Creation vs. Evolution

[Rosenritter]

You give me the specifics on any sea creature that has a throat big enough for a man to pass through, a stomach big enough to hold him, plus a few day’s supply of oxygen, some means for reducing the carbon dioxide that would build up, keep the stomach acids from attacking the body, prevent him from passing deeper into the digestive tract, assure that the fish stays near the surface for several solid days so as to preclude the bends…

When ya got that in place, then maybe we will talk. (Based on your recent nebulous allusions to water somehow pushing up one end of a segment of tectonic plate, and mysterious super-whooper plate movements eradicating most life forms, and now this generic allusion to sea creatures, I am getting the sinking feeling we are not going to see more substantial offerings from you. I will give you credit for a declaring a firm 10,000 year limit to the age of the earth.)

You can’t disprove that the doorknob in my bedroom is not in fact the true and living God, who chooses that way to live where He can see into our world, or that the universe wasn't created last Friday at noon.

Am I to conclude you want to include the supernatural under the umbrella of what science should study?

You asked for specifics on sea creatures big enough to hold Jonah? Sperm whale, whale shark, and white shark. I hear that these have all been found carrying whole creatures big or bigger than a man. Additionally, other creatures could qualify as well that may not be as common today (dinosaurs) and these creatures may also come in larger than normal sizes.

How could he breathe? A whale's stomach contains some air, and there are multiple possible answers. One of which you already acknowledged, that of having the fish come to the surface a few times. Another that I already mentioned was that of slowing Jonah's metabolism, which hardly seems supernatural seeing that it's a technique known to Bhuddist monks today. So what if Jonah wasn't Buddhist? Considering that he's already steering the fish, it's not that hard for God to do it for him.

Stomach acid and bends? These are not our concern, because God wasn't trying to give Jonah a ride in comfort. He just needed to come out the other end of the experience alive. Regardless, by this point you already granted that "God prepared a great fish" for the purpose of swallowing Jonah. If one is preparing the fish to swallow him on command, it's a small bit extra to make sure that it's stomach acid is dilute enough to not dissolve the target (sea water anyone?)

Jonah and the whale is one of those examples for which it doesn't require much imagination for feasibility. Matter and energy remain constant and the minimum required supernatural interference is instructing the trained whale (large sea creature.) You might as well protest the storm that preceded the whole encounter, and claim that "it's not scientific that God could create a storm!"

Let's put this in perspective. You protest that an intelligent being able to create life from non-life, man from rock, is unscientific. I protest that an unintelligent accident creating life from non-life, man from rock, is unscientific. Only one of these has been observed to have happened. I think my scenario has a significant head start on yours.

You can’t disprove that the doorknob in my bedroom is not in fact the true and living God, who chooses that way to live where He can see into our world, or that the universe wasn't created last Friday at noon.

I could certainly dispute it. To quote Captain America, "There's only one God, and He doesn't dress like THAT." And besides, I was here last Friday at noon, so yes, I can disprove it through witness testimony.

Should we include supernatural under science of study? It depends what you mean by that. Spirits are known for being unpredictable, and I don't recommend trying to summon them or dabbling with the occult. So as a general answer, no. However, that is a far stretch from being so blind as to deny that supernatural does exist.

 

[Stripe]

I was quite clear that I was interested in knowing if you had technical reasons for selecting Walt over Baumgardner.

Yes. We know why. You were desperate to derail the conversation that had exposed the lack of understanding in your fellow Darwinist — but that was not your primary goal: The No. 1 aim you had in this rabbit trail (which you knew the answer to) was to not allow a creationist's ideas even the semblance of respectability.

Fly made an obvious error in demanding that all the energy mentioned had to go toward cooking water. Sorry if you were unable to comprehend such a deep concept.

You leaped onto the Baumgardner train to get the discussion as far away from the Darwinist's failing as possible. Is is just due to your mindless allegiance to your precious religion.

Using the Bible to prove things said in the Bible does look like a pretty clear case of circular reasoning.

Which of course has nothing to do with the accusation that you will never concede the validity of any idea sourced by the Bible.

Everything you say is designed to turn the conversation away from a rational path.

I suspect you won’t have much more to say on that matter that interests me.

Feel free to put me on ignore and stick to it. :up:

Dear Stripe,Why do you keep saying drugs. I'm not on drugs.Michael

Trust me, it's safer this way.

 

[Jonahdog]

Over-thinking, over complicating. Me? I ask "what did it mean? what does it me for me?" You? :nono: So, here we go down the pithy road...again.



lain: What is the truth conveyed or are you happy to be stuck in details and miss all kinds of points? Do you do this with Aesop's Fables ? "Ants don't talk" is your stopping point? :think: I must apologize that I think 'pithy' often. Cannot help it. Why do I mention it? Because you necessarily are going to have to leave this all behind lest you remain what is my estimation of pithy, shallow, and sad.

I think the difference between Aesop's stories and the stories in the Bible is that no one suggests that Aesop is 100% literal nor does anyone suggest that failing to live one's life according to Aesop will lead to eternal torment.

 

[gcthomas]

No. It isn't. I don't respond to rude nor demand, especially when such has already been posted. Anybody that knows Einstein, knows 1) that he was very bothered being called an atheist and that he held firmly to a theistic/deist position associated with pantheism. He had not experience with God answering his prayers.

