• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creation Science House Bill 3826

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Now wait just a minute there. Saying "God did it" i already granted does not get us any closer to knowledge then saying "naturalism did it". Its akin to saying "my dad engineered this truck, therefore i understand how trucks work" or "nature made this truck, therefore i understand how trucks work". Both statements dont get us any closer to understanding how trucks work. Its the same with life and the universe.

But there is a difference. If you say 'God did it', there is no place to go next in the investigation.All further lines in inquiry are shut down. No mechanism can be pursued.

On the other hand, if you take the point of view of naturalism, there are going to be ways to proceed: look at the physical structures present and determine what sort of natural processes, using known physical laws, could produce those structures.

So, 'God did it' is a research dead-end.

Even on a practical level, the 'intelligent design' conclusion should be the last resort, being accepted only after *all* natural possibilities have been shown to be wanting.
 
Last edited:

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
I dont think nasturalism has any better track record. It stifles knowledge. Before the discovery of DNA, it was said by the naturalists that the cell was simple jelly. Now we know its not. It was also said DNA had alot of junk, now we know thats not true either.
The difference being that when methodological naturalism makes mistakes or false assumptions, it works to correct them and then works towards finding the correct answer. The nature of most religion, by contrast, is to assert something as a truth and then continue to do so regardless of what turns out to actually be true. The key difference is that naturalists no longer believe a cell is simple jelly, whereas there are still many, many religious groups who still believe myths about the origin of life being literal and true.

So, no, "naturalism did it, of the gaps" does not help us anymore then saying "God did it, of the gaps".
But that's not what is being presented. Naturalism explores a question in the hopes of eventually providing an answer, so naturalism not having provided an answer yet isn't "naturalism of the gaps" unless an individual is asserting that there could not possibly be a non-naturalistic explanation. "God of the gaps", by contrast, asserts that because there are gaps in our knowledge, it is rational (if not necessary) to insert God in those gaps. Saying "science is investigating the issue and we have no reason yet to believe it won't eventually come up with an answer" is not committing the same fallacy as "you don't have an answer for x, therefore I assert that the answer is God".

Well i think the stories wer literally true, i just think there perception played a role in there writing it. It dont mean they understood all dynamics. Like the sun standing still. That probably happened, but, not in the way they understood. So, they say it stood still. But, the phenomenon still happened.
That's fine, but it's not what many religious people and institutions believe or teach.

Oh, also, sorry i havent gotten to your other posts. Im aware of them, but, due to such number of posts and time, i cant get to respond to everyone.
Don't worry about it - these are open forums and you have the right to respond to or not respond to whatever is posted. Some people do tend to get on other's backs about that kind of thing, but you won't tend to get that from me. Especially if I can see you've got lots of other posts constantly coming in that are taking up your time and attention.
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Give me an example of a code putside DNA that implies no intelligence?

The geographical strata provide an encoded message describing the history of the Earth. What geologists need to learn is how to read the code to learn the geological past. Often, this information is reworked so we have to go through multiple levels of translation before getting the original message.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Whats contradictory about supernatural?

Well, let's start by asking what the definition of 'natural' is. how do we determine if something is natural or not? Is light natural? Are atoms? Dark matter? Why or why not?

Once we have a definition of 'natural', we can proceed to a definition of 'supernatural'. But we may need to define what it means to 'exist' first.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Now wait just a minute there. Saying "God did it" i already granted does not get us any closer to knowledge then saying "naturalism did it".

Let's try to stay on track. You asserted:
You let your naturalism stand in the way of scientific knowledge.
Naturalism gave us the scientific knowledge that debunked your religions theistic claims:

  • The earth is 6000 years old.
  • The entire earth was covered in floodwaters as high as Mt. Everest.
  • A small group of people and two of each "kind" of animal survived the most horrific seas in a wooden boat.
  • After landing safely on Mt. Ararat, all the animals made their way to different parts of the world - like kangaroos getting to Australia.
  • The sun, which revolves around the earth, stopped for a period of time.
So, obviously, naturalism does get us closer to knowledge than religion does.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Lol, see what you just did? You enacted a straw man and hit it. Im not debating how old the earth is. Im debating if DNA IS a code or is a metaphor of a code.

The topic of this thread is creationism.

Besides, you opened up this vein two weeks ago when you asserted:
Let me put it like this. Why do you think theres a genesis in the first place? Because people saw order and design in the world. Ancient people even saw it.

