Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[Ajidica]

However, is it true that God created the 'natural laws' by which the universe works?

 

[Evil_Abe]

Yes it is, according to what I believe.

 

[Ajidica]

If God created the universe to work according to natural laws, any action undertaken in the physical world must obey those laws, correct?

 

[Evil_Abe]

Correct, unless God intervenes. As the creator of those laws he also has the authority to break them. Like a video game programmer that made it so Mario can only jump so high, but if he wants he can temporarily reprogram the game to make Mario jump higher.

 

[Ajidica]

So everything works a certain way, unless it doesn't work a certain way?

So in effect you are stating that the the scientific laws aren't at all absolute?
ie: The acceleration due to gravity is always -9.8 m/s^2 on Earth except when it isn't.

 

[El_Machinae]

Huh? When did God ask us to live according to His word?

I BELIEVE God created the earth already aged, I BELIEVE God supernaturally sustained Jonah in the fish etc etc.

Huh?

When did go tell you that He murdered the firstborn of Egypt and then arranged all physical evidence to hide the fact that the Israelites were ever Egyptian slaves?

My real question is, if God is actually talking to people "in their hearts", why isn't He denying performing these atrocities. Every time I accuse my mother (falsely) of killing babies, she just denies it.

 

[Lone Wolf]

My real question is, if God is actually talking to people "in their hearts", why isn't He denying performing these atrocities. Every time I accuse my mother (falsely) of killing babies, she just denies it.

They weren't atrocities because all babies are sinners. Also, how do you know these babies didn't go to Heaven?

 

[Ajidica]

Because they weren't baptized. My mom remembers how before Vatican II they had to say Hail Marys to 'save those heathen African babies in purgatory'.

 

[sanabas]

I found what I was looking for. Reason my bookcase didn't help was because the Lenski experiment I talked about was mention in a book I've read once, but don't own. The greatest Show on Earth, by Richard Dawkins. Not as good as some of his other stuff, but still worth a read. Also did some searching, and found some interesting links.

I strongly recommend that our creationists have a look at http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_results_challenge_creationism since it directly addresses some of their talking points raised in this thread. The one about all mutations being bad, the one about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the one about believing in microevolution but not macroevolution. You can also look at http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Analysis_of_the_Lenski_Paper for similar things, and some of the genuinely interesting questions about evolution the experiment raises.

The second post by Lenski himself at http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair is awesome, and again, has the potential to be highly educational for those willing to read it and think about it.

 

[Evil_Abe]

At Adijica: I suppose that's what I am saying. The scientific laws are not absolute because God, and only God can bend them to his will, according to what I believe.

At El Machinae: I apologize for the confusion. I didn't mean God talks to us and gives us revelations and visions in our modern day. I meant he asked us to live according to his word in his word, the Bible. The Bible itself says that we have "everything we need for life and godliness" in the scriptures. I hope I understood what you were trying to say correctly....

 

[Arakhor]

Why on earth would God create an aged planet and a starfield that appears to be billions of years old? This seems both deceptive and a complete waste of time.

 

[Ajidica]

Furthermore, where did the starlight come from? Either our mathematics are way off for measuing stellar distances, or the light should be extremely blueshifted.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

If God exists then he must be perfectly capable of accounting for all those things you mentioned. I BELIEVE God created the earth already aged, I BELIEVE God supernaturally sustained Jonah in the fish etc etc. Science has a hard time disproving the Bible unless it can disprove the God of the Bible, which at this point is something that is impossible to do. Why do my beliefs offend you so much? I do not live in a state of fear and terror, in fact I am quite at peace with the choice I made to believe in what I believe in. If that bothers you I am sorry.

What really bothers me is that you submit yourself to the authority of others without even a peep, even though the basis for that authority is extremely flawed and a lot of is actually falsifiable. Science cannot prove god doesn't exist (though everything in science points towards the unneccessity of a god, but that's a whole different idea altogether). But there are lots of things in the bible which are impossible without changing completely the laws of physics, which is highly indicative of the god of the bible not existing (i.e. there may be god{s} but it will not be the "big beard in the sky" we all know and think of).

I have no problems with Christianity, but I do have problems with people like you coming along saying "science cannot prove/disprove god", it may be ture but my bets would be otherwise. And it is also indirectly an order from you to me to "accept my beliefs or else god will strike you down with great vengeance and furious anger".

And yes believing in the Jonah fable is one of those stupidities that are outside the realm of physics. If god breaks physics to suit itself then god is a dick.

 

[El_Machinae]

At El Machinae: I apologize for the confusion. I didn't mean God talks to us and gives us revelations and visions in our modern day. I meant he asked us to live according to his word in his word, the Bible. The Bible itself says that we have "everything we need for life and godliness" in the scriptures. I hope I understood what you were trying to say correctly....

What you're saying is that the Bible asks you to live according to the Bible.
That's having faith in the Bible.

The Bible portrays a baby-killer as a hero of a story. All of reality is arrayed to tell us that this story is a myth. I don't know how God talks to you, but when all of reality is arrayed to say that "the story that makes a hero of a babykiller" is false, I'm going to go with reality and with proper morality.

 

[carlosMM]

Evil_Abe, I am god, and I want you to wire all your money to me.

Oh, you don't want to? Because what I wrote above is not true? But this posts says so, and it is a post by god, and therefore true. No discussion allowed! So PM me for bank account details.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

I strongly recommend that our creationists have a look at http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_results_challenge_creationism since it directly addresses some of their talking points raised in this thread.

This point seems to be similar to what I was told when I tried to explain how dog breeding could show how the mechanics of evolution, the idea that for some reason if man is involved then it doesn't count.

 

[Ajidica]

It still demonstrates how diversity can come from two near identical animals.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

how does this complex universe come by chance? how do accidents make life in all its comlexity? how did earth get in the exact right pace to sustain life?

 

[carlosMM]

how does this complex universe come by chance? how do accidents make life in all its comlexity? how did earth get in the exact right pace to sustain life?

you have three questions that you have no answer to - how is that any evidence for creationism?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

How come this weeks lottery numbers were astronomically unlikely?