I challenged you specifically about your claim that Einstein called atheists dead or blind. You declined to provide evidence, citing that it had already been provided. OK. I have searched the thread and found your original comment:

Sure, if you want to mine quote instead of being aware of all of his writings.
…
In his Creed, for instance, he calls the atheist dead or blind. Indeed, whenever you might see Einstein say something against a theist, he is right there calling down the atheist as dead or worse, insincere. When you read these scathing reprimands, …

Now, if you follow the link, it doesn't say what you claim. Is that a mistake on your part, a kind of wish fulfilment? Or, given the effort I have made to encourage you to justify the misrepresentation, is it a plain lie?

His Credo says:

The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as of all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind.

So, he says that all serious endeavour in art and science has the sense of the mysterious. He DOESN'T say that scientists without religion are dead or blind. He doesn't say that science needs religion.

All he says is that everyone needs a sense of the mysterious, and that is a principle of both religion, art and science. So you have been mistaken or dishonest?

(My prediction - you will bluster and ignore that you are proved wrong by your own link you gave as evidence)

 

[Stuu]

Again, is this a good use of either of our time? Especially when the answer is "turn and believe"?

No thanks, I do have some standards I'll have you know.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

(My prediction - you will bluster and ignore that you are proved wrong by your own link you gave as evidence)

I'll have a quid on that too.

Especially at the number of pounds we are getting for our dollars these days...

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

not allow a creationist's ideas even the semblance of respectability

What creationist idea has earned respect?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Jonah and the whale is one of those examples for which it doesn't require much imagination for feasibility.

But you haven't let that stop you.

Stuart

 

[patrick jane]

What creationist idea has earned respect?

Stuart

God created everything in 6 days

 

[Stripe]

What creationist idea has earned respect?

Stuart

Darwinists will do anything to move the topic away from a point they think will hurt their precious religion.

Fly made a fundamental error in his commentary on supposed consequences of a release of energy; Darwinists run for the hills when he's called on it.

 

[DavisBJ]

I said to Rose:

… You can’t disprove … that the universe wasn't created last Friday at noon.

Rose disputed that:

… I could certainly dispute it. … I was here last Friday at noon, so yes, I can disprove it through witness testimony.

I can only imagine how disappointed you must be in your God. Just think, false memories are so commonly encountered that there is an entire subfield of psychology devoted to understanding them. It’s called the ”False Memory Syndrome”, and has caused problems in many court cases resulting in horrific miscarriages of justice. But your God is too incompetent to create this mental problem that ordinary mortal psychologists have had to deal with for decades.

Just maybe your God needs to hold off on creating any more galaxies billions of light-years away and instead come down and take some psych classes.

 

[DavisBJ]

What creationist idea has earned respect?

Stuart

I can actually think of a couple. First - I recall credit being given to Steve Austin for his observations on how trees were observed to sink in Spirit Lake below Mount St. Helens. The second is Lord Kelvin’s idea that thermodynamics could be used to establish the age of the earth. His technique was well thought out, but his answer ultimately turned out to be in error. (But that was because the data available to him was lacking some factors that were not understood in his day.) And of course, Lord Kelvin’s work on the age of the earth made him an old-earth creationist.

 

[Rosenritter]

I think the difference between Aesop's stories and the stories in the Bible is that no one suggests that Aesop is 100% literal nor does anyone suggest that failing to live one's life according to Aesop will lead to eternal torment.

If one reads the Bible literally it doesn't make that claim, and neither have I.

 

[Rosenritter]

I said to Rose:

Rose disputed that:

I can only imagine how disappointed you must be in your God. Just think, false memories are so commonly encountered that there is an entire subfield of psychology devoted to understanding them. It’s called the ”False Memory Syndrome”, and has caused problems in many court cases resulting in horrific miscarriages of justice. But your God is too incompetent to create this mental problem that ordinary mortal psychologists have had to deal with for decades.

Just maybe your God needs to hold off on creating any more galaxies billions of light-years away and instead come down and take some psych classes.

My God had that competence, although the desire is not consistent with his revealed character. Your doorknob god just lacks the competence.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think Jose was saying he couldn't post much because he was on vacation and away, so we agreed to defer the discussion of the proofs of radiometric dating, and even the original subject matter of the solar system itself.

That wasn't me. You have me confused with someone else.

 

[Jose Fly]

Fly made an obvious error in demanding that all the energy mentioned had to go toward cooking water.

I did? Where?

Of course we both know you'll never show where. I guarantee it.

 

[Rosenritter]

I did? Where?

Of course we both know you'll never show where. I guarantee it.

Just to make this plainly obvious, if 100% of energy is released in heat, then how are mountain ranges lifted up past the force of gravity?

Drop a megaton of water on top of tectonic plates, the Darwinist says "Ah! the oceans incinerate!" I thought that was an exaggeration before but seems like an apt criticism now.

 

[Silent Hunter]

I did? Where?

Of course we both know you'll never show where. I guarantee it.

Notice he said "heat," while you spoke of "energy" in your desperate attempt to reject everything that does not line up with your precious religion. It is such elementary mistakes that show you are not interested in a rational conversation.

In Stripe's world heat isn't energy. :kookoo:

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Rosenritter]

That wasn't me. You have me confused with someone else.

I must have got you confused with the sometimes-polite Humanist on this forum. My apologies to you both.

 

[Rosenritter]

In Stripe's world heat isn't energy. :kookoo:

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

In the real world heat is only one expression of energy. They aren't exactly the same thing, Oh Hunter One who is Not Silent.