inconsistent Creationists

Post Reply New Topic

What if it was Bender?

Then there would be no DNA or fingerprints and everyone would have an alibi. The case would be cold and justice would never come.

^ There might be traces of beer. Also if all the valuables had gone then definitely Bender.

There could be Bender footprints. And maybe he wrote "Bender was here and did this!", but since he's a robot, who is the Prime Mover? Bender, or the person that created/programmed/got off Bender ebay, etc.

This is called a circle.


Read the rest of the damn post and cut the scholastics.


Yes it is.



Death is not a spiritual highway to wherever, it is the end. A very physical end at that.

Or, complete version: the neurological interpretation of consciousness as a result of brain activity is complete in itself, and does not require an immaterial soul. Therefore, this soul is not required to explain human existence, and thus is not necessary when building a working hypothesis of what is human existence, even though it can't be disproven (not physical). As a consequence, after death, there is most likely nothing at all.


Jesus would never have gone into a psychiatric hospital because there were no psychiatric hospitals in first century Judea. The diagnostic criteria for all psychotic disorders had not been established then.

We are talking about a period where imagined supernatural forces were thought to interfere with reality, so his claim was appropriate in that society, untrue though it was.


Because it is necessary for what happens later does not mean he has a cause. He is absurd, in the same way that humanity is absurd.


I'll read up more on that later. I enjoy that kind of thing.


For the first time, what you say is entirely true.

I can't prove empiricism is more true than anything, but I can say that what is seen through it yields more accurate results. Empiricism is why we have computers, locks, bridges, airplanes, loudspeakers, maps and double-entry book-keeping. Of course, this is an empirical proof of empiricism, in a way, but to me, empiricism is not a revealed truth, only a very good method which works. If, some day, observing what happens suddenly starts to be a way to know what happens, then I will start questionning empiricism.

There is no way to prove the existence of the physical universe. However, radical scepticism aside, the existence of an external reality is a good working hypothesis to lead my day-to-day life normally. (Btw, if there is no external reality, there is also no creation. Even though the existence of a creation is not a proof of a creator, the lack of a creation would be a proof that there is no creator. Radical scepticism does not help your argument.)

Your circular reasonning is different. Basically, you say that what the Bible says is true, because it was said by God, and... yeah. That's about it.


I remember that they were written later than that, but whatever. Even the mid-60s is a late writing date. It is entirely enough for hagiography to run its course on the details (miracles, etc.). That is a very incomplete criticism of the source. It still does not alter the fact that those who wrote it had particular biases.

Also, obviously, those who did not believe in the Resurection did not start writing books about the non-event.

By "hagiography" I would guess you mean the writers had began to canonize the figures they wrote of, and might have applied an "error free holiness" to them?

Yes. (Metaphorically, of course.)

I see the thread has gone a bit off-topic compared to the original post, which dealt with the Young Earth Creationist viewpoint that even AngelRho says may be extreme sometime. Based on statements made in posts to this thread, apparently AngelRho does not have a problem with evolution so long as it was the Christian God who started everything and made things happen the way they do. I trust AngelRho will correct me if I misunderstood.

Then the focus shifted to abiogenesis, which as I pointed out is NOT addressed by evolution at all (much to the confusion of many Creationists who mistakenly think if science can't prove abiogenesis somehow that makes evolution fail). Evolution only deals with the evidence of how life diversified once it started by whatever means. Whether it was the Christian God who started life, or some other deity, or purely natural processes does not change the fact that all the evidence shows evolution happens. Humans came from pond scum that eventually became fish who eventually became apes.

I raised the point early on that the Bible's credibility is damaged by statements in the Bible that are clearly falsified by the evidence of the natural world. I still haven't heard AngelRho's opinion as to whether or not Noah's Flood was a global event or a local one, or if that matters to AngelRho's faith. This is another case like evolution where what the Bible seems to say according to a literal fundamentalist interpretation is contradicted by the evidence of the physical world. So I wonder if the story of Noah's Flood being literally true is essential for the Gospels to be true?

Look at what's happening here though. All the evidence yet found falsifies a literal reading of Genesis in regards to the origin of the human species and the idea of a global flood event. So if the Bible can be shown to be false about Adam and Eve and Noah, can't anyone else besides me see how that can only damage the Bible's credibility regarding Jesus and the Resurrection? If most of the claims made by the Bible cannot be tested, but those that can be tested are proven false, then it does not make the Bible look like a reliable authority about anything. I guess that's why hardcore Biblical literalist Christians fight so hard to deny reality, because it sure makes their beliefs look like ignorant Bronze Age superstitions.

