know theories of science. I am
only thinking this may have where/how they originated.

You can disbelieve a hypothesis all you want. I haven't seen a valid counterexample has
been brought up, not to say that it doesn't exist - just haven't seen it.

Maddog