Nine Questions Some Creationists Feel Are Real Stumpers

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nobody said it has any utility. I said it is possible to make that a definition. And that shows it is possible to make definitions that have no utility and no application to the real world.

So definitions are not rated for and related to utility. Or words are about utility because they allow us to do something. You yourself said that definitions allows for communication, that is utility.

So back to meaning. How does meaning connect to the Big Bang.

I leave for now what the real world is. That can wait to later.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Polymath257]

So definitions are not rated for and related to utility. Or words are about utility because they allow us to do something. You yourself said that definitions allows for communication, that is utility.

Yes, we define things, typically, because the concept is interesting or otherwise useful. Those definitions that are not useful simply don't get used.

So back to meaning. How does meaning connect to the Big Bang.

Only very loosely. Meaning happens inside consciousnesses, and thereby inside of brains. There is, of course, a connection between brains and the BB simply because brains are physical things.

But your question is like asking what the connection is between the program my computer is running and the BB. It just seems like a very strange question.

I leave for now what the real world is. That can wait to later.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Where did the 6,000 year idea even come from?

counting the begats in Genesis

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I used to think that question about why are there still monkeys, then I learnt about how species can travel into different environments, allowing the selection of alternative traits.

Forgive me for not explaining it in an easy way for a beginner to learn, but there are wonderful teaching resources with diagrams and other useful things for that available on the internet for those who search for them.

Here's how I've responded to this question before: there are still monkeys because monkeys and other great apes find a place to live in the environment. They don't care what their distant relatives--us humans--are doing...unless we're destroying the habitat they live in...

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

...and others. He just was the most thorough.

The Jewish calendar is also based on calculations rooted in Genesis and the other events recounted in the Pentateuch.

And there are other calendars based on other interpretations of the ancient documents.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

So science can't explain, what subjectivity is! Okay, so how do you do that, if not using science?

Regards
Mikkel

Soooo...One person chooses not to answer you the way you want...THEREFORE science CAN'T explain it...

 

[Polymath257]

Wow, that takes dedication ;-)

Not all that much, actually. Most of it is in Genesis and follows the narrative. The rest is mostly just following the story line until a date is mentioned. The destruction of the temple is a matter of history that can be dated from a number of different sources.

 

[Skwim]

So dictionaries are true? I mean I know of one, which says that atheism is amoral. Now what?

Regards
Mikkel

Now what? Well, a rather odd comment for sure, but the fact is, atheism is amoral.

.

 

[columbus]

.View attachment 38140

. ​

Anyone care to rise to the challenge?

.

I can't help but ask myself.
Are these really Creationists? Or are they better educated people doing an ironic performance art piece at the Museum?

Given Poe's Law, it's hard to tell.
Tom

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
But your question is like asking what the connection is between the program my computer is running and the BB. It just seems like a very strange question.

Well, if there is something like everything, you know, then if the BB and meaning are both parts, it follows you can ask how or if they are connect?

So how it is that strange? We have the arrow of time and cause and effect?!!

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Soooo...One person chooses not to answer you the way you want...THEREFORE science CAN'T explain it...

No, rather what Science is, is as subjective as what gods are.
Some will claim Science can explain it and others that Science can't. That is no different that what God is or is not.
I am not talking about science, I am talking about how different humans understand Science, yet Science is one. To someone here on the forum it was a living thing. Debating Science is a bit like debating the True Nature of God.

Here is a debate about what science is, not Science.
A theory of everything ... has physics gone too far?

Now I have no problem with physics but how do you test a dimension beyond those we have access to?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[ChristineM]

Not all that much, actually. Most of it is in Genesis and follows the narrative. The rest is mostly just following the story line until a date is mentioned. The destruction of the temple is a matter of history that can be dated from a number of different sources.

Having read a few bibles i wouldn't like to do it again just to get some dates. Much less frustrating to do a google for OT genaelogy. Like i said, dedication.

 

[74x12]

.View attachment 38140

. ​

Anyone care to rise to the challenge?

.

Very brave post. I can see you always pick the toughest questions creationists bring up.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Now what? Well, a rather odd comment for sure, but the fact is, atheism is amoral.

.

You are right. I just learned it in another namely that atheists and atheism are amoral. That is not the same. And now, I don't believe atheists are amoral as humans. I used to be one.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[McBell]

Very brave post. I can see you always pick the toughest questions creationists bring up.

As a creationist you should be even more embarrassed that these questions are being seriously presented in "defense" of your God.
That you mock those who point that out is most comical.

 

[Skwim]

Very brave post. I can see you always pick the toughest questions creationists bring up.

Sorry, I mistakenly left out my source, which is HERE, and has been added to the OP.

As noted on the source website:

"On February 4th 2014 there was a debate between Bill Nye (American scientist known for his The Science Guy educational program) and Ken Ham (the creationist behind the Creation Museum and Answers in Genesis). The topic was: "Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era?"

The whole debate is available online here (warning: it’s over two hours long), but this is not what I want to write about this time. During the debate, Matt Stopera from BuzzFeed asked 22 creationists to write a message or question to the other side. Most questions were quite dumb. This one is my favourite: [#8 is shown] "
​

From this point the other photos with their questions are presented.

.

 

[Stevicus]

.View attachment 38140

. ​

Anyone care to rise to the challenge?

.

A lot of good answers already in this thread, although it occurs to me that a lot of these same questions could be turned around and asked in reverse.

Like, how do you explain a sunset if there is a God?

Or what purpose do we serve? The mere existence of a deity doesn't necessarily imply any actual purpose.

Is it completely illogical to believe that maybe God created the earth to evolve just as it has been observed by scientists? Maybe it took billions of years to get to this point, but is it a requirement to believe that God conjured everything up in a short period of time? That's what always baffled me about this whole argument, since it's clearly possible to believe that God created everything, while still accepting the observations and findings put forth by the scientific community. They don't really need to conflict with each other.

 

[exchemist]

Well, I from a long line of teachers. I was told that there are no silly or stupid questions. Only stupid answers. So right back at you.

Haha. But of course anyone who has taught a class of small boys knows there most certainly ARE silly questions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Haha. But of course anyone who has taught a class of small boys knows there most certainly ARE silly questions.

Yes, but you don't didactically* answer it as if it is silly. You use it as an opportunity to engage in how to understand something.
*I mean didactic as a positive. Danish is different for how the word is used. It is a positive.

Now I do break my own rule. I am a human and I get how a question can be silly.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

No, rather what Science is, is as subjective as what gods are.
Some will claim Science can explain it and others that Science can't. That is no different that what God is or is not.
I am not talking about science, I am talking about how different humans understand Science, yet Science is one. To someone here on the forum it was a living thing. Debating Science is a bit like debating the True Nature of God.

Here is a debate about what science is, not Science.
A theory of everything ... has physics gone too far?

Now I have no problem with physics but how do you test a dimension beyond those we have access to?

Regards
Mikkel

am I catching that you're making some sort of distinction between upper case Science and lower case science? If so, can you explain it to me, so that it will explain your statement "so science can't explain" that I was referring to?

If not, I'm gonna need further explanation...