The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

5uspect

J C wrote:

Evolution traces it’s roots right back to Ancient Greece and probably to Babel!!!!

…….so all of the ‘Fathers of Modern Science’ WOULD have been aware of Evolution as an alternative ‘origins explanation’ ……..but they rejected it!!!!:D

Equally, the advances in our understanding of Biology and Genetics have completely undermined the simple notion that we are Spintaneously 'Morphed' from Muck!!!!:eek: :cool:

How tell me did the scientific Theory of neo-Darwinian Evolution exist before the 20th Century? You're being deliberately disingenuous J C.
If you can't even be bothered to acknowledge scientific progress why even call yourself a scientist?

jonny72

Are there ever instances of non-religious people believing in creation?

If it wasn't associated with a religion at all.. to think of anyone scientifically accepting it is just beyond my comprehension..

DerKaiser

Creation science explained::D

http://www.palmyria.co.uk/humour/cartoons.htm

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Modern Science was largely developed by Creationists!!!!

Galvasean
Charles Darwin disagrees.

…and all of the ‘Fathers Of Modern Science’ including Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Boyle, Dalton, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Pascal who were all Bible-believing scientists AGREE!!!!:eek:

I already pointed out why this is rubbish. Just because the theory of evolution hadn't been formulated yet does not make them creationists. Galileo was disbelieved and persecuted by Christians in the face of evidence as much as Darwin was, let's not forget.

Robin
… Harun Yahya (at http://www.harunyahya.com/), the pen-name of a white-suited preacher named Adnan Oktar. Yahya has been doing a lot of high-profile marketing in Europe and more recently in the USA, in the last year or so, peppering hundreds of media organizations and schools with creationist videos, pamphlets and tens if not hundreds of thousands of copies of a two volume book that he is alleged to have written entitled "The Atlas of Creation". Here in Ireland, no less a man than Kevin Myers has taken his hat off to Yahya ….

Expect to see more of this in the islamic world……

……If you define a "creationist" as somebody who doesn't accept that humans arrived on this planet aided only by natural selection, then around 90% of the population of the USA are "creationists"…..

The truth will out !!!!!:eek:

Europe, the USA, the Moslem World, the Pope and Kevin Myers……all deeply impressed by Creation Science…:D
……and the overwhelming evidence for, and logic of Creationism is ALSO deeply impressing everyone who had been exposed to it on this thread (with the notable exception of a handful of ‘fundamentalist Evolutionists’)!!!!!:eek:

Creationism is not logical, and you have no proof that your alleged arguments have impressed anyone.

Tim Robbins
Yesterday: Rashers and Suasages.
Today: A scone.
Yourself?

I think that my personal dietary intake is (slightly) off-topic for even this mega-thread!!!!!:D

He's merely replying in kind.

The Mad Hatter
…as you are deftly proving, people brought up to believe something without question will defend it without reason.

Yes indeed, when I was an Evolutionist I DID believe in Evolution without question and I defended it without reason……until I encountered a Creation Scientist, who rapidly demolished ALL my unfounded ideas!!!:eek:

Don't make me laugh. You don't understand the theory of evolution - you've made that quite clear.

The Mad Hatter
It's not a peer-review process if the scientists are selected by those propogating the 'theory'. It's like a musician only listening to his friends' opinions of his music

Such a criticism could possibly be made of Evolutionist peer-review…….and perhaps your ideas could be taken ‘on board’ and some (openly) Creationist Scientists could be appointed to such review committees!!!:)

In the case of Creation Science, the MAJORITY of any peer-review committee is likely to be made up of FORMER Evolutionists, thereby giving a proper balance to their deliberations ....... as well addressing your legitimate concerns in relation to this important issue!!!:D

Not really. A peer review is a review by the scientific community. Even as a non-scientist I know this. You can't exclude the majority of the scientific community from a peer review because they don't agree with you (which is exactly what you're proposing here) - that's ludicrous. If they could convince the scientific community, then the majority would not believe in evolution.

Originally Posted by J C
Modern Science was largely developed by Creationists!!!!

The Mad Hatter
…. what a pointless truism. Yes, modern science was largely developed by people who believed that God had created the earth, et c., but only because evolution hadn't been discovered yet.

……but Evolution traces it’s roots right back to Ancient Greece and probably to Babel!!!!

It traces its roots a deal further back than that. The beginning of life, really, is the beginning of evolution.

In my last post, I also highlighted your misuse of ellipses and your overuse of smilies, but you persist. If you can't understand basic rules of grammar, then I'm not surprised that the theory of evolution continues to elude you.

J C

pH
J C have you given any thought to the question of where atoms such as Iron come from?

We find these on Earth and the scientific explanation is that these atoms are created in stars, and spread when the stars explode - a process that takes millions (if not billions) of years.

May I ask once again what is the "Creation Science" explanation for the production of these heavier elements that we see here on Earth?

The heavier elements were created on the third day of Creation……..

…….and the Evolutionist explanation that the metals were developed in million degree GASOUS explosions within stars stretches credulity to breaking point!!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
Evolution traces it’s roots right back to Ancient Greece and probably to Babel!!!!

…….so all of the ‘Fathers of Modern Science’ WOULD have been aware of Evolution as an alternative ‘origins explanation’ ……..but they rejected it!!!!:D

Equally, the advances in our understanding of Biology and Genetics have completely undermined the simple notion that we are Spintaneously 'Morphed' from Muck!!!!

5uspect
How tell me did the scientific Theory of neo-Darwinian Evolution exist before the 20th Century?

I said that EVOLUTION traces it’s roots back for thousands of years!!!

Neo-Darwinian Evolution is the latest manifestation of Evolution…….and doesn’t have much more ‘explanatory power’ or evidence supporting it, than the ancient belief that matter could spontaneously generate life.:D


Jonny72
Are there ever instances of non-religious people believing in creation?

Religious people believe in Creation and other religious people believe in Evolution.

Science answers the question of which group of religious people are right……..
……and the evidence is in favour of Creation!!!!:D


The Mad Hatter
Don't make me laugh. You don't understand the theory of evolution

NOBODY really UNDERSTANDS Evolution……..they just BELIEVE in it !!!!:D


The Mad Hatter
You can't exclude the majority of the scientific community from a peer review because they don't agree with you (which is exactly what you're proposing here) - that's ludicrous.

Creation Scientists WELCOME Evolutionists (both current and former) to their peer-review deliberations……….the majority of most Creationist peer-review committees are former Evolutionists ...... but current Evolutionists REFUSE to peer-review Creation Science Papers......it is against their religion, apparently!!!!:eek:

Equally, Evolutionists shouldn’t exclude the minority Creationist opinion from their peer-review deliberations!!!!:D


The Mad Hatter
In my last post, I also highlighted your misuse of ellispes and your overuse of smilies, but you persist.

…arguing over (grammatical) ‘gnats’ ……..and swallowing (Evolutionist) ‘Camels'......a day in the life of the Evolutionists on the Boards.ie!!!!!:D

robindch

JC wrote:

Creation Scientists would WELCOME Evolutionists (both current and former) to their per-review deliberations……….but current Evolutionists REFUSE to peer-review Creation Science Papers.

Ah, more pious lies! Have you considered a career in religion?

No, seriously, JC, you know as well as I do why creationists don't get published -- because they don't do any research. No research, no papers. That's pretty easy to understand, isn't it?

I wonder what happened to wolfsbane? He disappeared at exactly the same time as JC went off on holiday and hasn't been seen since. Haven't seen Scofflaw around for a while either. I wonder are they sipping beer down the road from Ken Ham's Fantasy Theme Park?

Galvasean

J C wrote:

Science answers the question of which group of religious people are right……..
……and the evidence is in favour of Creation!!!!:D

Somehow I doubt the majority body of evidence favors Creation. If it did Creation would be the view of orthodox science, but it is not.
I wonder how well the 'theory' (It is really more of a hypothesis at this point. More evidence than an ancient book which has been translated, sometimes quite poorly, many times is not sufficient evidence to warrant creation being a theory) of Creation would stand up to a balanced and unbiased analysis? Probably not too well.

As a side note, J C, I would refrain from using so many smilies at the end of every point you make. You look quite facetious in doing so and I find it disrespectful to the other posters here.

jonny72

Lets just say christianity was a flop and died off like a thousand other minor religions..

Do you think scientists would SCIENTIFICALLY come up with the theory that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, all the species crammed onto some sort of giant wooden boat, etc, etc?

I think after centuries and centuries and centuries of sheer crap from religious nuts we've become hardwired just to shut them out. The earth is flat, you have to pay to get into heaven, they were witches anyway, stop that, put that down, no you can't eat that etc.

Scientologists, creationists, psychics, do they all share a common gene or something?

Screw evolution, I wanna see creationists and scientologists arguing over which of their supernatural fairy stories is right..

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Evolution traces it’s roots right back to Ancient Greece and probably to Babel!!!!

…….so all of the ‘Fathers of Modern Science’ WOULD have been aware of Evolution as an alternative ‘origins explanation’ ……..but they rejected it!!!!:D

Equally, the advances in our understanding of Biology and Genetics have completely undermined the simple notion that we are Spintaneously 'Morphed' from Muck!!!!

Er...I really don't think that anyone is claiming that we 'Spintaneously "Morphed" from Muck!!!!' - spontaneity (or even Spintaneity, whatever that is) has nothing to do with evolution.

5uspect
How tell me did the scientific Theory of neo-Darwinian Evolution exist before the 20th Century?

I said that EVOLUTION traces it’s roots back for thousands of years!!!

Neo-Darwinian Evolution is the latest manifestation of Evolution…….and doesn’t have much more ‘explanatory power’ or evidence supporting it, than the ancient belief that matter could spontaneously generate life.:D

See reponse above.

The Mad Hatter
Don't make me laugh. You don't understand the theory of evolution

NOBODY really UNDERSTANDS Evolution……..they just BELIEVE in it !!!!:D

See, I told you not to make me laugh.

Plenty of people understand the theory of evolution. Some of them have gone to considerable lengths to explain it to you - and not one has used the word 'Spintaneous' - yet you persist in your ignorance.

The Mad Hatter
You can't exclude the majority of the scientific community from a peer review because they don't agree with you (which is exactly what you're proposing here) - that's ludicrous.

Creation Scientists WELCOME Evolutionists (both current and former) to their peer-review deliberations……….the majority of most Creationist peer-review committees are former Evolutionists ...... but current Evolutionists REFUSE to peer-review Creation Science Papers......it is against their religion, apparently!!!!:eek:

Posted by robindch, quoted for emphasis.

Ah, more pious lies! Have you considered a career in religion?

No, seriously, JC, you know as well as I do why creationists don't get published -- because they don't do any research. No research, no papers. That's pretty easy to understand, isn't it?

pH

J C wrote:

The heavier elements were created on the third day of Creation……..

…….and the Evolutionist explanation that the metals were developed in million degree GASOUS explosions within stars stretches credulity to breaking point!!!!:D

So to be clear then 'creation science' consists of reading the bible?

What you're really saying is that creation science a euphemism for bible studies?

Has any scientific work been done to examine in which order God created these elements on the third day, perhaps even narrowing down the time of creation of each element? Perhaps he worked through the table of elements in atomic weight order do you think?

Do you think that God created every atom of iron in-situ where it is found now on this planet, or did he create a big mass of iron and sprinkled it around the planet. Can modern creation science add any more insight into this process? You still seem to be working off a science text written by bronze age cattle herders, surely some progress has been made in your science since then?

PDN

robindch wrote:

If you want to say that the bit about the sun and moon stopping in the sky is a turn of phrase, then you must give a convincing alternate interpretation of the text (and not your thoughts on cars getting smaller when viewed from an airplane window). You must also explain why this alternate interpretation is more likely than the straightforward one, then you must explain how your alternate explanation makes sense in the context of the tale that it rests in.

Can you do this?

And who, apart from you, says I must do that?

The account in Joshua uses ordinary language to describe an event from the standpoint of those who saw it. All of us do that every day in a multitude of ways. To try to argue otherwise is to attempt to enforce an artificial use of language onto the Bible.

jonny72

PDN wrote:

And who, apart from you, says I must do that?

The account in Joshua uses ordinary language to describe an event from the standpoint of those who saw it. All of us do that every day in a multitude of ways. To try to argue otherwise is to attempt to enforce an artificial use of language onto the Bible.

And yet you have people who take the bible literally..

Christianity was probably one of the first religions that wasn't created entirely just to get certain men into power.. although somewhere down the line men still abused it for their own ends.. and they still do.

PDN

jonny72 wrote:

And yet you have people who take the bible literally..

Christianity was probably one of the first religions that wasn't created entirely just to get certain men into power.. although somewhere down the line men still abused it for their own ends.. and they still do.

There's a difference between taking literally what is clearly intended to be taken literally, and trying to artificially exclude figures of speech & everyday language.

For example, imagine I said, "My friend was still alive at noon, because the sun was directly over our heads. But in the afternoon, when the sun had moved towards the horizon, I noticed he had died."

Now, only a maniac or someone of ill-intent who wishes to deliberately misrepresent me will use those words to pretend that I believe the sun actually moves across the sky of a stationary earth.

However, it would be equally absurd to argue that my friend wasn't really dead at all but that I was using the idea of death as a metaphor for some existential reality.

If you take my statement literally, then you understand that my friend actually died and that I knew it happened in the afternoon because of my observations as to how the sun appeared to me as a result of the earth's revolving.

robindch

PDN wrote:

And who, apart from you, says I must do that?

I would have thought it fairly obvious that if you say that my interpretation of a piece of text is wrong, then there is an onus upon you to provide an alternate interpretation and justify it. That's what debate is all about. Claiming the other guy (me) is wrong and then not explaining why could be seen as a rather sterile debating technique.

PDN wrote:

The account in Joshua uses ordinary language to describe an event from the standpoint of those who saw it.

Good, we're getting somewhere. So do you accept that Joshua's call for the earth to stop rotating worked, and the earth did actually stop turning on its axis?

If not, then what event was seen by the observers and described as such, and why is your explanation more likely to be true than the simple reading of the event?

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote:

He disappeared at exactly the same time as JC went off on holiday and hasn't been seen since. Haven't seen Scofflaw around for a while either.

I don't think Scofflaw has posted since our debate on Richard Dawkins' child abuse argument.
Got going around here and was still going until abouthere.

PDN

robindch wrote:

Good, we're getting somewhere. So do you accept that Joshua's call for the earth to stop rotating worked, and the earth did actually stop turning on its axis?

If not, then what event was seen by the observers and described as such, and why is your explanation more likely to be true than the simple reading of the event?

I believe that something happened that caused the sun, from the standpoint of those on earth, to stand still. With my limited knowledge of science it would seem to me that would involve the earth to stop rotating. However, I am content to know that a miracle happened without getting overly exercised by the precise mechanism by which the miracle occurred.

If I'm following what you're really trying to get to, I believe that an actual miracle occurred rather than an optical illusion or a mass hallucination.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

With my limited knowledge of science it would seem to me that would involve the earth to stop rotating.

Why then does it not say that the Earth stopped rotating? Why inaccurately describe it as something else. Where the people of the Bible to dumb to have God explain that He created the Earth as a round sphere in space, orbiting a star? Most 5 year olds get that idea these days, you just grab an orange and an apple, and go "We are on the apple and it moves around the Sun"

Unless of course the explanation is that the people who wrote the Bible had no clue that the Earth was round nor that it rotated and that the Sun is stationary? They believed that the Sun moved across the sky and behind the other side of the flat Earth. And recorded things as such in their holy books.

That seems the far more plausible explanation, does it not? If you understand something there is not a whole lot of reason to describe it a different inaccurate way. A rotating ball isn't a hard concept.

And if that is the case why do the people writing the Bible not actually understand about what is happening and what they are recording? Does that not contradict the assertion that those who wrote the Bible were simply messengers for God's words?

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Why then does it not say that the Earth stopped rotating? Why inaccurately describe it as something else. Where the people of the Bible to dumb to have God explain that He created the Earth as a round sphere in space, orbiting a star? Most 5 year olds get that idea these days, you just grab an orange and an apple, and go "We are on the apple and it moves around the Sun"

Unless of course the explanation is that the people who wrote the Bible had no clue that the Earth was round nor that it rotated and that the Sun is stationary? They believed that the Sun moved across the sky and behind the other side of the flat Earth. And recorded things as such in their holy books.

And if that is the case why do the people writing the Bible not actually understand about what is happening and what they are recording? Does that not contradict the assertion that those who wrote the Bible were simply messengers for God's words?

It does not inaccurately report anything, no more than the BBC's meteorologists are inaccurate in listing times for sunrise and sunset. The purpose of the Joshua account is not to inform people about astronomy but rather to help them see how God intervened on behalf of his people. Therefore it uses ordinary everyday language.

That seems the far more plausible explanation, does it not? If you understand something there is not a whole lot of reason to describe it a different inaccurate way. A rotating ball isn't a hard concept.

So will you tell the BBC or will I? Why on earth should they describe sunrise and sunset in an inaccurate way? A rotating ball shouldn't be too difficult a concept for their viewers to grasp.

5uspect

PDN wrote:

The purpose of the Joshua account is not to inform people about astronomy but rather to help them see how God intervened on behalf of his people. Therefore it uses ordinary everyday language.

PDN wrote:

I believe that something happened that caused the sun, from the standpoint of those on earth, to stand still. With my limited knowledge of science it would seem to me that would involve the earth to stop rotating. However, I am content to know that a miracle happened without getting overly exercised by the precise mechanism by which the miracle occurred.

I can understand where you're coming from here but isn't this just the usual God did cop out? You're hypothesising an extremely complex and inconsistent explaination of events described in a book to suit your static world view.

Considering the mechanism that would be needed you have to rely on the idea that a god exists that can somehow pause everything in the universe, like some sort of vast computer simulation, and then change variables X and Y. But not only that, he can change parts of the simulation independently of other dependent parts resulting in effects that normally would leave evidence without his interference in the simulation.

He can change or add to the rules of the simulation at a whim but this god also knows everything that is going to happen in this simulation and can control every possible outcome tho since he already knows everything there is only one outcome yet within the simulation he has granted people free will to do random things which cannot affect the already known outcome.

Then he goes into the simulation himself and experiences what he already knows for himself.

Now you seem content not to have to think about this, and simply accept that God exists and does things in the universe on faith without even considering the implications of your literal reading of the bible.

PDN

5uspect wrote:

I can understand where you're coming from here but isn't this just the usual God did cop out? You're hypothesising an extremely complex and inconsistent explaination of events described in a book to suit your static world view.

Considering the mechanism that would be needed you have to rely on the idea that a god exists that can somehow pause everything in the universe, like some sort of vast computer simulation, and then change variables X and Y. But not only that, he can change parts of the simulation independently of other dependent parts resulting in effects that normally would leave evidence without his interference in the simulation.

He can change or add to the rules of the simulation at a whim but this god also knows everything that is going to happen in this simulation and can control every possible outcome tho since he already knows everything there is only one outcome yet within the simulation he has granted people free will to do random things which cannot affect the already known outcome.

Then he goes into the simulation himself and experiences what he already knows for himself.

Now you seem content not to have to think about this, and simply accept that God exists and does things in the universe on faith without even considering the implications of your literal reading of the bible.

God is omnipotent, not just extremely potent. If you believe in an omnipotent God then it hardly makes sense to argue against a miracle on the grounds that performing that miracle would be a bit complicated. Of course if you don't believe in an omnipotent God then you will reject a miracle whether it appears simple or complicated.

2Scoops

PDN wrote:

With my limited knowledge of science it would seem to me that would involve the earth to stop rotating.

If the Earth actually did stop rotating it would have devastating, irreparable consequnces to life on this planet. Unless God also stop it in such a way as to ignore all laws of physics, which isn't at all far-fetched when you consider his omnipotence.

But seriously, isn't more plausible that the text was simply written by a fallible human with limited knowledge of how things work, explained in simple manner to appeal to his/her equally ignorant peers?

PDN

2Scoops wrote:

If the Earth actually did stop rotating it would have devastating, irreparable consequnces to life on this planet. Unless God also stop it in such a way as to ignore all laws of physics, which isn't at all far-fetched when you consider his omnipotence.

But seriously, isn't more plausible that the text was simply written by a fallible human with limited knowledge of how things work, explained in simple manner to appeal to his/her equally ignorant peers?

That will certainly be more plausible if you have already rejected the concept of an omnipotent God (ie if you are an atheist and not a Christian).

2Scoops

J C wrote:

Creation Scientists have established their own peer-review processes, as they are quite entitled to do, because they are conventionally qualified Scientists !!!!:D

Equally, as conventionally qualified scientists, creation scientists are welcome to submit to conventionally peer-reviewed scientific journals. And some do. Then the quality of their research and conclusions are found wanting and rejected. Hence the need to establish their own 'special' peer-review process.

The whole point of peer-review is that it is objective. You cannot get more objective than objective, hence, there is no need to establish an alternative if your science meets conventional scientific standards.

J C wrote:

All of science (including Creation Science) is tentative!!!!!

.......but as a Christian, I don’t have to be tentative about the infallible Word of God…..

……so I guess I have the best of both worlds ….as a tentative Creation Scientist and an infallible Christian!!!!

How amusing that you don't see this as a contradiction in terms. It appears your conventional qualification was quite unconventional with the impressions it left on you. Tow-MAY-tow / Tow-mah-tow; "best of both worlds" / stunning hypocrisy.

2Scoops

PDN wrote:

That will certainly be more plausible if you have already rejected the concept of an omnipotent God (ie if you are an atheist and not a Christian).

The implication being that I have rejected such a concept. I haven't, but I will argue that the concept of an omnipotent God deliberately inspiring a less than accurate text is much less plausible than the same text being written by a human being with an understanding of the world consistent with the the then contemporary knowledge base. Wouldn't you agree, objectively speaking?

PDN

2Scoops wrote:

The implication being that I have rejected such a concept. I haven't, but I will argue that the concept of an omnipotent God deliberately inspiring a less than accurate text is much less plausible than the same text being written by a human being with an understanding of the world consistent with the the then contemporary knowledge base. Wouldn't you agree, objectively speaking?

I would agree, but I think we differ on our definition of less than accurate. I would agree with the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy that "inerrancy does not refer to a blind literal interpretation, but allows for figurative, poetic and phenomenological language, so long as it was the author's intent to present a passage as literal or symbolic."

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

It does not inaccurately report anything, no more than the BBC's meteorologists are inaccurate in listing times for sunrise and sunset.

The BBC's meteorologists are inaccurate reporting the events as "sunrise" and "sunset", because they are using common terminology that originated in a time when humans genuinely believed that the sun did rise and the sun did set. They believed this because they didn't know any better.

PDN wrote:

The purpose of the Joshua account is not to inform people about astronomy but rather to help them see how God intervened on behalf of his people. Therefore it uses ordinary everyday language.

It is only ordinary everyday language because no one in that time knew that the Earth was round and rotated.

There is no logical reason why God would not simply accurately inform them of this fact. Again, are they supposed to be incapable of understand simple concepts such as spheres?

PDN wrote:

Why on earth should they describe sunrise and sunset in an inaccurate way?

Because of the English phraseology that originated before humans knew the Earth rotated.

By the way, sunset and sunrise isn't what is in the Bible. The sun stood still is what is described in the Bible.

That is no less easy to understand that stating that the Earth stopped rotating. Primary school children are taught that the Earth rotates.

You have not put forward any reason why the people of the Bible would not have been capable of understanding this concept.

5uspect

PDN wrote:

God is omnipotent, not just extremely potent. If you believe in an omnipotent God then it hardly makes sense to argue against a miracle on the grounds that performing that miracle would be a bit complicated. Of course if you don't believe in an omnipotent God then you will reject a miracle whether it appears simple or complicated.

In that case you can argue that absolutely anything is possible which seems like the ultimate get out of jail free card and allows you to ignore everything science has to say.
All this based on reading the Bible. Don't you find that awfully, well, shortsighted?

Zombrex

5uspect wrote:

In that case you can argue that absolutely anything is possible which seems like the ultimate get out of jail free card and allows you to ignore everything science has to say.

I always thought it rather strange that theists believe in an omnipotent God, yet never seem to consider the idea that he might be just plain evil, or just having a laugh.

Since God is omnipotent he can pretty much do anything he likes, including created an entire false religion just for the fun of watching millions of humans run around like headless chickens trying to please him.

Though I would imagine most Christians would say that this isn't actually possible ....

PDN

5uspect wrote:

In that case you can argue that absolutely anything is possible which seems like the ultimate get out of jail free card and allows you to ignore everything science has to say.
All this based on reading the Bible. Don't you find that awfully, well, shortsighted?

Let's see ...

You post on the Christianity board, presumably in the knowledge that Christians believe in an omnipotent God. You argue against God being able to do something because it is difficult. Then, when a Christian, quite reasonably, refers to God's omnipotence, you try to dismiss this central tenet of Christianity as if were a ploy - as if they invented God's omnipotence in order to dodge your question.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Let's see ...

You post on the Christianity board, presumably in the knowledge that Christians believe in an omnipotent God. You argue against God being able to do something because it is difficult. Then, when a Christian, quite reasonably, refers to God's omnipotence, you try to dismiss this central tenet of Christianity as if were a ploy - as if they invented God's omnipotence in order to dodge your question.

I think his point is that any discussion about anything is ultimately pointless when you have omnipotent God .. including discussion Christians might have about miracles, because nothing is a miracle (or everything is, depending on how you look at it)

The underlying Christian assumption is that God is omnipotent but he has kinda put into place unbreakable rules, so when he bends or breaks these it is a miracle. That really doesn't make any sense, because if God is omnipotent it is just as easy for God to perform a miracle as it is for him not to perform one. The Earth stopping a rotation is of no greater significance than the Earth rotating. Jesus rising from the dead is no greater significance to Jesus not rising from the dead.

Therefore a miracle is actually nothing special at all, it is no different than just normal everyday occurances. God can do anything. What he chooses to do is of no greater significance over anything else that God chooses to do.