Apparently whether or not evolution happens is not critical to AngelRho's faith, which is a position I can respect so long as those who believe that do not try to legally enforce ignorance in public policy or education. The main focus lately seems to be on establishing whether or not physical evidence can prove that the God of the Bible exists and whether or not the Gospels are reliable as historical texts. Wouldn't it be awesome if we do that in this thread!! !

OK, but are you really all that certain of the conditions of the planet at the time of the flood? How much water was contained in the polar ice caps at the time? What the impact would have been on land masses at the time? The actual effect water would have had under divine influence? The point of the flood is that wickedness had permeated the earth to the point that God needed to purge it completely of human life, and Noah represents all that was left that would have been worth saving. God says, "Never again will I destroy the earth with a deluge..." Sure, this could have been a one-time event. But I wonder if it doesn't refer back to the beginning of the book to 1:2. If the flood is a supernatural purge--it does say that "the windows of heaven were opened"--then it just means that God did not allow the earth to be affected any more by the purge than necessary.

Besides that, there's another explanation: Science just hasn't found the evidence it's looking for yet. Archeology has put numerous Bible criticism to rest, such as certain places never even having existed. And that has led to other arguments or excuses being made, but for all we really know it's just a matter of time before those issues are resolved as well and yet more arguments and excuses be made. Suppose someone a hundred or so years ago had been told the Bible was unbelievable on the basis that such-and-such place didn't even exist and that held him back from trusting in Christ and working out his salvation. And 50 years after he's dead and gone someone says, "Oh look, this place really did exist! Maybe the old boy was right." Meanwhile "old boy" is burning in hell... How fair is that? So we're just supposed to believe the Bible is wrong just because YOU say so? That the flood never happened because YOU say so? Surely you see the problem here. Science is not equipped to explain how the flood happened, but you're taking a non-theological methodology and trying to dictate what someone should believe about God and how He chooses to reign over the universe.

You haven't shown that the Bible is false about Adam and Eve at all. In fact, evolution supports the idea that apes/humans have a common ancestor. Well...Adam and Eve are common ancestors all right! Not to mention the fact that Genesis 1 shows the first appearance of human beings and Genesis 2 shows a special creation of Adam and Eve. Are you really going to tell me that science has proven God didn't create Adam and Eve? Are you really going to tell me that science has proven that God is incapable of sending a supernatural flood to purge the wicked from the earth and return divine water to a divine source?

Or that you're displaying anti-supernatural bias. Science cannot prove that logic exists, yet scientists have to think logically to do their job.

Now we're talking about claims that the Bible has made, not by the Bible literalists you seem to be cherry-picking. A literal approach to Bible interpretation can be flexible or inflexible, depending on who is making the interpretation. My attitude is a preference for withholding judgment on things I don't know about while at the same time accepting the truth of those things in some sense. That's what I think most Christians tend to do whether they do so consciously or not. The doctrine of the trinity, for instance, is extremely difficult to really explain in a comprehensible way, but that doesn't change the truth of it. I don't understand evolution the same way a scholar on evolution understands it, but that doesn't mean I can't assimilate just enough of it to accept the truth of it. Whether something in reality is true or not has nothing to do with your comprehension of it. While perception can vastly inform you of reality, perception is not one and the same with reality.


Well, as to whether physical evidence can prove that the God of the Bible exists, I believe it can indirectly. Take the example of Noah's flood. Let's suppose the Bible is right about the flood--indeed, various cultures seem to share a flood story, so even if we don't understand how it happened or how to explain the evidence or the lack of certain kinds of evidence, seemingly unrelated cultures do have something to say about it. So if the flood is believed to have actually happened, it is PHYSICALLY impossible to have happened. If we have to reckon with the fact the flood happened, then the fact of the flood happening would point to supernatural involvement.

@AngelRho:
Sure, of course if we're talking about miracles here then of course anything goes. God could have made the evidence for the Flood disappear and God could have planted false evidence to make it look like the Flood didn't happen. Ditto with evolution. That human chromosome 2 is sure to fool us! Good one, God! You got us! Nice prank! Of course God could have created us all last Tuesday with memories of lives we never actually lived, or we could be experiencing a virtual reality as in the Matrix movies.

As for many local cultures around the world having flood stories, so what? You know how people love to exaggerate when telling stories, so even if it only flooded their basement, several tellings later the flood covers the whole world. Or from a practical viewpoint, to those people if everything they see or hear about in every direction was flooded, to them it WAS the whole world so that's how they tell it. It still can't account for all the geological and other physical evidence that shows the world was never completely submerged at one time. The idea of a global flood also can't account for the histories of cultures that apparently didn't realize they had been drowned but kept on living and didn't say anything about it.

The bottom line is yes, people can claim there were miracles of sudden creation and global flooding, but there is no physical evidence to support such claims while there IS evidence that falsifies those claims. That's just the way it is. If you don't like it, take it up with God.

What's my name, "Skip"?

