Jump to content


Photo

Creation Is ...


  • Please log in to reply
94 replies to this topic

#41 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 12 September 2009 - 06:39 AM

Dean Kenyon would be your guy. He wrote one of the most complete theories on abiogenesis in his work 'Biochemical Predestination'. He totally rejects it now.

View Post

Okay, good start. We have the guy, now do we have the article? Or am I going to have to borrow a copy of Pandas and people too? Seriously, I'm not going to have any time for novels at this rate :huh:

Regards,

Arch.

#42 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 12 September 2009 - 06:46 AM

All I've seen is this:

Evolution might be possible and any argument against it, must be 'Goddidit'  :huh:

View Post


Abiogenesis might be possible. And yeah, so far the only argument put forth has been "Goddidit". If there's a third option let me know, I'd love to hear it :huh:

But that's not the point here Adam. Ryyker said science has disproved abiogenesis. So far you're the only one who's put anything forward to back up this statement.

If people are going to make such outlandish claims I expect them to back it up. So far the example Ryyker has given is:

'Why don't you prove me wrong'

Which first of all is not an example, and secondly the burden of proof is on him. Honestly I don't care at present whether he's right or wrong, I just want to see the point backed up.

Regards,

Arch.

#43 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 12 September 2009 - 07:29 AM

Okay, good start. We have the guy, now do we have the article? Or am I going to have to borrow a copy of Pandas and people too? Seriously, I'm not going to have any time for novels at this rate :huh:

View Post

How about a movie?



Dean Kenyon is a key contributor to this documentary.

You need to ask yourself what the 'goddidit' argument actually is. First, realize that it is only an informal logical fallacy. It has no formal argument. It would be like me saying that a 'designerdidit' is an illegitimate form of argument but having no structural reason for why this is so. If it is then why would you receive it when I showed you a sculpture and said a designer did it?:

Posted Image

The really cool thing about that sculpture is that it has no function or purpose beyond a curious type of beauty and the only empirical reason for it's existence is a 'designerdidit' :huh:

#44 Ryyker

Ryyker

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Age: 38
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 12 September 2009 - 08:19 PM

Yes, I consider astrology at one point in history to have been scientific. Why? Because people tested it! Yes, it was found wanting and has since been stricken from the textbooks. But the methods of testing it were scientific. Same goes for evolution. The theory can be tested. If it can't be tested, it can't be found false (like God). So make a choice, either it's testable or not. If it's not testable, it can't be falsified. If it's testable, it can be falsified. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I very well may, but so far it's falling apart on logic and I haven't even opened the book yet :blink:

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


I did not ask if you considered Astrology scientific at one point in history. If you wish to answer a question a poster has asked then answer the question the poster has asked.

I see you provide no counter argument to post #23 and just carry on as if it does not exist. This is poor form.

Abiogenesis might be possible. And yeah, so far the only argument put forth has been "Goddidit". If there's a third option let me know, I'd love to hear it :)

But that's not the point here Adam. Ryyker said science has disproved abiogenesis. So far you're the only one who's put anything forward to back up this statement.

If people are going to make such outlandish claims I expect them to back it up. So far the example Ryyker has given is:

'Why don't you prove me wrong'

Which first of all is not an example, and secondly the burden of proof is on him. Honestly I don't care at present whether he's right or wrong, I just want to see the point backed up.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


I did not say that science had disproved abiogenesis. I would not say something I disagreed with. I hope this was an honest mistake. Saying science has revealed something is utterly implausible is very different to saying science has disproved something.

#45 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 September 2009 - 02:09 AM

I did not ask if you considered Astrology scientific at one point in history. If you wish to answer a question a poster has asked then answer the question the poster has asked.

View Post


"it was found wanting and has since been stricken from the textbooks. But the methods of testing it were scientific."

It is not science. The methods used to prove it wasn't a science, were scientific. Sorry if that wasn't obvious.

The point is you said that macro-evolution was not testable, then proceeded to use the fossil record as evidence against it. If you can use evidence against a theory, then it is testable. So, is macro evolution false (testable) or untestable (unable to tell if it's false or not). It has to be one or the other and cannot be both.

I see you provide no counter argument to post #23 and just carry on as if it does not exist. This is poor form.

View Post


It is not your job to police. I will return to Walter's questions when I have had sufficient time to consider them. I have an itch in the back of my mind that says there is some terrible logic behind the astrology argument, but I haven't as of yet figured out what the problem is. When I do, I'll return to the question.

I did not say that science had disproved abiogenesis. I would not say something I disagreed with. I hope this was an honest  mistake. Saying science has revealed something is utterly implausible is very different to saying science has disproved something.

View Post


If you think abiogenesis is a scientifically valid theory then we are in agreement. My apologies if I read it wrong.

Regards,

Arch.

#46 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 September 2009 - 02:25 AM

How about a movie?

View Post


*Shudders* Over an hour long? Any chance there's a summary somewhere? Finding the time to go through that isn't going to be easy. If you really think it's worth it I'll try, but you'll be waiting a while for a proper reply :blink:

You need to ask yourself what the 'goddidit' argument actually is. First, realize that it is only an informal logical fallacy. It has no formal argument. It would be like me saying that a 'designerdidit' is an illegitimate form of argument but having no structural reason for why this is so. If it is then why would you receive it when I showed you a sculpture and said a designer did it?:

View Post


I accept the 'designer did it' in the case of the sculpture, not because it's a good argument, but because I subconsciously add to it myself.

I would easily accept someone telling me an artist created this piece because I have seen thousands like it before. I have on occasion seen artists creating such works. I'm also pretty confident if we gave it to a lab we would find finger prints and other markings that would support this opinion.

On the other hand, I have never seen God in the process of creating. All things in this world I have seen created, were created by natural processes, or men. I also have no idea what the fingerprint of God would look like, so submitting to a lab would be a waste of time.

That is why I accept "designerDidIt" and not "GodDidIt".

The really cool thing about that sculpture is that it has no function or purpose beyond a curious type of beauty and the only empirical reason for it's existence is a 'designerdidit' :)

View Post


Hehe, I'm a 3D animator remember :P I'm still young in this industry, but understanding art is part of what I do. Would you like a brief art lesson on why this exists? At the end of the day it only exists because someone decided to create it, but there are plenty of possible reasons as to why.

Regards,

Arch.

#47 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 13 September 2009 - 04:40 AM

Hehe, I'm a 3D animator remember :blink: I'm still young in this industry, but understanding art is part of what I do. Would you like a brief art lesson on why this exists? At the end of the day it only exists because someone decided to create it, but there are plenty of possible reasons as to why.

View Post

I used the word 'empirical' very deliberately in my statement. :)

#48 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 September 2009 - 05:19 PM

I used the word 'empirical' very deliberately in my statement. :blink:

View Post

Oh I thought as much. But that makes it a pretty useless statement then. It was created because someone created it. Why is not important.

:)

#49 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 September 2009 - 05:48 PM

I used the word 'empirical' very deliberately in my statement. :rolleyes:

View Post


And rightly so Adam, you made your point well. As an artist for over thirty years, understanding it isn’t always as hard as some would attempt to make it seem. Nor is the fact that it was designed, and that its design does matter to at least one person. And in many cases, the design matters to a great many people.

#50 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 13 September 2009 - 06:10 PM

And rightly so Adam, you made your point well. As an artist for over thirty years, understanding it isn’t always as hard as some would attempt to make it seem. Nor is the fact that it was designed, and that its design does matter to at least one person. And in many cases, the design matters to a great many people.

View Post

This is where the evolutionist struggles. They think they can answer the 'why' from the 'how' and this just isn't readily available when pure empiricism is the only tool of inquiry.

The evolution paradigm has a utilitarian dogma by which to judge God as if His pleasure is not a good enough reason and starting point for the state of something. So grappling for answers, anecdotes are hastily arranged to justify scientism's foolish claims. Where in reality the best primary reason for so much is actually to demonstrate God's glory versus a mechanical march towards unguided inevitability.

I mean, how selfish and wasteful of God to do anything to reveal has glory rather then only doing things in the bare minimum simply necessary way. :blink:

I think it's kind of neat how God's design of life puts any of the most complicated Rube Goldberg apparatuses to shame in both complexity, elegance and reliability. I guess God could have used some unique matter and made this simple 'super matter' that could be homogeneous and indiscernible to the human mind. Instead, He decided to show us His grandeur and promises. Before microscopes He told us that we were made in His image. When we discovered the machines in living systems and how we were already using less sophisticated versions of what He could do. He showed us that He gave us a unique mind and also to show us that anything we can do, He can and has done better. :rolleyes:

#51 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 13 September 2009 - 07:15 PM

The evolution paradigm has a utilitarian dogma by which to judge God as if His pleasure is not a good enough reason and starting point for the state of something. So grappling for answers, anecdotes are hastily arranged to justify scientism's foolish claims. Where in reality the best primary reason for so much is actually to demonstrate God's glory versus a mechanical march towards unguided inevitability.

I mean, how selfish and wasteful of God to do anything to reveal has glory rather then only doing things in the bare minimum simply necessary way. :rolleyes:


View Post


Jesus said He and the Father were One and He also said He (Jesus) was meek and lowly in spirit. "He who has seen me has seen the Father." So God is humble.

And yet we can't begin to imagine the power and knowledge of a "Person" who is able to create ALL of the stars and yet the intricacies of the human body.

Well, if He tries to show His glory and wisdom to us, let us remember He is not a man. If He was He WOULD be arrogant--but HE IS NOT. He became a man, "so that he could be a merciful high priest" Hebrews.

Imagine a truly arrogant God. "Wipe em all out. They don't believe--they ignore miracles--they ignore prophecy--they ignore signs--they ignore compassion--they ignore love. They ignore my SON."

What drives people to find fault with God or the idea of a creator? This is not to Christians because they know the answer to that question.

#52 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 14 September 2009 - 03:07 AM

I accept the 'designer did it' in the case of the sculpture, not because it's a good argument, but because I subconsciously add to it myself.

I would easily accept someone telling me an artist created this piece because I have seen thousands like it before. I have on occasion seen artists creating such works. I'm also pretty confident if we gave it to a lab we would find finger prints and other markings that would support this opinion.

On the other hand, I have never seen God in the process of creating. All things in this world I have seen created, were created by natural processes, or men. I also have no idea what the fingerprint of God would look like, so submitting to a lab would be a waste of time.

That is why I accept "designerDidIt" and not "GodDidIt".


1 - Did you see the artist creating this object ?
2 - If the lab doesnt find any finger print then you conclude that it was made by some natural process ?

#53 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 14 September 2009 - 04:31 AM

Jesus said He and the Father were One and He also said He (Jesus) was meek and lowly in spirit. "He who has seen me has seen the Father."  So God is humble.

And yet we can't begin to imagine the power and knowledge of a "Person" who is able to create ALL of the stars and yet the intricacies of the human body. 

Well, if He tries to show His glory and wisdom to us, let us remember He is not a man.  If He was He WOULD be arrogant--but HE IS NOT.  He became a man, "so that he could be a merciful high priest" Hebrews.

Imagine a truly arrogant God.  "Wipe em all out.  They don't believe--they ignore miracles--they ignore prophecy--they ignore signs--they ignore compassion--they ignore love.  They ignore my SON."

View Post

You are so right here. Someone may point out the event of the flood or the slaughters associated with the Jewish kingdom but they will overlook the long suffering nature of God and how His mercy overshadows and permeates those occurrences. All God has done for us has been an act of love, if people can look beyond the nose on their own face to stop judging God as if they can.

#54 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 14 September 2009 - 05:00 AM

Where in reality the best primary reason for so much is actually to demonstrate God's glory versus a mechanical march towards unguided inevitability.

View Post

Why does God feel the need to demonstrate His glory?

Imagine a truly arrogant God. "Wipe em all out. They don't believe--they ignore miracles--they ignore prophecy--they ignore signs--they ignore compassion--they ignore love. They ignore my SON."


If the truth of life is that death is only the beginning, what good does wiping out disbelievers achieve?

No, a far greater punishment is to give people to ability to choose to reject their creator, then torture them for all eternity for doing so.

What drives people to find fault with God or the idea of a creator? This is not to Christians because they know the answer to that question.


Honestly, I hope there isn't a God. I can't imagine anything worse than having a 'father' who would give me the power to make my own choices in life, then allow my soul to be burned in hell for choosing a different path than the one he laid out for me.

I'm sorry for being so blunt, but it seemed that you wanted a truly honest answer.

Regards,

Arch.

#55 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 14 September 2009 - 05:07 AM

1 - Did you see the artist creating this object ?

View Post


Nope, and I accept that this means I can't know for sure that the sculpture was created by human hands. However if we were to judge everything on what we know, and not on what we can assume we would never get anything done.

How much do you actually know, and how much have you been told. When you really stop and think about it, as individuals we know very little.

2 - If the lab doesnt find any finger print then you conclude that it was made by some natural process ?

View Post


When something looks so obviously designed (again, referring to my past experiences) I would want a great deal more than fingerprints. But yes, if something showed no examples of being intelligently created I would have to conclude it somehow formed by natural processes. I would then want someone to explain to me how on earth something with such qualities could have arisen naturally.

If it didn't fit into either of these categories I would have to start considering other possibilities.

Regards,

Arch.

#56 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 14 September 2009 - 08:59 AM

Hey Walter, it's nice to see you on the forum. I have an off-topic question about your book. What are the chances of an 'illustrated' edition of your book showing up? I read it a couple of years ago and was incredibly impressed, but thought it would have been nice to have some illustrations included - especially, for instance, to make subjects like cladistice/cladograms more clear for those of us not steeped in such arcane subject matter.

Just wondering....

#57 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 14 September 2009 - 02:27 PM

Why does God feel the need to demonstrate His glory?

View Post

He's GOD. I have a hunch it comes naturally. :lol:

#58 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 14 September 2009 - 05:59 PM

He's GOD. I have a hunch it comes naturally. :lol:

View Post

God created little people so he could demonstrate his power to them? Sorry, it just makes it sound like He's the child and we're the parents.

So God is just naturally a show off?

#59 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 14 September 2009 - 07:01 PM

God created little people so he could demonstrate his power to them? Sorry, it just makes it sound like He's the child and we're the parents.

So God is just naturally a show off?

View Post


Tell me Arch, what size was Jesus? Was He so large that it was notable? So large than one could barely see His face?

Do you think He was showing off when He was born into poverty in a manger? Was He showing off when He allowed Himself to be tortured and humiliated and crucified on a cross? Do you think He was showing off when He went around healing people from their sicknesses and giving people the good news? Was He showing off when He chose to be born into poverty/humility? Was He showing off when He took our place in sin and sacrificed Himself so we could be saved? You know Arch, those who jeered and mocked Him as He was on the cross crucified laughed and asked why He could not even save Himself and to get down from that cross. He could have done anything He wanted, He was God, but He chose not to. If anybody could show off, it's Him and He'd have every reason to do so.

If anybody could have displayed His majesty (since He was the creator of all things) and paraded Himself among men it was Jesus Christ. Yet instead He chose the way of humility/poverty.

If things were less than they were, you'd be wondering why there was nothing to show for this apparent "Omnipotent God". Because there is? Now He's a show off! You see how the atheist will use any means possible to complain and criticise? I wouldn't matter what God did, or how He did it, you'd nit pick.

The glory of creation is there for us to enjoy! This apparent show off has shared it with us, has made us part of the process of creation by giving us the gift of "procreation". He has won for us eternal life. He has provided for us. Each of us have been given the gift of life itself and this is how you respond?

He is larger than us, because He is larger than life itself, because He is the source of it all. Can one even really put a "size" on that which is eternal? Since He is the alpha and Omega, I hardly think we can comprehend Him or put a size on Him.

How sad that you consider the glory of creation merely "showing off" rather than a wonderful reflection and sharing from our Creator for our delight and enjoyment. How sad that any miracle would be considered the same. Perhaps healings would be too, since that is God just "showing off".

If He truly displayed Himself to us in all His glory,we would die on the spot. Do you think anybody can face God in all His glory and live? Instead He has reflected His glory through creation and within His son Jesus Christ.

#60 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 14 September 2009 - 07:07 PM

God created little people so he could demonstrate his power to them? Sorry, it just makes it sound like He's the child and we're the parents.

So God is just naturally a show off?

View Post

Arch, if you don't view your own life as a gift God gave, you have the choice to squander it by rejecting Him. Also, is someone with great power skill and talent a show off, as a simple matter of fact, because they use these things to do something majestic?

Besides, if God wants to 'show off'... I can't wait to be dazzled. He has been doing an awesome job so far and all the dazzling has made my life a great joy. I bet He has enough dazzling in store to dazzle us for an eternity.

In fact, I have contemplated this question a great deal and I believe it is precisely because of our nature as creatures, and His nature as creator, that will make our proper alignment with His design an adventure of freedom and dazzlement.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users