But, you know as well as i do that there are various interpretations for genesis chapter 1 and the flood. If i start debating that when im debating DNA, my time will be crunched all the more.

Then you shouldn't have asked "Why do you think "theres (sic) a genesis in the first place?"

In any event, you haven't demonstrated a deep enough understanding of biology to be discussing DNA.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
But, you know as well as i do that there are various interpretations for genesis chapter 1 and the flood.
...
Some think it was local. As in the highest mountains according to the authors perception.

Some think it was global.

It's not in anyone's best interested to debate what "some think". It only makes sense to discuss what is actually written.

From BibleHub
King James Bible
And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; andevery thing that is in the earth shall die.​

This is ostensibly a direct quote from God. The only way "all flesh ... under heaven" could be destroyed is if the entire earth is covered.

I dont care to debate the boat because we dont know how well the boat was built. We only have a general discription of it.
We do know the materials and processes that were not used: Steel, rivets and welding.
We do know that it had no means of propulsion or steering. That means it had no way of turning into the wind and into the most massive waves imaginable.

We do know the fate of large wooden boats:
Wyoming - 450 ft. Arc - 300 cubits (450 ft).
Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia
Because of its extreme length and wood construction, Wyoming tended to flex in heavy seas, which would cause the long planks to twist and buckle, thereby allowing sea water to intrude into the hold (see hogging and sagging). Wyoming had to use pumps to keep its hold relatively free of water. In March 1924, it foundered in heavy seas and sank with the loss of all hands.​

RE: Sun standing still
How do you know certain phenomona did not happen and the authors just wrote down what they percieved? They may not have fully understood it, but they percieved it and wrote accounts.
King James Bible
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
That's a pretty specific description of the event. It doesn't leave much room to write it off as "perception".

If you believe those things, then you must equally believe that it is just as possible that God created everything Last Thursday.

This is a stupid statement. Polymath is doing a way better job then you are.

I'm not trying to compete with Polymath. He has far more training and education than I do when it comes to biology and DNA.

I just try to point out how silly creationism, in all its forms, is.

Why is "If you believe those things, then you must equally believe that it is just as possible that God created everything Last Thursday" a stupid statement?

If a God created everything LastThursday, He could have made it look exactly as it looks today even to the point of creating a Genesis story that reads exactly as one sees in the Bible. You have no way to know if God created everything 6000 years ago or a couple of days ago.

If you do, I'd like to hear it.
 
But there is a difference. If you say 'God did it', there is no place to go next in the investigation.All further lines in inquiry are shut down. No mechanism can be pursued.

Thats not true. After IDers make the inference of actual design and actual intelligence, they then persue how this grand machine runs, operates and works that the intelligence made.

Now, to be fair to you, yes, some creationist will be like "ok, no need to understand more" and i agree thats bad. But, not all creationists will do that. I for one do not.

I mean, theres some atheists that hypothetically could have that kind of additude as well. Say naturalism did it and ok, thats enough, no more study is needed.

On the other hand, if you take the point of view of naturalism, there are going to be ways to proceed: look at the physical structures present and determine what sort of natural processes, using known physical laws, could produce those structures.

Thats a different question. Theres a difference between asking "what produced these structures?" Verses "how do these structures work together?"

Also if one wants to KNOW THE answer to either one of those questions then they cant assume naturalism before seeking the answer. They must be open to THE actual answer.

So, 'God did it' is a research dead-end.

Not so, reasons above. Some atheists saying nature did it also can be a dead end research. But, to be fair, i wont say all naturalists have that additude.

Even on a practical level, the 'intelligent design' conclusion should be the last resort, being accepted only after *all* natural possibilities have been shown to be wanting.

I disagree. If the evidence is there, inference of design and information is warrented.

I could also say the same thing. Even on a practical level, the 'naturalisms' conclusion should be the last resort, being accepted only after *all* intelligence possibilities have been shown to be wanting.

But, i wont even say that. Im saying, the ACTUAL answer should be sought.

And im saying theres TWO seperate, but related questions here.

What produced these structures?

And

How do these structures work together?

Such as DNA.
 
The difference being that when methodological naturalism makes mistakes or false assumptions, it works to correct them and then works towards finding the correct answer. The nature of most religion, by contrast, is to assert something as a truth and then continue to do so regardless of what turns out to actually be true. The key difference is that naturalists no longer believe a cell is simple jelly, whereas there are still many, many religious groups who still believe myths about the origin of life being literal and true.

