10 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassScience may not care, but multiple people in this thread do. They believe that the natural explanation proves the creation account is false.
No it cannot. Science does not care. You are convoluting things again. Science deals with science, not declarations and decrees.
What do you call these people who claim that the natural explanation proves the Creation account is false?
10 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarIt's simply their preferred hypothesis. There's more evidence to support it. Again, Genesis isn't really something science needs to disprove. If I declare that mountains were created by a lightning bolt, do you now need to prove me wrong? No. We know about plate tectonics etc. Even though no one was there to witness the Rockies being formed, we have a pretty good idea how they got there.
What do you call these people who claim that the natural explanation proves the Creation account is false?
A lot of empirical evidence stacks up against a "world was created in 6 days" hypothesis, and there is scant evidence to support it. It's irrelevant from the standpoint of scientific inquiry.
10 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassI asked you what you would call people who believe that the natural explanation proves the Creation account is false.
It's simply their preferred hypothesis. There's more evidence to support it. Again, Genesis isn't really something science needs to disprove. If I declare that mountains were created by a lightning bolt, do you now need to prove me wrong? No. We know about plate tectonics etc. Even though no one was there to witness the Rockies being formed, we have a pre ...[text shortened]... here is scant evidence to support it. It's irrelevant from the standpoint of scientific inquiry.
It is their firmly held belief.
If such people exist, what would you call them?
10 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarSpiritual I guess? I still think you're inappropriately conflating these. Belief is the realm of religion.
I asked you what you would call people who believe that the natural explanation proves the Creation account is false.
It is their firmly held belief.
If such people exist, what would you call them?
10 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassThey would say they know Creation is false.
Spiritual I guess? I still think you're inappropriately conflating these. Belief is the realm of religion.
Would claiming to know and that the natural explanation is proof that the creation account fit better?
10 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarIt's still irrelevant as you've stated it.
They would say they know Creation is false.
Would claiming to know and that the natural explanation is proof that the creation account fit better?
You need something scientific here if you're saying it's a plausible explanation.
10 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassI'm not the one saying it, they are.
It's still irrelevant as you've stated it.
You need something scientific here if you're saying it's a plausible explanation.
10 Oct 17
3 edits
Originally posted by @wildgrassI also don't know what he is saying and I'm sure nobody else does.
What are you saying?
He seems to constantly give vague massively encrypted messages and assume the readers all have mind reading abilities.
Either that or he has no idea what he means himself even if he thinks he does. Very strange.
10 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarIt is not so much your God I have a low view of, as the tortuous tissue of lies one has to live with in order to read the Bible as if it were a geological, paleobiological, and astronomical text book.
So what you are saying is that the diver must have been jumping from the ground because there was no high dive platform.
In other words, God did not know how an expanding universe would appear at the time of creation and perfectly create such a universe. You have a pretty low view of an all knowing God.
If God created a garden with full-grown trees in it, not just day-old seedlings, then those trees had rings in them going back 50 or 100 years. But there were no 50 or 100 years before the day of Creation. So the rings in those trees pointed to a past which never really existed. Those first-created trees were lies. Or maybe you think God created the trees in the Garden of Eden with no rings in them, or what?? Nature does not work like that.
Apply the same point to the light coming from stars farther away than 6 light days from Earth. When Adam looked up into the night sky, he saw the light from stars farther away than 6 light days, the same sky we see now. But there were no 7 or 8 light days (much less thousands or millions of light years) for stars to be away from then because God had only just created stars at most 6 days before he created Adam. Red shift, like the rings in trees, points to a past which never really existed if the Creation myth is to be read as a literal factual history of the universe. A literalist reading of the Christian creation myth requires a God who is a liar on a scale which is simply astronomical.
Or maybe you think God created the light from distant stars already underway on day one or day two of Creation, or what?? Then that light did not come from any stars at all; light just popped into empty space a few days away from Earth and struck Adam as if it had shone from some star farther away than a few light days. Whoa, Nelly! There are no stars at all now, just light popping into empty space which appears to be stellar. That isn't even a universe full of lies any more; it's a schizoverse which is totally, insanely, incomprehensible.
Religion must be at least roughly compatible with what we know about nature, otherwise it is superstition. Believing that God made a universe riddled with impossibilities which require zillions of on-going miracles to keep it going is beneath superstition. You have a completely inadequate view of what we know about the universe.
10 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassI am saying Science is unable to know what it hasn't seen. It can come up with an explanation based on what is there but wasn't observed, but to call it anything other than an explanation goes to far.
What are you saying?
To try to force people to believe an explanation is a form of religious indoctrination.
I believe it is important for people to be taught the limits of science. As you said, teach people what goes in one basket and what goes in another. I am telling you many people only have one basket. They put religion and science into one basket, then claim they have no religious beliefs.
If they actually put evolutuon in the same basket as religion, but choose to believe in evolution due to evidence, I have no problem with it. If you say you don't want to call the evolutiin basket religion but simply an unproven hypothesis, that's fine. But if you then turn around and try to say creation has been proven wrong by my unproven hypothesis, that's not fine.
10 Oct 17
Originally posted by @moonbusThose rings point to a past which is consistent with the world God was creating.
It is not so much your God I have a low view of, as the tortuous tissue of lies one has to live with in order to read the Bible as if it were a geological, paleobiological, and astronomical text book.
If God created a garden with full-grown trees in it, not just day-old seedlings, then those trees had rings in them going back 50 or 100 years. But there [ ...[text shortened]... beneath superstition. You have a completely inadequate view of what we know about the universe.
You assume that the rings must point to a past. This is your assumption, not God's. It is all a point of view. God has told you that your assumption about an earlier time is incorrect.
This assumes of course there is a God which then wraps itself up into a bunch of circular reasoning.
But then there is a bunch of circular reasoning with the assumption that God does not exist which leads people to assume that if the tree you see has rings it has been in existence since being a seed.
It has been my experience that few people can pull far enough away from their beliefs to see the basic problem here.
Most of the time all I see is one group telling the other group they are wrong. If you question the assumptions they just throw stones and name call trying to get conformity.
10 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarI call them "sensible." It is not simply an "alternative belief" on a level with believing what is manifestly a fairy story left over from the Bronze Age.
I asked you what you would call people who believe that the natural explanation proves the Creation account is false.
10 Oct 17
Originally posted by @moonbusOf course you do, you are one of them. You are one that wildgrass wants to pretend doesn't exist and is simply something I am making up.
I call them "sensible." It is not simply an "alternative belief" on a level with believing what is manifestly a fairy story left over from the Bronze Age.