Oh, I understand metaphor.

You talkin to me?

No, that would be TBG. Now go to the back of the line, you dirty blasphemer!! !
[/kidding]
Actually, truth be told, enrico had been doing a better job than you in occupying the thread and holding my attention. I did try to address your responses as well, but you got my attention only slightly better than TBG did. It WAS his thread after all, so I felt it was about time I at least acknowledged his existence. You might notice I tend to address one person at a time rather than getting bogged down in a flood of "sub-threads." If I tried to get to everybody, I'd probably lose a lot of sleep, alienate my family, and end up getting nowhere faster than I already am. I notice I tend to make more mistakes that way.

I'm not a dedicated creationist, so trying to make a consistent YC argument just for the sake of doing it would not be something I'd want to try. They bring up a few good points that are worth exploring, but that's as far as my interest goes in YC. Maybe one day I'll try arguing in favor of YC just to see how far I can go with it, but I'd need a LOT of time to prepare for it--and I just don't see that happening any time soon. But the mistakes I've seen YCs make more often than not have nothing to do with the strength of their case but rather with falling into the temptation of tackling too many issues at once. Christian n00bs in general make that mistake, and I'm just not good enough to go after every single thing that gets thrown at me.

So if it seems that I'm ignoring you, it could be you got sandwiched between longer posts and I just missed it, or it could have been I was waiting to focus on someone else the whole time. I wasn't purposefully ignoring TBG, but you and enrico had divided my attention to the point I wasn't comfortable trying to address TBG's points. If it really means that much to you, I can try to go back and pick up what I missed, but the errors TBG is making are a little bit more convoluted than yours and will take a little bit more study and concentration to point out.

As I recall we were discussing something about how one would know which God is the right one. I'll get back to you if/when I can.

Or God simply wanted to erase all memory of that period of time from physical recollection. All trace of it is gone...we can start anew.

So where's the evidence that God is a prankster?

The problem with referencing DNA is that if, for example, one were to deny evolution, one could make the argument that genetic similarities are necessary for creating a variety of species that share similar traits. The similarities don't really indicate a common ancestor necessarily, but rather a creative template that could be used for various creatures that share physical traits. Fingers and toes, for instance, when comparing primates. Or the presence of 4 limbs when comparing, say, mammals.

Evidence of a common tradition long forgotten.

Do we KNOW they were exaggerating?

How do we KNOW this? I mean, all you've got here is pure speculation. Just because people TEND to do certain things does not guarantee that they always WILL. Maybe one culture DID remember it correctly and preserved it in tradition.

There is PHYSICAL evidence that falsifies a SUPERNATURAL event? That doesn't sound very scientific to me.

As long as you maintain an anti-supernatural bias and follow in the same stubborn pattern of thinking as the hardline creationists you keep whining about, you're never going to allow yourself to understand it. This doesn't bode well for your objectivity.

Except then there'd be no records of cultures that experienced no such flood, when in reality there are plenty. Some cultures do have a global flood myth; others believed the Earth was coated in water to begin with. But plenty believe neither, and of those a significant percent have a pedigree as ancient - or more ancient! - than Judiasm. If they don't remember it happening (they don't) and we can date their records to before the mythical flood was supposed to have happened (we can) then clearly the entire world didn't drown.



The thing with chalking something up to a miraculous event (not necessarily a paranormal one) is that you turn the concept inherently unprovable or disprovable. If you're going to just announce that you're taking the kickball home, why debate?

In any event, Occam's Razor is a pretty good help for this one. What's simpler - the idea that the event never happened, or the idea that it did happen but was then covered up for inscrutable reasons by an individual that then made a point of having it written down and told as a story over and over again?

You can't really shave everything off with Occam's Razor. Let's face it, "Goddidit" is always the simplest explanation, just not an explanation that an empiricist likes.

I mean, if you want to talk parsimony, suppose the event didn't happen. So what was the point in even listing it in a historical document? The simplest idea is that God wanted a clean slate starting over with a family that put their faith in God.

I never really thought about it before, to be honest, but it makes sense. If God wanted to completely wipe out a wicked generation from the face of the planet, and I mean leave not so much as a memory of it, like God is just trying to forget it ever happened, why not send a divine flood that accomplishes its purpose while leaving everything else untouched? You have one faithful family that survives to tell the story and pass that down through the generations. It's not even a cover-up because if it was, it would mean there'd be something left to find.

I'm also suspicious of the idea that there is NO evidence at all of the flood. I took a high school geology course because I was sick and tired of psychotic math teachers . An easy-A course does not an expert make. But NO evidence? There's bound to be SOME evidence, and there are a few scientists out there who believe that there is. The flood has been completely falsified? I have my doubts, since interpretation of data could possibly be confirmation bias.