Jump to content


Can You Distinguish Between Different Supernatural Origins?


  • Please log in to reply
92 replies to this topic

#21 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 04 December 2008 - 02:00 PM

I don't think we can remove anything.  And I especially don't buy your argument that you can equate atheism and polytheism.


I’ll just pray you have a ‘Eureka!’ :rolleyes: moment someday. Stick my claim in the back of your head and let it marinate, you’ll see I’m right. :lol:

I'm not saying this in an absolutist sense, either. I'm saying that the underlying beliefs of polytheists are always ultimately making even the gods subject to some form of nature. God’s that are subject to something or someone else fall short of the only true and even logical nature of God.

Because I want to make clear I'm engaging in a thought experiment here, so my personal philosophies are being checked at the door.

View Post


Let’s say that’s true, then what principles are you applying, right now, to test and analyze this dialogue?

#22 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 December 2008 - 02:32 PM

Sure but they don't take up as much room or consume as much food. Also, an infant T-Rex would be a little more approachable then one of the full grown suckers.

The only animals that would have a time sensitive age, were the mammals that would have had to be old enough to be weaned. Dinosaurs could have gone on the boat in egg form since many none-mammals are self-sufficient right at birth, even though this isn’t alluded to in scripture.

I don't know about you, without even knowing what kind of diet they had before the flood, I think Mrs. Noah would find baby tigers a little easier to feed and care for.


But this is completely missing the point. The point is not about food consumption on the Ark. The point is about food consumption after the flood ended and the animals were rebuilding their populations to stable levels.

You basically have two problems:

1) Enough vegitation for the herbivores.
2) Enough herbivores for the carnivores.

Problem is the predator-prey relationship between carnivores and herbivores. Too many carnivores and herbivore population gets devestated. Too many herbivores and the plant population gets devastated. And given we are starting out with breeding populations of, for the most part, 2 animals per "kind" a single animal death wtihin that first precious year or so is enough to make an entire line of animals extinct.

Also, I would speculate from what the Bible says that there were no purely carnivorous animals before the flood and the plant life was much more robust before the fountains of the great deep broke open.


This purely speculative. Besides, you're telling me that the Felidae family of carnivores evolved in only a few thousand years from a non-carnivorous ancetor? And you guys say *we* have faith in evolution. :D

#23 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 04 December 2008 - 02:48 PM

But this is completely missing the point.  The point is not about food consumption on the Ark.  The point is about food consumption after the flood ended and the animals were rebuilding their populations to stable levels.


We should really start a new thread with this but you really underestimate the regenerative power built into the earth's vegetation and organisms.

You live in the north. Any forests nearby? Every once in a while some timber clearing will be done. They make a mess and clear out large tracks of trees. The result is a mess; equipment tracks, mud puddles, and just a general devastation. The following season it is greener then when they started. It’s not trees but those low lying fast growing shrubs and weeds are thicker, greener and more lush then what those tall trees offered from years of growth. Then a couple years later there is a dense forest of small trees.

This purely speculative.  Besides, you're telling me that the Felidae family of carnivores evolved in only a few thousand years from a non-carnivorous ancetor?  And you guys say *we* have faith in evolution.  :D

View Post


I admit to my faith so let me see, yup... well, let me look again... yup, I'm still being honest.

You're the one with the problem. You deny what is a faith (almost a blind faith) in evolution. You can laugh at me all you want about believing the animals were once all herbivores.

I'd rather have faith in that mystery, then faith in believing that the universe popped into existence on its own and the DNA code of mud is the source of all the DNA code on the planet. :D

#24 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 December 2008 - 03:06 PM

We should really start a new thread with this but you really underestimate the regenerative power built into the earth's vegetation and organisms.

You live in the north. Any forests nearby? Every once in a while some timber clearing will be done. They make a mess and clear out large tracks of trees. The result is a mess; equipment tracks, mud puddles, and just a general devastation. The following season it is greener then when they started. It’s not trees but those low lying fast growing shrubs and weeds are thicker, greener and more lush then what those tall trees offered from years of growth. Then a couple years later there is a dense forest of small trees.


Apples and oranges. The Flood (according to most creationists) was an event that re-arranged the entire Earth's geology. You'd have entire areas stripped to bare rock or other areas having huge layer of sediment deposited on them.

Again, this is just what I've read in the creationist literature. Supposedly the level of devastation from the flood compared to timber clearing would be like comparing a 50 megaton nuke to a firecracker.

I admit to my faith so let me see, yup... well, let me look again... yup, I'm still being honest.

You're the one with the problem. You deny what is a faith (almost a blind faith) in evolution. You can laugh at me all you want about believing the animals were once all herbivores.


It's about evidence, though. You can claim that you think they descended from a herbivorous ancestor. Fine, where's the evidence?

And just to let you know, a mummified lion was found in Egypt dating to about ~1500 BC. That's about 500-1000 year window from the time of the flood for your diversification to take place.

#25 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 04 December 2008 - 03:46 PM

Apples and oranges.  The Flood (according to most creationists) was an event that re-arranged the entire Earth's geology.  You'd have entire areas stripped to bare rock or other areas having huge layer of sediment deposited on them.


Even you admit variations of the resulting devastation, so why is it so hard to believe that some areas weren't decimated as much or even very little. Well, seeing that I believe that God had His hand on Noah, I would say He preordained a resting area that was of the less devastated variety. :D

It's about evidence, though.  You can claim that you think they descended from a herbivorous ancestor.  Fine, where's the evidence?


Welcome to our world, all we want is evidence for evolution and all we get are ad hoc interpretations and anecdotal evidence. At least we have an eye-witness historical document that lines up perfectly with what we see on this scarred up planet.

And just to let you know, a mummified lion was found in Egypt dating to about ~1500 BC.  That's about 500-1000 year window from the time of the flood for your diversification to take place.

View Post


I think we focus on tooth structure as a necessary proof of whether an animal is an herbivore, omnivore or carnivore, way too much. There’s much variation today that can’t perfectly determine the diet of an animal. My dog has primarily a fortified grain diet, and guess what? He’s not mutating into a horse.

Except for the occasional unlucky frog, panda bears are perfectly fine engaging in a herbivorous diet (big mean teeth and all... :D)

Posted Image

You can equivocate all day long about how they're specially suited for eating bamboo shoots. The bottom line is this. If you found this: a fossilized panda with no present day pandas, you evolutionists would assume it is a carnivore.

Fruit bats are good examples too. I know; "...but they're specially adapted."

#26 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 04 December 2008 - 03:51 PM

I think this thread has been derailed :D

#27 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 04 December 2008 - 05:07 PM

No event in history can be demonstrated to have taken place by use of purely experimental methods. Proper investigation of history includes all methods known to the historic sciences.

Simple.

#28 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 December 2008 - 06:04 PM

I think this thread has been derailed  :D

View Post


Agreed, let's get back on topic...

#29 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 December 2008 - 06:05 PM

No event in history can be demonstrated to have taken place by use of purely experimental methods. Proper investigation of history includes all methods known to the historic sciences.

Simple.

View Post


This doesn't answer the challenge in the OP: Brahma created the universe. Prove me wrong.

#30 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 04 December 2008 - 06:25 PM

This doesn't answer the challenge in the OP: Brahma created the universe.  Prove me wrong.

View Post

I see two challenges. One in the title, and one in the question "Does anyone agree with this and if not how would you demonstrate this is incorrect?"

I don't know if anyone agrees with you. As for distinguishing, the story should distinguish itself. When stories are identical, they aren't different.

In history, there is no rule that all cases of conflicting accounts can be resolved. However, there are rules about self-contradiction. Many of the stories of Brahma are incompatible with each other. Until you specify which Brahma stories you accept and which you reject, I don't think there's much point.

Now if you want to make up a new story of your own, that's fine too. One needs to know what one is investigating.

#31 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 04 December 2008 - 08:43 PM

Now if you want to make up a new story of your own, that's fine too. One needs to know what one is investigating.

View Post


Darwin made one up just to show how easy it is... :D

#32 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 December 2008 - 08:05 AM

Agreed, let's get back on topic...

View Post


Can you answer my previous question?

Because I want to make clear I'm engaging in a thought experiment here, so my personal philosophies are being checked at the door.

View Post


Let’s say that’s true, then what principles are you applying, right now, to test and analyze this dialogue?

