One other note here, when Occam's Razor says the simplest explination is often the most likely - simplest doesn't mean the least amount of steps. Simplest means the answer with the least amount of assumptions. And I cannot think of a bigger assumption than an all powerful God.
Coded Logic
JoinedPosts by Coded Logic
-
116
Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly
by Coded Logic inchris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
-
-
-
116
Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly
by Coded Logic inchris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
-
-
Coded Logic
--interesting, Do you sell anything in theis store that made itself--?
- prologos
This is a falacious arguement on two accounts. Firstly, it's a false equivication. Everything in the store was not "made" in the same sense that the universe was "made." Everything in the store is the rearangment of positive energy. The universe, however, comes from the quantum fluctuations of equal amounts of negitive and postive energy. Thier orgins are entirely different in the sense that your trying to equate them.
Secondly, this arguement is also bad inductive reasoning. It's like saying, "all sheep have mothers - therefore the flock must have a mother." Or like saying, "all water drops are round - therefore all oceans must be round." What applies to the individual parts does not neccissarly apply to the whole. What applies to the formation of things inside the universe does not neccissarly apply to the formation of the universe itself.
the theory still posits that something very potent existed from the very beginning and something caused a disturbance in that field.
This is not true. The theory postits that "nothing" is inherently unstable and will seek a lower entropy. Thus, quantum fluctuations. It does not say that "something" causes it.
we have no right at this time to say which of those two causes, God or random energy fluctuations, is more likely
Quantum fluctuations are known to exists. Gods are NOT known to exists. Your arguement is like saying, "We can't know which two causes, General Motors or magical pixies, is more likely to have created all Corvetts."
You cannot solve one mystery with another mystery. You cannot explain one unknown by postulating the existance of another unknown. And you certainly can't say an unknown is as likely as a known. Knowns are ALWAYS more likely.
-
116
Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly
by Coded Logic inchris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
-
-
Coded Logic
It was just probing for your personal insight into the Big Question
You should have just asked. Ever since I learned the total sum energy in our univers is zero that was pretty much the nail in the coffin. My video pretty much sums up my thoughts:
-
116
Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly
by Coded Logic inchris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
-
-
Coded Logic
One can't "disprove" the existance of an unknown. As far as the God Hypothesis goes, it gives us no explanitory nor predictive capabilities. And, as far as anyone can tell, our universe works just fine without a creator.
It's like your asking me to "disprove" that the Nile river wasn't designed by aliens.
-
116
Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly
by Coded Logic inchris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
-
-
Coded Logic
Your PROGRESSION from a believer in Creation to your present, different position interests us.
I fear we may be cross talking here. Are you asking why I am no longer convinced there is a creator?
-
116
Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly
by Coded Logic inchris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
-
-
Coded Logic
coded logic, explain to us why you think there could not be a creator?
You're attempting to shift the burden of proof by saying that I believe, "there cannot be a creator." However, this is NOT the position that I've taken nor is it a belief that I hold. I don't know if there "can" or "cannot" be a creator.
The burden of proof is on the person saying "there is a creator" to show evidence for that claim. In the absense of evidence we disbelieve the proposition. But just because I'm not convinced of the proposition DOESN'T mean I have taken the opposite position (null hypothesis). Here's some more information on the topic for you:
-
11
What's Your Definition of TTATT ?
by Pete Zahut ini need to explain this to someone later and need a concice way of putting it.
f you had to give a "in a nutshell" definition of ttatt, what would you say or what main points would you use to define it ?.
( thanks in advance for your help ).
-
-
Coded Logic
I know it's supposed to be - the truth about the "truth" - but every time I see it I think - the "truth" aint the truth. Weird role reversal on which truth ends up with the scare quotes.
I also like the latter because it better sums up my feelings about it. The so called "truth" isn't true at all. It's a lie being regurgitated by self-righteous men with no introspective or meta-cognitive abilities. People just stroking their own ego for finding a way to feel superior to everyone else.
-
26
Dammit Jim, I'm a psychopath not an all loving God!
by Coded Logic inwhen did you discover that the god of bible - and the loving god that you had worshiped your entire life - were not the same?
how did it affect you?.
.
-
-
Coded Logic
An all powerful God should never have to use lethal force. If God was truly worried about man "ruining the earth" he could have dried up every womans womb except for Noahs family. Wiping out the entire biosphere shows a complete lack of omnipotence and omnibenevolence.
God also let Jeptha sacrafice his own daughter so he could win in battle.
-
116
Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly
by Coded Logic inchris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
-
-
Coded Logic
I used to be a creationist. I'm glad someone took the time to help reason things out for me. Just paying it forward. It only takes one Bible scripture to be debunked for the house of cards to come crashing down.
-
116
Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly
by Coded Logic inchris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
-
-
Coded Logic
Chris Tann,
In your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that Genesis and science were somehow compatible . However, the truth is the two are NOT reconcilable at all. Here are some reasons why:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1 implies that the heavens (moon, sun, stars, planets, etc.) were made at, or around, the same time as the earth was made. This is not true in the slightest. The universe is roughly 13.6 billion years old - while the earth is only about 4.5 billion years old. And the moon is much younger than that. Thus, "in the beginning” would take up a period of more than 9 billion years. Or, over two-thirds the age of the universe. Hardly "in the begining."
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
You say that earth was “formless” when it was the accretion disk around the Sun. The problem with this is there was no “surface of the deep” (oceans) and, also, the sun had already begun fusion - thus there would be light - not be darkness as Genesis claims. Also, there would also be light comming from other stars.
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
Here is a real nail in the coffin. According to Genesis God doesn’t create light until AFTER he’s created the earth. This is NOT compatible with cosmology. Light has been around for at least 13 billion years. Much older than the age of the earth.
Some try to argue that light was not created on the first day but, rather, that light did not reach the surface of the earth until the first day. This, firstly, is NOT what the scriptures says. And even if the scripture did say that it would still be false. Light had been shining on the earth during all points of its formation. Genesis just plainly gets light wrong.
And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
There is no vault separating the waters from the waters. There are streams that flow in the Rockies high above the clouds and fog of the West Coast. There is ice at sea level, mountain level, and even higher up in stratiform clouds. Water vapor exists throughout our entire atmosphere and also exists deep under the oceans near hydrothermal vents. There is no vault separating the waters from the waters - water exists in many forms at every level.
And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
There is not just "dry land" and "gathered waters." There are also tidal pools, marsh lands, and deltas.
Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
Genesis has vegetation created BEFORE the sun. This is a HUGE problem. It’s also says that plants were created at the same time as fruit trees. Land plants have been around for over five-hundred-million years. Fruit trees have been around for less than sixty-million years - an overlap of five-hundred and forty million years.
And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
How exactly do plants and trees grow for five-hundred and forty million years without the sun? And the sun is much younger than most the stars we see in the sky. Not the same age. And certainly not younger than the earth and plants and trees. Also the moon, unlike the sun, is not a light. It’s a reflector. Genesis just gets it wrong on every single level here.
And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
Genesis has flying animals created before land animals. This is completely backwards. Flying insects, birds, bats, and pterosaurs all evolved from creatures that lived on the land.
Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.
Humans are omnivores. Not herbivores.
And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.
Once again Genesis says there are only herbivores. This is not true. There is a huge variety of omnivores and carnivores.
I could go on and on, but I think I've more than demonstrated that Genesis is not compatible with Cosmology, Geology, Stratigraphy, and just about every single one of the Life Sciences. As such, creationist should be quick to dismiss Genesis.