Will You Go on Record

[shunyadragon]

Todsblog continued, when he was assaulted by a barrage of criticism from many many sources Todd blogged this:

Source: http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/10/im-creationist.html

I'M A CREATIONIST!

The furor continues, as silly as it is. My blog hits yesterday shot up to heights I've not seen since Pharyngula made fun of me back in March. I've begun to notice a strange


undercurrent of folks proposing that I'm not really a young earth creationist. One especially amusing person suggested that I was stupid, possibly bipolar, or just a liar (scroll down here to Lester10's post). So much for that whole "love your enemies" thing.

Lest my creationist credentials be doubted, let me be blunt:

I believe that God created everything that you see in six consecutive days around 6000 years ago.
I believe that Adam and Eve were the very first humans and were directly created by God.
I believe Adam and Eve sinned, and that sin brought death, carnivory, disease, and suffering into the world.
I believe that people really lived to be 900+ years back then.
I believe that there was a truly global Flood that inundated the entire planet.
I believe that humans and land animals were preserved on an Ark (approximately 450 feet long for those keeping score).
I believe that the humans after the Flood gradually stopped living to be 900+.
I believe that the humans after the Flood tried to build a tower in Babel to prevent their dispersal across the globe, in direct contradiction to God's command.
I believe that God punished the builders of Babel by miraculously confusing their languages.

© Copyright Original Source

[jordanriver]

And I'd really HATE to think of the Christian God as a deceiver to those interested in a deep study of His creation as manifest in Creation itself.


K54

why wouldn't He be?

...look, I am grateful for geologists who are in it for the purpose of petroleum and making MY life comfortable and warm.

but why would Bible God be concerned with those who are so "...interested in a deep study of His creation ...." ?

its just temporary.

He's gonna burn it all up .

[rogue06]

Ah ha! I see -- just put scare quotes around 'impact craters' and attribute them to gas explosions.

But, wade-a-minnut! Them gas explosion would also release tremendous amounts of energy, causing all kinds of nasty things, whether pre-Fall, post-Fall/pre-Fludde, or post-Fludde.

Wouldn't they?

But the genius who wrote this opus is our friend Jorge.

Jorge, could you please clarify the energy issue for us?

K54

Yup. It in no way gets around the energy release problem.

[Jorge]

Looking in that mirror again Jorge?



Ad yet, time after time again, you fail to show this 'falsehood' and just keep showing that you're looking into a mirror.



More foaming at the mouth ranting? What actually happens Jorge is that something comes along that shows some element is either wrong or misunderstood and things are slightly changed around to account for the new evidence. Unlike your method, in which you pronounce judgment on anybody who dares to disagree with you and question their integrity and motives for daring to disagree with you. Can you give some specific examples to support your assertion with because I always thought that throwing out the baby with the bathwater was a foolish thing to engage in and a far better solution is to just refill your bathtub with clean water. Can you show how these adjustments disprove TOE or are you just going to keep asserting it does because you said so.



Foaming at the mouth again?



A bald assertion again? Examples would be nice, so where are your examples at?



Drooling again? Can you please give an example to support your assertion with or explain why they are wrong. Let me guess, they are wrong because Jorge said so, correct?



So changing up a theory because the evidence doesn't match up is a bad and terrible thing? Now, go ahead and show how this should disprove that evolution happens. I'm waiting...



And that is wrong because....



So a theory can never change to new evidence and must always be the same or else the entire thing comes crashing down? Wow, no wonder most people find you're an idiot because I always thought modifying things to meet new evidence instead of throwing it all in the garbage was a way better way to go about things. Do engineers just throw an entire design out the window because something doesn't work quite right or do they seek a way to modify what they have to make it work better? Your insanity is rather entertaining, but shows you really don't understand what you're talking about.



Foaming at the mouth again? Than you shouldn't have a problem demonstrating this because I seem to find that is how the world actually works. Somebody finds they are wrong and changes up where they were wrong at vs just throwing everything out the window and starting all over. Yet when science does this, that's wrong, but when YEC's do this (IE adding things into the Bible to make their arguments work) that's ok. Remember, such as how you are trying the discovery that it is possible we have a whole lot of water under the earth surface as proof the entire world was flooded when there is no Bible verse that says God sent the remaining water down beneath the surface and you just add that in to make your arguments work? Your hypocrisy is quite amusing. Keep it up.



So what would convince you that you are wrong than? Nothing, correct?

Hand me a double, bartender ... after reading the above lunacy, I need it!!!

Jorge

[rogue06]

why wouldn't He be?

...look, I am grateful for geologists who are in it for the purpose of petroleum and making MY life comfortable and warm.

but why would Bible God be concerned with those who are so "...interested in a deep study of His creation ...." ?

its just temporary.

He's gonna burn it all up .

Perhaps because the Bible repeatedly instructs us to look at His creation in order to gain some insight into God's might and majesty^[1].

Perhaps because Paul tells us that the evidence provided by it are sufficient that we are "without excuse" if reject God. Had an artificially dated planet been palmed off on us by a clever bit of sleight-of-hand, or all the evidence that His creation provides that demonstrates that evolution is real, we would not be "without excuse" – instead we'd have a great excuse! How ironic it would have been for God to have commanded us, "Thou shalt not bear false witness," and then have expected us to adhere to a criterion that He would have violated from the very beginning.





1."The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge"(Ps 19:1-2). Job says that the creatures of the earth, and the earth itself, declares that all creation is the work of God (12:7-10). The psalmist also declares that, "truth springs from the earth" (85:11), and that "the word of the Lord is upright; and all his work is done in faithfulness" (33:4). Finally, the Psalmist tells us that the universe declares God’s righteousness (Ps 50:6; 97:6). But moreover, the Bible says that God does not lie to us (Num 23:19; Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18). Therefore, from the Bible, we can conclude that God does not lie or deceive, either from His word or from His record in nature.

[rogue06]

Hand me a double, bartender ... after reading the above lunacy, I need it!!!

Jorge

Well that certainly thoroughly refutes what lpot wrote. It is a marvel to watch how you marshal your facts and evidence and present it in such a logical and concise manner that it defies any and all refutation.

[jordanriver]

Perhaps because the Bible repeatedly instructs us to look at His creation in order to gain some insight into God's might and majesty^[1].

Perhaps because Paul tells us that the evidence provided by it are sufficient that we are "without excuse" if reject God. Had an artificially dated planet been palmed off on us by a clever bit of sleight-of-hand, or all the evidence that His creation provides that demonstrates that evolution is real, we would not be "without excuse" – instead we'd have a great excuse! How ironic it would have been for God to have commanded us, "Thou shalt not bear false witness," and then have expected us to adhere to a criterion that He would have violated from the very beginning.





1."The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge"(Ps 19:1-2). Job says that the creatures of the earth, and the earth itself, declares that all creation is the work of God (12:7-10). The psalmist also declares that, "truth springs from the earth" (85:11), and that "the word of the Lord is upright; and all his work is done in faithfulness" (33:4). Finally, the Psalmist tells us that the universe declares God’s righteousness (Ps 50:6; 97:6). But moreover, the Bible says that God does not lie to us (Num 23:19; Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18). Therefore, from the Bible, we can conclude that God does not lie or deceive, either from His word or from His record in nature.

So, did you ever figure out a harmonization for Eve's creation

[klaus54]

why wouldn't He be?

...look, I am grateful for geologists who are in it for the purpose of petroleum and making MY life comfortable and warm.

but why would Bible God be concerned with those who are so "...interested in a deep study of His creation ...." ?

its just temporary.

He's gonna burn it all up .

So it's OK if Bible God is a deceiver?

Wow, cool!

Makes studying nature more fun. You never know what trick Bible God has up His sleeve. Kinda like my older brother's intricate O-gauge trolley layout.

I'm glad Bible God made things consistent enough that them petroleum gee-ologists were able to find you oil for your minivan via "Darwinist" methods.

That's was downright neighborly of Bible God!

But it WASN'T so neighborly of Bible God to fool us gee-ological and ass-tronomical kinda fellers and gals. Bible God SURE done packed lots of fake history into them thar stars and rocks and gee-netic codes.

Bad, bad, bad Bible God! He doesn't wike us science types, lessen we making faster cars, the Internet, sweeter sody-pop, satty-light telly-bishen, and all that fun crap.

Some thangs are best not lookin' into, I figger.

I wisht I'd a knowd all along that I could read a few pages of ambiguous, vague, inconsistent ANE stories to knowd how all these perrty thangs done got here.

Guess I ain't smart with the book learnin' like y'all YEC Bible God folks.

Is the "Word" (capital) of God in the form of a book one o' them there members of Bible God's Trinity? I learnt that "Word" in John 1 was God the Son. Didn't rightly know he done turned into a BOOK! And a downright BORING one for the most part.

Da Bible God, Da Bible, and Strong's Concordance -- is dat da Trinity???

K54

[klaus54]

So, did you ever figure out a harmonization for Eve's creation

You mean the Woman (ish-ah) in Genesis chapter 2?

My heathen Bible doesn't name "Eve" until after the Fall.

But I don't know Bible God like you.

And I hope I never do.

K54

[lilpixieofterror]

Hand me a double, bartender ... after reading the above lunacy, I need it!!!

Another non answer again. I see you can't answer the main argument against your claim. It is pretty simple. Let us suppose that an engineering team discovers a flaw with a building they are designing. Do they throw the entire design out the window or do they figure out a way to modify their design to make it work with what they already have? In most cases, they will change up their design up, to make up for the flaw, but will very rarely scrap the entire design just because a few flaws are found during planning and testing. Same logic applies when it comes to a scientific theory as large as evolutionary theory. Some elements of it could be wrong without the entire theory itself being mistaken. What you need to show (and you have failed to show it, time after time again) that evolution is wrong in a critical area. Discovering that mammals evolved earlier than we once thought doesn't bring the entire theory crashing down nor does discovering that some species change faster than others (faster being a relative term, since we are still taking about hundreds or thousands of generations) does this either. You do understand that, right?

[lilpixieofterror]

Well that certainly thoroughly refutes what lpot wrote. It is a marvel to watch how you marshal your facts and evidence and present it in such a logical and concise manner that it defies any and all refutation.

I mostly did that just to show how big of a hypocrite Jorge really is. If you give him a point by point answer, he does something like that. If you don't give him a point by point answer, he accuses you of dodging his points. No matter what, he wins. Don't you love people trying to impress others with their stacked decks?

[jordanriver]

But I don't know Bible God like you.

And I hope I never do.

K54

I can't tell what your complaint is exactly.

do you believe there is a God?

[klaus54]

I can't tell what your complaint is exactly.

do you believe there is a God?

I believe in God.

But Bible God is bad fella.

He lie. He no likey smart people. He no wantee people study his handiwork. He mean. He makee Earth and Cosmos lookee wery old and have muchee history. He deceiver.

Me no likey Bible God.

Me hopee Bible God no exeeest.

Me thinkee Bible God be YEC myeeth.

K54

[rogue06]

So, did you ever figure out a harmonization for Eve's creation

As Benjamin Warfield noted it is one of the bigger problems. Personally I think a good place to start is with the depiction of God in this chapter.

He is described in very anthropomorphic terms especially when Adam was created. Here we have God as a physical entity with literal hands molding the earth. With literal lungs, mouth and lips breathing the breath of life into Adam. To me it is an anthropomorphic expression much like Exodus 7:5 when it says:

"The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring out the people of Israel from among them"

I don't think of God actually stretching out a material, physical hand. Similarly in Psalm 57:1 when David spoke of being in the shadow of God's wings this does not mean that God is some sort of winged creature.

The point I'm trying to make is that the description of God in Genesis 2 seems to suggest that we should proceed with caution about taking the text literally

[jordanriver]

I believe in God.

But Bible God is bad fella......

K54

is this a God somebody else told you about, or just an assumption that there must be a God?


....sounds like you reject Yahweh/Jesus/Trinity-Elohiym, because He is mean,

....so I imagine based on that, the God you believe in is , what?
......good?

...is the God you believe in a Creator of the universe , or just a product of the universe, ?



I am asking because you already seem to know about Bible God, fire and brimstone, wrath, ....a Punisher,
...so when you are dealing with me, you know what you are dealing with

What am I dealing with , engaging dialogue with you?