#33 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 December 2008 - 11:19 AM

Can you answer my previous question?
Let’s say that’s true, then what principles are you applying, right now, to test and analyze this dialogue?

View Post


That Brahma is the creator of our universe and that no apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts this belief.

I call it "the Answers in Genesis approach". :D

#34 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 December 2008 - 11:21 AM

In history, there is no rule that all cases of conflicting accounts can be resolved. However, there are rules about self-contradiction. Many of the stories of Brahma are incompatible with each other. Until you specify which Brahma stories you accept and which you reject, I don't think there's much point.


There are no conflicting accounts. Any perceived conflicts can be easily explained by the divine will of Brahma.

#35 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 December 2008 - 11:41 AM

There are no conflicting accounts.  Any perceived conflicts can be easily explained by the divine will of Brahma.

View Post


Well, I guess you're a good candidate for preaching evolution because you have no respect for logic. You fit right in with the New Agers. “We believe all religions are equally valid…”

Here read this and tell me your post-modern approach is so great:

This is Creed by Steve Turner.
(I Think he’s making fun of the caricature of "reality" that the post-modern philosophy self-generates)

We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don't hurt anyone
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in s@x before, during, and
after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy’s OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything's getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there's something in horoscopes
UFO's and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,
Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher though we think
His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same-
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of creation,
sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.


We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens
they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its
compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps
Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn

We believe in Masters and Johnson
What's selected is average.
What's average is normal.
What's normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and
bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors .
And the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good.
It's only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that
is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth
that there is no absolute truth.

We believe in the rejection of creeds,
And the flowering of individual thought.


If chance be
the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky
and when you hear

State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man
worshipping his maker.


#36 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 December 2008 - 11:55 AM

Shpongle,

You haven't taken your philosophy and stuck a pin in it. All of your comments right now are functional examples of how you view being “rational” about abstract reasoning. It seems to me that your idea of abstract reasoning means; "Beyond the hard sciences, I just make up my own reality, like evolution."

Until you’re ready to take your God given ability to detect truth seriously, you'll continue to deny the knowability of truth for your own purposes. I don’t pretend to know what they are but this is the way I see it.

Baloney detectors are great but the hardest thing to do is to turn it, and point it at your self.

Maybe you're a skeptic. How does a skeptic find truth without abandoning his core belief?

Adam

#37 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 December 2008 - 12:05 PM

Shpongle,

You haven't taken your philosophy and stuck a pin in it. All of your comments right now are functional examples of how you view being “rational” about abstract reasoning. It seems to me that your idea of abstract reasoning means; "Beyond the hard sciences, I just make up my own reality, like evolution."

Until you’re ready to take your God given ability to detect truth seriously, you'll continue to deny the knowability of truth for your own purposes. I don’t pretend to know what they are but this is the way I see it.


I think there's a lot of irony in your statement. ;)

But again, this is all a thought experiment, this isn't about my personal philosophies here.

Now: Brahma created the universe. Prove me wrong.

#38 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 December 2008 - 12:29 PM

I think there's a lot of irony in your statement. ;)

But again, this is all a thought experiment, this isn't about my personal philosophies here.

Now: Brahma created the universe.  Prove me wrong.

View Post


Shpongle, if I believed that I didn't exist, how would you prove me wrong?

Seriously, what’s your foundation? You’re asking for proof and you can’t even tell me your approach so we can discover whether it’s rational or not.

If you can’t tell me your foundational philosophy why should I waste my time defending views to someone who doesn’t respect truth?

I’m done if you refuse to be rational and answer this question. How do you arrive at truth beyond the testable, repeatable kind? Do you believe in the law of non-contradiction or not?

Wasting time with someone who doesn’t believe in truth is not my bag.

#39 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 December 2008 - 02:39 PM

Seriously, what’s your foundation? You’re asking for proof and you can’t even tell me your approach so we can discover whether it’s rational or not.


The foundation is that Brahma created the universe.

#40 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 December 2008 - 03:32 PM

The foundation is that Brahma created the universe.

View Post


Well, I guess you don't get what I'm saying. I remember you saying how important it is to have proper communication. Now I see that you really didn't mean it.

I was giving you too much credit, Shpongle. You’re just here to waste time.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users