Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 8 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8
Switch to Forum Live View Too much Bible study...
5 years ago  ::  May 19, 2013 - 4:37PM #71
amcolph
Posts: 20,246

May 19, 2013 -- 1:31PM, five_point_dad wrote:

May 19, 2013 -- 12:44PM, rsielin wrote:


FPD is completely wrong about the creditability of his science miracles, will never concede to being wrong, and probably will never, of course, be able to process the idea that he even could be wrong.


That’s the case with all creationists. They wouldn’t be creationists if they weren’t. Their emeshment with the Bible at the expense of reality and logic is all that feeds their intellect. A severe case of too much Bible study. 


Though on occasion I’ve seen exceptions, FPD actually is less prone to hurl threats and false accusations than most creationists; however, his arguments regarding our natural world reality are just as naive, no better or worse. 




To accuse me of too much Bible Study and hurling fewer threats and false accustions I take as a major compliment.  Thank you, Rsielin! 




It is certainly unusual in a creationist.  That's why I look to you to explain the real "why" of biblical literalism.  If you can't, I don't think any of our other creationists are willing to.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 19, 2013 - 7:11PM #72
rsielin
Posts: 4,997

May 19, 2013 -- 1:31PM, five_point_dad wrote:

To accuse me of too much Bible Study and hurling fewer threats and false accustions I take as a major compliment.  Thank you, Rsielin!


You could say something nice about all the science literate folks on this thread yourself too. Don't you think?


And maybe you could respond to my question for you about the nested hierarchies in post #58. I think I know your answer (It's a miracle) but thought you might add a bit more detail if you could.


Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 20, 2013 - 6:18PM #73
Sigmund
Posts: 1,305

May 17, 2013 -- 2:11PM, five_point_dad wrote:

May 17, 2013 -- 1:31PM, McAtheist wrote:


FPD: As I have said many times, I have no problem with any scientific fact.  It's some of the theories created out of those facts that are the problem.


In what way is "it takes 500 light years for light to move 500 light years" a theory?  That's like saying "it takes a car one hour to travel 60 miles at 60 miles an hour."


Explain how the speed of light is not a fact.


You can't.


Nor can you give the slightest objective reason why crap from your particular theology should be given preferential treatment over the crap from all the other theologies of all the other faiths;  you can't give us a single reason why we should imagine the universe is younger than the facts say than there is to imagine that it is older than the facts say ala Hinduism. 


YECism fails.



McATHEIST: In what way is "it takes 500 light years for light to move 500 light years" a theory?  That's like saying "it takes a car one hour to travel 60 miles at 60 miles an hour."  Explain how the speed of light is not a fact.  You can't.


FPD: I can't?  Some of your colleagues on this board have said on several occasions that science neither affirms nor denies miracles.  The Creator brought the creation into being with light already in transit.  There is no physical restriction on God that necessitates Him creating light in one spot and then waiting for it to travel. 



Except that God is not supposed to be able to lie which is the result of this line of reasoning. Not to mention there is no Biblical evidence for it whatsoever.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 20, 2013 - 6:24PM #74
amcolph
Posts: 20,246


May 17, 2013 -- 2:11PM, five_point_dad wrote:


FPD: I can't?  Some of your colleagues on this board have said on several occasions that science neither affirms nor denies miracles.  The Creator brought the creation into being with light already in transit.  There is no physical restriction on God that necessitates Him creating light in one spot and then waiting for it to travel.




So how do you know that's what He did?  It's not a miracle described in the Bible or handed down by Apostolic Tradition.  Why make it part of your faith?

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 20, 2013 - 6:25PM #75
Sigmund
Posts: 1,305

May 17, 2013 -- 2:19PM, five_point_dad wrote:


May 17, 2013 -- 9:38AM, upsala81 wrote:

FPD, You do not agree with scientific findings. For instance science finds that the universe is about 14 billion years old. Do you agree with that? Also Biblical hermeneutics have nothing to do with science. They don't need to agree. What you ignore is a treasure of Biblical and ANE scholarship that is actually relevant to understanding the Bible.



UPSALA81: FPD, You do not agree with scientific findings.  For instance science finds that the universe is about 14 billion years old. Do you agree with that? 


FPD: Obviously, no scientist was there to see it first hand.  They arrive at that theory by present day evidence.  If God created the universe with the apperance of age--which I believe He did--the facts are correct but the theory would be wrong.  So, no I don't agree to that.  When the Creator made an oak tree, he made it with the concentric rings already in the trunk. 



How do you know this? As you have stated, no one was there to cut it down and look.


He made Adam a full-grown human being with all of his faculties, not an infant.  Scientifically, the conclusion would be that the tree is so many years old by simply counting the rings.  While the scientific fact would be correct that so many rings were found in the tree, yet the theory would be in error.  The tree was just made. 



You've been given several examples of why this line of reasoning is faulty. Why do you not acknowledge them?


And again, appearance of age is not the same as appearance of history.


USALA81: Also Biblical hermeneutics have nothing to do with science. They don't need to agree. What you ignore is a treasure of Biblical and ANE scholarship that is actually relevant to understanding the Bible. 


FPD: Yes, biblical hermeneutics and science do not have to agree.  Who said hermeneutics has anything to do with science?  I said there is no scientific fact that I disagree with, but there some theories I certainly find objectionable.  Incidentally, I have no idea what ANE is? 



How about the scientific fact that evolution happens and at a very slow rate. For the Flood story to be literally true, all animals would have had to evolve at a rate several orders of magnitude faster than what we see today. If they did what stopped hyper-evolution and how? What is your evidence?


BTW, ANE = Ancient Near East

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 20, 2013 - 7:55PM #76
McAtheist
Posts: 9,224

McATHEIST: In what way is "it takes 500 light years for light to move 500 light years" a theory?  That's like saying "it takes a car one hour to travel 60 miles at 60 miles an hour."  Explain how the speed of light is not a fact.  You can't.


FPD: I can't?  Some of your colleagues on this board have said on several occasions that science neither affirms nor denies miracles.  The Creator brought the creation into being with light already in transit. 


First, prove it.  Prove that the universe is as young as you claim instead of 257 trillion years old because god decided to make light move really slowly to make the universe appear younger.


Or prove that the universe wasn't created just as you say, only 36 seconds ago.


Without any sort of objective evidence, what you have is a story. Your story no more makes the speed of light not a fact than Apollo riding in a chariot across the sky makes the speed of light not a fact.


So, let's see if you can substantiate that claim in any way or if this is just more YEC BS.


Second, once you decide that you can discard on a whim any piece of reality that doesn't fit your nursery tale, how do you decide if anything you "know" as factual really is?  You see a green Toyota at the stop light --- was it created in that instant just for you to see?  You step on a tack and it hurts --- or is that all just illusion?  By what criteria do you decide what parts of reality to toss in favor of magic?


Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 20, 2013 - 8:14PM #77
McAtheist
Posts: 9,224

FPD: I said there is no scientific fact that I disagree with, but there some theories I certainly find objectionable.


Bull.  I gave you a set of 6 scientific facts that contradict your Noah's flood crap and you danced neatly onto a moonbeam and away rather than say whether you "disagree" with them or not.


How you could possible know enough to disagree with the theories when you are unfamiliar with the facts that underlie them is just another one of god's little miracles, I guess.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 20, 2013 - 8:39PM #78
upsala81
Posts: 2,733
For FPD if something conforms with YECism it is a scientific fact.  If it doesn't it is "just a theory" and is wrong. Is that not what you are saying FPD?
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 21, 2013 - 6:51AM #79
rsielin
Posts: 4,997

May 17, 2013 -- 2:19PM, five_point_dad wrote:

I said there is no scientific fact that I disagree with, but there some theories I certainly find objectionable.


But you've also said you don't know much science at all. So this really isn't much of a broad statement is it? What about all the science you don't know? Can you make a similar statement that you just "know" for sure there's no fact in science ever that you'll reject because of your religious beliefs? Notice, I say "fact" not what you call a "theory".


Is it that you just "know" in your heart that whatever you don't know, your God can neutralize it with one of your conjured up miracles, whether or not that miracle is mentioned in scripture or not? Does this mean you are intellectually comfortable and prepared to make up whatever miracle will fit the bill? Isn't that the hallmark of pseudo-science? Isn't that ignoring your God's first scripture, his physical world creation? Couldn't one call that blasphemy?

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 8 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook