Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
AtomicHorror wrote: »Questions 1-8 have not been answered. Questions 9 through 13 have not been addressed in any form.
1. Provide a genetic test for Created Kinds. According to you, the taxa is both real and fundamental, so it should be innately more testable than any element of Linnean taxonomy, which is merely a labelling system.
.....I have told you (several times) already that the ability to cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary, is the definitive test for Created Kinds.....and that is quite adequate in my opinion.
2. Define "Created Pair" in biological and genetic terms. As with 1, this should be easy. Please refrain from scripture-based definitions.
A Created Pair was an originally created pair of organisms from which all members of a Created Kind is descended...and that is quite an adequate definition in my opinion.
3. Specifically for J C or whoever originally quoted Dr. Gee: Explain whether you intentionally or unintentionally quoted Dr. Gee out of context by suggesting that he was talking about a topic (the theory of evolution) that he was not actually addressing. Justify whichever choice you made in terms of your morals.
My morals are just fine, thank you very much!!!
I didn't misquote Dr Gee....I quoted him verbatim. Many leading Evolutionists HAVE reservations about particular aspects of Evolution....and it is YOU that is trying to 'put words in Dr Gee's mouth'!!!
Such reservations don't necessarily invalidate Evolution and they certainly don't mean that Dr Gee isn't an Evolutionist...but these reservations are important because they often support various contentions of Creation Scientists in relation to Evolution....such as the paucity of fossil evidence for Human Evolution (in the case of Dr Gee)....or (in the case of Dr Grasse) the paucity of fossil evidence for ANY Evolution at all!!!
4. Please name some scientists currently engaged in creation research. Preferably provide examples of research papers (not reviews or essays) published in the last two years. We will accept scientists engaged in primary research at any institution, whether their briefs specify creation science or not, if their work can be shown to be directly connected with creation science.
.....I am not going to name any Creation Scientists ... I would be wasting my time ....because you don't accept that a Conventionally Qualified Scientist can be a Creation Scientist....and I would be needlessly exposing a Creation Scientist to God only knows what!!!
....have a look at the film Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed to see what can happen when ID Proponents are identified ... and then ask yourself what would happen to a Creation Scientist!!!
5. Please provide an example of the "downward mixing" that should be visible in the fossil record if it is actually evidence of a turbulent flood. We will accept any organism that should only have emerged in the last 100 million years being found at any dated layer below 400 million years. This would be rather modest mixing in the top 10% of layers, but one irrefutable example will suffice.
Your demand is pure tautology ... there are many examples of so-called 'younger' fossils being found underneath layers where 'older' fossils arre found ... and Evolutionists explain this away by claiming that the 'younger' fossil creatures were living contemporaneously with the 'older' fossils ... in some cases the 'older' fossil creatures are even still alive today!!!!
6. Please clearly confirm that you have now accepted that either a) Your Designer is inept b) your Designer is disinterested in individual human survival c) irreducible complexity is not evidence of design but of mutation or d) redundancy (and thus new function) can arise by mutation. This is not an arbitrary four-way choice, the logic is explained here.
....your thinking is all 'wet' on this issue!!!:D
...and what's with the occult pentagram for the Biologista logo???
...I thought you guys were Materialists???
My Creator is both adept and interested in EVERY Human Being.
Irreducible Complexity proves that it mathematically impossible for the complex specified genetic information found in living creatures to be produced by undirected non-intelligent processes!!!!
All redundant systems are themselves Irreducibly Complex and therefore their production by undirected non-intelligent processes is ALSO mathematically impossible !!!
7. Please provide data confirming the rapid sedimentation/rock formation processes that you describe as occurring during the The Flood. The data may be from any primary source but must be based upon wet lab or field work data, rather than a mathematical model or simulation. Since you describe the process as having taken only a few years, this should be testable. The process must be naturally-occuring, fast enough and common enough to explain the build up of the entire fossil record within 10,000 years.
....you are still being needlessly pedantic!!!!!
....the Fountains of the Great Deep were a once-off event in the gological history of the Earth... and it was the release of enormous quantities of suspended Calcium Carbonate in these waters that lead to the WORLDWIDE sedimentation cementation events that produced the Sedimentary Rocks that we now observe WORLDWIDE.
....to see a modern day example of Calcium Carbonate sediment cementation go look at concrete being poured on any local building site....and come back the next day and jump up and down on it!!!!!
.....equally look at ephimeral fossilised creatures like fossil Jellyfish....whose perfect fossilisation indicates VERY rapid setting of these rocks in minutes or hours AT MOST!!!!
8. Please provide data demonstrating the mathematical, chemical or biological impossibility of the process of evolution. Some conditions: a) Whether the process did or did not occur is not relevant to the "possibility". b) Please confine your data to the process of evolution itself, that being the emergence of variation within life from a pre-formed common ancestor species. c) Abiogenesis is not a consideration. d) Data supporting Creation also does not impact on "possibility".
.....the production of a specific 100 chain of Amino Acids required for a specific functional protein using undirected processes is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE...even if you had all of the matter and supposed time in the 'Big Bang' Universe....and the non-intelligent production of everything else is even more impossible!!!!!
Could I point out that the mathematical impossibility of producing a small functional protein using non-intelligently directed processes rules out BOTH Abiogenesis AND 'Mice to Man Evolution' ... because of all of the novel functional proteins required by BOTH putative processes!!!:D
9. Following on from question 1, it has been asserted that kinds are defined not by genetics but by interbreeding capacity, producing fertile or infertile offspring. Please suggest a means by which we could test the difference between a genuine Created Kind and a false kind or pseudokind that has arisen by the emergence of a new species unable to breed with its former Kind due either to a chromosomal mutation, gene insertion mutation, extinction of an intermediate species or other means in the distant past.
There would be no definitive test for such a 'pseudokind' ... but physiology could assist in determining such a species as provisionally belonging to a particular Kind. Molecular Biology could also be used to assist in this exercise as well.
10. Please explain by what mechanism a Created Kind such as the Motherfly Kind could have diversified to produce 148,000 known species (not counting extinct or unidentified species) within the 4,400 years since Noah's Flood. Please explain why such rapid speciation is no longer occurring.
Many Flies are able to interbreed artificially ... but physical breeding signals and/or pheromones mean that they don't actually interbreed naturally.
Equally, at a genetic level 'jumping genes' can account for full speciation divergence within one original species.
This is the Evolutionist explantion
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060908194141.htm
..and here is the Creation Science explantion
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/wallaby.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/OneBlood/chapter2.asp
..and for the 'millions of years' brigade here is an interesting quote in relation to the discovery of VERY RAPID speciation mechanisms in Wallabies:-
"One of the researchers commented:
‘We thought it took millions of years of long-term selection for a jumping gene to be activated. We’ve now shown that it can happen maybe in five minutes after fertilisation." Research in Action, La Trobe University, pp. 7–8, 1998.
11. Do you think it was morally wrong for an Answers In Genesis film crew to mislead Richard Dawkins into providing an interview for them?
I don't know what you are actually referring to.
As a general principle, I would have thought that when anybody agrees to be interviewed by anybody else on film they clearly know that any statement they make will be 'on the record' and therefore such an interview is legitimate.
12. J C, why, when attacking abiogenesis, do you do so on the basis of the random formation of peptides- a process not claimed to be a part of any of the conventional abiogenesis hypotheses?
As I have pointed out in my answer to question 8 above, proteins are observed in BOTH the simplest forms of life as well as in so-called 'higher' organisms. Therefore, in order to supposedly produce EITHER the first living 'cell' by Abiogenesis or to produce 'Mice to Man Evolution' many novel functional proteins and other biologically active biomolecules MUST be produced.
The fact that it is mathematical impossibility to produce a small functional protein using non-intelligently directed processes rules out BOTH Abiogenesis AND 'Mice to Man Evolution' ... because the production of all of the novel functional proteins required by BOTH putative materialistic processesis is ... IMPOSSIBLE!!!:D
13. J C, following your claim that the Creator is "probably" irreducibly complex, can you explain how this irreducibly complex being came into existence? As irreducible complexity cannot arise without intelligent intervention, what intelligence created the Creator?
Your question is the same as the one my four year old daughter once asked me ... "Who made God?"
...and my answer is the same ... God is an eternal and transcendent Being.
... and He DOESN'T logically or actually have to have an 'origin'.:cool:
Materialists are actually the ones with an enormous 'ultimate origins' problem ... with the ultimate origin of energy and matter ... and I am sorry, but the idea that 'nothing' blew up is so unbelievable that even my four year old laughed out loud when I told her!!!!