Ok, i understand, but, this is not a completely fair comment.

Theres alot of creationists who after seeing evidence go against there belief in the bible, they will not twist evidence to fit the bible, instead they change there INTERPRETATION of the bible to fit the evidence. So, they dont throw out the bible, they simply realize they misunderstood the account being fallible as they are. Just as the naturalists wer fallible in calling the cell jelly. But, hey, some naturalists still keep up the same nonsense and say the universe came from nothing. Note, some, i didnt say all.

But that's not what is being presented. Naturalism explores a question in the hopes of eventually providing an answer, so naturalism not having provided an answer yet isn't "naturalism of the gaps" unless an individual is asserting that there could not possibly be a non-naturalistic explanation.

This comment is fair.

"God of the gaps", by contrast, asserts that because there are gaps in our knowledge, it is rational (if not necessary) to insert God in those gaps.

This is not fair. We infer intelligence from information and the appearence of design in the world. We are not doing anything that naturalists do when they infer naturalist mechanisms about origins of life and the universe. After we infer intelligence, wer NOT saying we fully understand HOW the grand machine works that the intelligence made. So, wer not inserting intelligence into a gap.

Let me illustrate it like this: you see a car, you did not see it being built. You infer intelligence built it. But you gladlt admit you dont fully understand how each part works with the other parts.

Saying "science is investigating the issue and we have no reason yet to believe it won't eventually come up with an answer" is not committing the same fallacy as "you don't have an answer for x, therefore I assert that the answer is God".

I could say the same thing

Saying "science is investigating the issue and we have no reason yet to believe it won't eventually come up with an answer" is not committing the same fallacy as "you don't have an answer for x, therefore I assert that the answer is NATURALISM"

That's fine, but it's not what many religious people and institutions believe or teach.


Don't worry about it - these are open forums and you have the right to respond to or not respond to whatever is posted. Some people do tend to get on other's backs about that kind of thing, but you won't tend to get that from me. Especially if I can see you've got lots of other posts constantly coming in that are taking up your time and attention.

Fair.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Thats not true. After IDers make the inference of actual design and actual intelligence, they then persue how this grand machine runs, operates and works that the intelligence made.

And how do they do this? In *exactly* the same way they would from a naturalist assumption!

Thats a different question. Theres a difference between asking "what produced these structures?" Verses "how do these structures work together?"

Also if one wants to KNOW THE answer to either one of those questions then they cant assume naturalism before seeking the answer. They must be open to THE actual answer.

But that 'answer' has to make testable predictions that can be verified by observations. That means the naturalist methodology.

I disagree. If the evidence is there, inference of design and information is warrented

Only once you have eliminated the natural possibilities. This is a common issue in subjects like archeology. You have to understand what can happen naturally before you can conclude an intelligence is active, even when you have candidate intelligences around.

I could also say the same thing. Even on a practical level, the 'naturalisms' conclusion should be the last resort, being accepted only after *all* intelligence possibilities have been shown to be wanting.

Except that, in practice, that hasn't been a useful way to approach things. it was precisely the turn to naturalism that lead to the huge rise of science over the last 400 years.

But, i wont even say that. Im saying, the ACTUAL answer should be sought.

And the *way* to find that actual answer is via forming testable hypotheses and making observations. Eliminate hypotheses that do not form testable predictions.

And im saying theres TWO seperate, but related questions here.

What produced these structures?

And

How do these structures work together?

Such as DNA.

And until you know what the *natural* processes are that might do so, you cannot conclude an intelligence is active.
 
It's not in anyone's best interested to debate what "some think". It only makes sense to discuss what is actually written.

From BibleHub
King James Bible
And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; andevery thing that is in the earth shall die.​

This is ostensibly a direct quote from God. The only way "all flesh ... under heaven" could be destroyed is if the entire earth is covered.

You really wanna debate this flood i see.

Ok, ill do a little bit.

This could of been local, or global. But, if it wer local, when God said "all flesh under heaven" and "everything in the earth". Again, he very well could have been speaking to Noahs general perception of his known world in the area.

As in, all flesh in your country or in your land or earth. Plus the hebrew word for earth there does grant room for it to be translated as country.

Hebrew word is Erets

Old Testament Hebrew - StudyLight.org

Also what about them fish fossils on mount Everest?

We do know the materials and processes that were not used: Steel, rivets and welding.
We do know that it had no means of propulsion or steering. That means it had no way of turning into the wind and into the most massive waves imaginable.

Bronze, iron, gold and silver wer metals that could have been used.

But, since the boat is not found (although theres candidates) we cant really know how it was built precisely.

We do know the fate of large wooden boats:
Wyoming - 450 ft. Arc - 300 cubits (450 ft).
Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia
Because of its extreme length and wood construction, Wyoming tended to flex in heavy seas, which would cause the long planks to twist and buckle, thereby allowing sea water to intrude into the hold (see hogging and sagging). Wyoming had to use pumps to keep its hold relatively free of water. In March 1924, it foundered in heavy seas and sank with the loss of all hands.​


Sure​

RE: Sun standing still

King James Bible
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
That's a pretty specific description of the event. It doesn't leave much room to write it off as "perception".

Then perhaps it happened. It even does say there is another book that states it.

I'm not trying to compete with Polymath. He has far more training and education than I do when it comes to biology and DNA.

I just try to point out how silly creationism, in all its forms, is.

Why is "If you believe those things, then you must equally believe that it is just as possible that God created everything Last Thursday" a stupid statement?

If a God created everything LastThursday, He could have made it look exactly as it looks today even to the point of creating a Genesis story that reads exactly as one sees in the Bible. You have no way to know if God created everything 6000 years ago or a couple of days ago.

If you do, I'd like to hear it.

Theres clear evidence things wer not made last thursday.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
You really wanna debate this flood i see.

Ok, ill do a little bit.

This could of been local, or global. But, if it wer local, when God said "all flesh under heaven" and "everything in the earth". Again, he very well could have been speaking to Noahs general perception of his known world in the area.

As in, all flesh in your country or in your land or earth. Plus the hebrew word for earth there does grant room for it to be translated as country.

13And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.​
Read carefully. None of your qualifiers work.

Also what about them fish fossils on mount Everest?
What about them? You don't believe the scientific explanations, so why do you ask?



Bronze, iron, gold and silver wer metals that could have been used.

So, you are picturing Noah heading down to the local gold mine and coming back with gold rivets.

Bronze didn't exist in Noah's time.



But, since the boat is not found (although theres candidates) we cant really know how it was built precisely.

But we can know that it could not have been built using strong metals for connections or bracing.

The Wyoming used all the best techniques available to wooden ships built in the early 20th Century.

Even with iron strapping the frame buckled loosening the planking. The ship generally required the use of pumps.

Because of its extreme length and wood construction, Wyoming tended to flex in heavy seas, which would cause the long planks to twist and buckle, thereby allowing sea water to intrude into the hold​
Source:
The Schooner Wyoming -- Wyoming Tales and Trails
Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia



RE: the sun standing still for the better part of a day...
Then perhaps it happened. It even does say there is another book that states it.
Uh huh.

Theres clear evidence things wer not made last thursday.
There is absolutely no evidence to show Everything was not created Last Thursday.

If you think you have some, post it. Perhaps you don't understand what I meant.

Last Thursdayism is the idea that the universe was created last Thursday, but with the physical appearance of being billions of years old.

Under Last Thursdayism, books, fossils, light already on the way from distant stars, and literally everything (including your memories of the time before last Thursday) were all formed at the time of creation (last Thursday) in a state such that they appear much older.​
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Theres clear evidence things wer not made last thursday.

Really? Could you give me some?

For example, all your memories could have been given to you last Thursday (false ones, to be sure). All the buildings could have been made to *look* old.

In essence, everything *could* have been made last Thursday to be exactly as it was last Thursday and there would be no way to tell the difference.

The point is that if you claim that the Earth could have been made 6000 years ago to *look* older (the 5 billion years it appears to be), then it could equally well have been made last Thursday to look older.
 
13And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.​
Read carefully. None of your qualifiers work.


What about them? You don't believe the scientific explanations, so why do you ask?


So, you are picturing Noah heading down to the local gold mine and coming back with gold rivets.

Bronze didn't exist in Noah's time.

Genesis 4:22 bronze.

Also, refer back to the hebrew word for earth. It also can mean country.

Also, i ask, because i wanna know what your reason is for why the fish fossils are on Everest.

But we can know that it could not have been built using strong metals for connections or bracing.

We dont know that.

The Wyoming used all the best techniques available to wooden ships built in the early 20th Century.

Even with iron strapping the frame buckled loosening the planking. The ship generally required the use of pumps.

Because of its extreme length and wood construction, Wyoming tended to flex in heavy seas, which would cause the long planks to twist and buckle, thereby allowing sea water to intrude into the hold​
Source:
The Schooner Wyoming -- Wyoming Tales and Trails
Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia

Ok

RE: the sun standing still for the better part of a day...

Uh huh


There is absolutely no evidence to show Everything was not created Last Thursday.

Oh of course theres no evidence everything was not created last thursday.

More like no proof, but evidence? Theres lots of evidence we wer not created last thursday. I dont need to present it to you. You already have it.

If you think you have some, post it. Perhaps you don't understand what I meant.

Last Thursdayism is the idea that the universe was created last Thursday, but with the physical appearance of being billions of years old.

Under Last Thursdayism, books, fossils, light already on the way from distant stars, and literally everything (including your memories of the time before last Thursday) were all formed at the time of creation (last Thursday) in a state such that they appear much older.​

Yea, proof verses evidence.
 
Really? Could you give me some?

For example, all your memories could have been given to you last Thursday (false ones, to be sure). All the buildings could have been made to *look* old.

In essence, everything *could* have been made last Thursday to be exactly as it was last Thursday and there would be no way to tell the difference.

The point is that if you claim that the Earth could have been made 6000 years ago to *look* older (the 5 billion years it appears to be), then it could equally well have been made last Thursday to look older.

Is DNA a Code?

Hubert yokey says its literally a code.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Also, i ask, because i wanna know what your reason is for why the fish fossils are on Everest.
Why would you care about what my reason is? You should be interested in what the scientific explanation is. I didn't bother posting it, because you already know it and disbelieve it. My posting it again isn't going to change your mind, because you believe the world to be 6000 years old.


We dont know that.
If you believe strong metals were used in the construction of the ark then tell us which strong metals and how they were manufactured 4000 years ago.

Does that mean you do believe the sun stood still for a whole day? Or does that mean you believe the earth stopped spinning?

Theres lots of evidence we wer not created last thursday. I dont need to present it to you. You already have it.

Well, you really do need to present it because no one else has been able to do it.
 

Astrophile

Active Member
Also what about them fish fossils on mount Everest?

What fish fossils on Mount Everest? I googled on Mount Everest fossils and found Fossils of Mount Everest | VolcanoCafe . This gives a very detailed account of the stratigraphy of Mount Everest and the tectonics of the Himalayas. To summarise the essential points, the sedimentary rocks (limestones and sandstones) that form the summit of Mount Everest contain fragments of crinoids ('sea lilies', a class of echinoderms) as well as fragments of trilobites, brachiopods and ostracods. These rocks do not contain fish fossils; there are websites that claim that the rocks do contain seashells, ammonites .and fish, but these websites do not give the source of their information, and I think that they can be ignored.

These sedimentary rocks are actually of middle Cambrian to Ordovician age, about 520 to 450 million years old, and they were deposited long before modern fish, or anything that most of us would recognise as fish, had evolved. The rocks were deposited in the palaeo-Tethys Ocean, and were uplifted and transported to their present position during a complicated series of continental collisions between about 55 million years ago and the present day. That, at least, is a simplified version of the present geological understanding of the origin of the Himalayas and Mount Everest, but it is not the last word on the subject; there never is a last word in science.

If you have any information about fish fossils on Mount Everest, I shall be interested to know about them. So, I imagine, will many geologists.
 
Why would you care about what my reason is?

I care because you care to debate this. If you dont care to answer my question then i dont care to debate this.

You should be interested in what the scientific explanation is. I didn't bother posting it, because you already know it and disbelieve it.

How do you know if i disbelieve it? I never told you that.

My posting it again isn't going to change your mind, because you believe the world to be 6000 years old.

You never posted it. And i never said i believe the earth is 6000 years. I personally dont care how old it is.

If you believe strong metals were used in the construction of the ark then tell us which strong metals and how they were manufactured 4000 years ago.

I dont know how he built the ark in all its details.

Does that mean you do believe the sun stood still for a whole day? Or does that mean you believe the earth stopped spinning?

Must have stopped spinning or slowed down.

Well, you really do need to present it because no one else has been able to do it.

I dont think thats because they could not, but because they wer not interested too.
 
Top