The Big Bang Theory neatly 'buries' this question of ultimate origins in a so-called 'Singularity' ... which cannot and is not explicable by Physics!!!
God is CERTAINLY capable of producing the Universe ... but nobody knows what the 'fudge' known as the 'Singularity' at the supposed Big Bang is capable of ... if anything at all!!!!:pac::):D:D
... this topic is dealt with in further detail by Soul Winner in the next Post 14296.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
It's taken at least a month of asking, but finally J C has seen fit to approach those tricky old questions. I do hope he will not avoid further debate for such an extended time again.1. Provide a genetic test for Created Kinds. According to you, the taxa is both real and fundamental, so it should be innately more testable than any element of Linnean taxonomy, which is merely a labelling system.
.....I have told you (several times) already that the ability to cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary, is the definitive test for Created Kinds.....and that is quite adequate in my opinion.
We are agreed that the physical forms of organisms is an expression of their genetics as modulated by environment. We are agreed that genetics is inherited and can give rise to variation. Thus, if the Kinds are a fundamental division in the life forms, then that should be detectable in their genetics. You have hinted previously that this should be the case. I am asking you for evidence.
Reply rejected.2. Define "Created Pair" in biological and genetic terms. As with 1, this should be easy. Please refrain from scripture-based definitions.
A Created Pair was an originally created pair of organisms from which all members of a Created Kind is descended...and that is quite an adequate definition in my opinion.
Once again, I am asking you for a means to test for the existence of such a pair by genetic means. We can measure relatedness by genetics, even if only microevolution exists. Thus, we should be able to trace the lineage of each kind back to a created pair. Can you demonstrate that this has been done?
Reply rejected.3. Specifically for J C or whoever originally quoted Dr. Gee: Explain whether you intentionally or unintentionally quoted Dr. Gee out of context by suggesting that he was talking about a topic (the theory of evolution) that he was not actually addressing. Justify whichever choice you made in terms of your morals.
My morals are just fine, thank you very much!!!
I didn't misquote Dr Gee....I quoted him verbatim. Many leading Evolutionists HAVE reservations about particular aspects of Evolution....and it is YOU that is trying to 'put words in Dr Gee's mouth'!!!
I did not accuse you of misquoting Dr Gee. I accused you of quoting him out of context by implying that the subject of his quote was something other than it was. I certainly do not recall putting words in his mouth. Perhaps you could link the post where I did so?Such reservations don't necessarily invalidate Evolution and they certainly don't mean that Dr Gee isn't an Evolutionist...but these reservations are important because they often support various contentions of Creation Scientists in relation to Evolution....such as the paucity of fossil evidence for Human Evolution (in the case of Dr Gee)....
However the quote you supplied, when read in context, is not actually about the theory of evolution at all, but about common misconceptions about the path of evolution. Specifically Gee was refering to public simplifications of that path which neglect a branching or complex relatedness. Thus Gee's comment is not an expression of reservations about evolution but an expression of reservations about the public understanding of evolutionary theory. This is very clear when one reads just that page of Gee's book. The quote out of context misrepresents what Gee is attempting to say and is thus dishonest.
Reply rejected.4. Please name some scientists currently engaged in creation research. Preferably provide examples of research papers (not reviews or essays) published in the last two years. We will accept scientists engaged in primary research at any institution, whether their briefs specify creation science or not, if their work can be shown to be directly connected with creation science.
.....I am not going to name any Creation Scientists ... I would be wasting my time ....because you don't accept that a Conventionally Qualified Scientist can be a Creation Scientist....and I would be needlessly exposing a Creation Scientist to God only knows what!!!
The Discovery Institute claims to be a research institute that examines Intelligent Design. It has a budget of some $3 million annually. There are similar and better funded Creationist groups, such as Answers In Genesis which has a budget of over $13 million annually. These groups could quite easily fund at least some Creation Science research, and the researchers would naturally have no reason to fear discrimination from their employers.
Can you not find us any active Creation Scientists publishing primary papers today? Is it not astounding that given the funds and protection available, you cannot name us even one person engaged in Creation Science research?
Reply rejected.....have a look at the film Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed to see what can happen when ID Proponents are identified ... and then ask yourself what would happen to a Creation Scientist!!!
Such as Richard Sternberg? Allegedly fired from the Smithsonian, except that he was never an employee of the Smithsonian? I gather you watched that film recently, it seems to be your new favourite source. The producers of "Expelled" mislead Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott and Michael Shermer into thinking they were participating in a film supporting evolution. The interviews conducted were significantly longer and covered many more topics than were shown, though of course this was merely so as not to give the game away. The interviews feature post-production voice overs which put words into the mouths of interviewees to which they of course cannot respond. The producers made use of John Lennon's song "Imagine" in the film against the wishes of copyright holder Yoko Ono. The Killers claim that they were mislead about the nature of the film when approached for permission to use one of their songs. The producers made use of a Harvard University biology video without permission.
I think we can dismiss "Expelled" as a meaningful source in any debate, let alone a scientific one.5. Please provide an example of the "downward mixing" that should be visible in the fossil record if it is actually evidence of a turbulent flood. We will accept any organism that should only have emerged in the last 100 million years being found at any dated layer below 400 million years. This would be rather modest mixing in the top 10% of layers, but one irrefutable example will suffice.
Your demand is pure tautology ... there are many examples of so-called 'younger' fossils being found underneath layers where 'older' fossils arre found ... and Evolutionists explain this away by claiming that the 'younger' fossil creatures were living contemporaneously with the 'older' fossils ... in some cases the 'older' fossil creatures are even still alive today!!!!
I am asking you for examples please. If turbulence explains why we still see bottom feeders in the "flood record" above birds, then it should surely also give us birds and animals at the lower levels too. I am asking you for far less, a downward mixing merely in the top 10% of layers.
Reply rejected.6. Please clearly confirm that you have now accepted that either a) Your Designer is inept b) your Designer is disinterested in individual human survival c) irreducible complexity is not evidence of design but of mutation or d) redundancy (and thus new function) can arise by mutation. This is not an arbitrary four-way choice, the logic is explained here.
My Creator is both adept and interested in EVERY Human Being.
Irreducible Complexity proves that it mathematically impossible for the complex specified genetic information found in living creatures to be produced by undirected non-intelligent processes!!!!
All redundant systems are themselves Irreducibly Complex and therefore their production by undirected non-intelligent processes is ALSO mathematically impossible !!!
An irreducibly complex system cannot be also redundant as removal of one part does not render the system functionless if a backup is present. Redundancy and irreducible complexity are opposites and may only be present in separate systems.
Reply rejected.....your thinking is all 'wet' on this issue!!!:D
...and what's with the occult pentagram for the Biologista logo???
...I thought you guys were Materialists???
A pentagram is a five pointed star constructed from five straight lines crossing each other. The star has occult associations despite having been used in the past by Christians to represent the five wounds of Christ, amongst other far more mundane usages.
The logo to which you refer is not a pentagram but a filled, five pointed star intended to somewhat ironically echo a similar motif used by clichéd "revolutionaries" such as the Cuban and Russian communists. It's a simple visual trope, nothing more.7. Please provide data confirming the rapid sedimentation/rock formation processes that you describe as occurring during the The Flood. The data may be from any primary source but must be based upon wet lab or field work data, rather than a mathematical model or simulation. Since you describe the process as having taken only a few years, this should be testable. The process must be naturally-occuring, fast enough and common enough to explain the build up of the entire fossil record within 10,000 years.
....you are still being needlessly pedantic!!!!!
....the Fountains of the Great Deep were a once-off event in the gological history of the Earth... and it was the release of enormous quantities of suspended Calcium Carbonate in these waters that lead to the WORLDWIDE sedimentation cementation events that produced the Sedimentary Rocks that we now observe WORLDWIDE.
Once off event or not, if it occurred we should be able to replicate the effect in controlled settings. I am asking you for data.....to see a modern day example of Calcium Carbonate sediment cementation go look at concrete being poured on any local building site....and come back the next day and jump up and down on it!!!!!
But concrete does not resemble any naturally-occurring rock deposits in the world in either composition or layered structure. That is my understanding at least. Can you give me evidence that this is incorrect?.....equally look at ephimeral fossilised creatures like fossil Jellyfish....whose perfect fossilisation indicates VERY rapid setting of these rocks in minutes or hours AT MOST!!!!
If a jellyfish is covered in a centimetre-thick layer of relatively dense sediment, how long will it take for the Jellyfish to decay? What if local currents place a heavy, pre-formed stone over the remains? How uniform is that process of decay? How many times would we expect to see such an organism preserved by such means long enough to be protected by further sediment? How often would we expect to see such fossils formed over the course of 4 billion years? Given the number of factors involves, a flat statement of "fact" is hardly evidence.
So, what you have given me in response to question 7 is:
an anecdote about The Flood without evidence
an anecdote about a man-made process that does not resemble anything in nature
a confident claim that Jellyfish cannot be fossilised unless sealed within several hours
I asked you for evidence, you have not provided any.
Reply rejected.8. Please provide data demonstrating the mathematical, chemical or biological impossibility of the process of evolution. Some conditions: a) Whether the process did or did not occur is not relevant to the "possibility". b) Please confine your data to the process of evolution itself, that being the emergence of variation within life from a pre-formed common ancestor species. c) Abiogenesis is not a consideration. d) Data supporting Creation also does not impact on "possibility".
.....the production of a specific 100 chain of Amino Acids required for a specific functional protein using undirected processes is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE...even if you had all of the matter and supposed time in the 'Big Bang' Universe....and the non-intelligent production of everything else is even more impossible!!!!!
Proteins are not required during abiogenesis as it is currently hypothesised. Function can only be defined in terms of its context and thus even a simple "functional" protein will be functionless during abiogenesis. Function in a pre-biotic environment will primarily be defined in terms of stability and replication efficiency of the replicators.Could I point out that the mathematical impossibility of producing a small functional protein using non-intelligently directed processes rules out BOTH Abiogenesis AND 'Mice to Man Evolution' ... because of all of the novel functional proteins required by BOTH putative processes!!!:D
Not relevant to abiogenesis. I asked for a mathematical proof that the current abiogenesis hypothesis are impossible. You have provided an equation-free comment that a non-related event is impossible.
Reply rejected.9. Following on from question 1, it has been asserted that kinds are defined not by genetics but by interbreeding capacity, producing fertile or infertile offspring. Please suggest a means by which we could test the difference between a genuine Created Kind and a false kind or pseudokind that has arisen by the emergence of a new species unable to breed with its former Kind due either to a chromosomal mutation, gene insertion mutation, extinction of an intermediate species or other means in the distant past.
There would be no definitive test for such a 'pseudokind' ... but physiology could assist in determining such a species as provisionally belonging to a particular Kind. Molecular Biology could also be used to assist in this exercise as well.
Please elaborate further. You have merely listed broad techniques in biological research ("Physiology" and "Molecular Biology"). By what means could these techniques be used to determine if a Kind was, in fact, false?
Also if there is no definitive test for a pseudokind, on what basis can the existence of kinds be claimed to be valid?
Reply rejected.10. Please explain by what mechanism a Created Kind such as the Motherfly Kind could have diversified to produce 148,000 known species (not counting extinct or unidentified species) within the 4,400 years since Noah's Flood. Please explain why such rapid speciation is no longer occurring.
Many Flies are able to interbreed artificially ... but physical breeding signals and/or pheromones mean that they don't actually interbreed naturally.
This comment appears to have nothing to do with why rapid speciation is not recorded in the Bible and is not observed today.Equally, at a genetic level 'jumping genes' can account for full speciation divergence within one original species.
This is the Evolutionist explantion
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060908194141.htm
The process described in that article still exists today, yet we do not see 30-40 new species of butterfly/moth emerging per year as would be required by the creation model. So this explains absolutely nothing...and here is the Creation Science explantion
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/wallaby.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/OneBlood/chapter2.asp
Once again, the processes described here still exist and are still active. Yet we do not see the rapid speciation required by the Creation model occurring today. Nor is that speciation (which would have seen 30-40 new species emerging from one kind each year) ever mentioned in any accounts from the ancient Greeks(an observant bunch), Romans, Egyptians or the Jews of the Old Testament times.
You've failed to account for why rapid speciation has never been observed or mentioned by anyone, nor why this is no longer occurring.
Reply rejected.11. Do you think it was morally wrong for an Answers In Genesis film crew to mislead Richard Dawkins into providing an interview for them?
I don't know what you are actually referring to.
As a general principle, I would have thought that when anybody agrees to be interviewed by anybody else on film they clearly know that any statement they make will be 'on the record' and therefore such an interview is legitimate.
If you don't know the circumstances then why are you making a rather broad statement such as this? Surely you're not saying that it's impossible for a person to me misled or misrepresented via the medium of a videotaped interview?
Reply rejected.12. J C, why, when attacking abiogenesis, do you do so on the basis of the random formation of peptides- a process not claimed to be a part of any of the conventional abiogenesis hypotheses?
As I have pointed out in my answer to question 8 above, proteins are observed in BOTH the simplest forms of life as well as in so-called 'higher' organisms. Therefore, in order to supposedly produce EITHER the first living 'cell' by Abiogenesis or to produce 'Mice to Man Evolution' many novel functional proteins and other biologically active biomolecules MUST be produced.
And as explained above, function is defined by context. During abiogenesis, the context demands only stability and replicative efficiency of the replicators. Why would 100-amino acid proteins with an as-yet unneeded and unusable function suddenly matter? Since the replicators are most likely to have been based upon nucleic acids alone, amino acids and proteins do not enter into the matter. Unless you can provide us with an abiogenesis hypothesis which involves the processes you are describing?The fact that it is mathematical impossibility to produce a small functional protein using non-intelligently directed processes rules out BOTH Abiogenesis AND 'Mice to Man Evolution' ... because the production of all of the novel functional proteins required by BOTH putative materialistic processesis is ... IMPOSSIBLE!!!:D
But J C, in a system where protein production is already established, it takes only duplicating and modification of an extant protein (at the DNA level) to produce a new protein.
At any rate, we are discussing abiogenesis and not evolution. You have not been able to explain why talk of 100-mer amino acid chains is relevant to abiogenesis.
Reply rejected.13. J C, following your claim that the Creator is "probably" irreducibly complex, can you explain how this irreducibly complex being came into existence? As irreducible complexity cannot arise without intelligent intervention, what intelligence created the Creator?
Your question is the same as the one my four year old daughter once asked me ... "Who made God?"
...and my answer is the same ... God is an eternal and transcendent Being.
... and He DOESN'T logically or actually have to have an 'origin'.:cool:
Yes, but you have categorically stated that irreducibly complex things must be created, whether they have had 4 billion years to come into existence or (in the case of a God external to time) zero time in which to come into existence. Are you now saying that, in some circumstances, it is possible for an irreducibly complex thing to come into existence or to exist eternally without intelligent intervention?Materialists are actually the ones with an enormous 'ultimate origins' problem ... with the ultimate origin of energy and matter ... and I am sorry, but the idea that 'nothing' blew up is so unbelievable that even my four year old laughed out loud when I told her!!!!
I would imagine she laughed because her father did. The ultimate origin question is a question, and it has not been answered. What sets us apart is that you have arrived at an answer without evidence and we recognise that we do not know.
So the question remains: Can irreducibly complex things exist within time or outside of it without intelligent intervention?
Reply rejected.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
God spoke and nothing turned into everything. Yes everything is clear nowSoul Winner wrote: »Well yeah of course. It means that before there was anything God spoke and everything became.
I understand what the passage is saying, what I don't understand is what it means, what are the logistics, as a project manager might ask.
What did God actually do, he obviously didn't "speak" because speech is a vibration of air caused by the muscles in the vocal cord, a muscles I imagine God doesn't have. So he presumably wished it to happen, but what does that mean in terms of a superpowerful deity that doesn't exist in linear time. Was there a point when he hadn't wished this, he wished it and then everything changed? Or was he always wishing this to happen, for all eternity, which would suggest that the universe existed as soon as God existed.
And how did he turn nothing into something. Where did the something come from. Did it exist some where else before is was our universe? Did the "nothing" turn into "something" and if so what did God do that caused that to happen
As has already been mentioned a few times, "God did it" is not an answer, it is simply a package containing a billion more questions.Soul Winner wrote: »Not too sure how smart that would be when one considers what Paul says to Romans in chapter 1 from verse 18 through 21
I find it rather difficult to accept a god that would be angry with humans for being truthful and admitting that they don't know stuff. I find it rather difficult to accept a god that would be angry with humans for not accepting what he is supposed to have written in a holy book a few thousand years ago without a confirm-able or testable framework.
If a god exists he is probably a scientist and as such should find this attitude proper, rather than finding it a reason to enact wrath and vengeance.
But then your god started to appear in human culture around the time when all this scientific study meant diddly squat, when superstition and supernatural were accepted with open hands, so it is not particularly surprising that your god reflects this attitude some what.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement