Answers in Genesis and fractals

[excreationist]

Genesis 1 and 2 basically said God created plants and some plants seem to have fractals.

You pretty much can link anything to God if you reference Genesis 1 so nonsensically like that.

In post #6 I gave two examples of plants that involve fractals. Genesis 1 and 2 say God created plants. That would mean he designed them.... and AiG was saying God designed fractals. I think the first part of that logic is quite straight forward rather than being arbitrary...

I thought you would have had more of a problem with things like:

Fractals

Did you know that amazing, beautiful shapes have been built into numbers? Believe it or not, numbers contain a “secret code”—a hidden beauty embedded in them.

answersingenesis.org

"...Evolution cannot account for fractals....But fractals are perfectly consistent with biblical creation....."

But instead your objections include "The outdoors isn't "The Book of Genesis"."

In response to that creationists might say that Genesis talks about the creation of our world including the outdoors....

 

[SIB]

Personally I believe they were smart back then. I think they put two genesis stories in there so that people would know not to take it literally. They thought to themselves "no way they (the future) can screw this up, we put two different stories in there."

A common mistake we often encounter in our lives. We forget that unlike emotional maturity, fundy-ism has no limits.

 

[excreationist]

Personally I believe they were smart back then. I think they put two genesis stories in there so that people would know not to take it literally. They thought to themselves "no way they (the future) can screw this up, we put two different stories in there."

What YECs say about the two stories:

Do Genesis 1 and 2 Contradict Each Other?

The issue that people have with Genesis 2 is that the order of the creation of man, animals, and trees seems to be contrary to the order stated in Genesis 1.

answersingenesis.org

A common mistake we often encounter in our lives. We forget that unlike emotional maturity, fundy-ism has no limits.

The next step, which mainstream YEC organisations reject, is a belief in a flat earth.

Refuting flat earth

Refuting flat earth teachings with horizon, time zones, southern hemisphere, constellations, circumnavigation, South Pole.

creation.com

That site attempts to debunk all of the numerous Bible verses that suggest a flat earth... but I don't think it brings up any verses that suggest a spherical earth. It only uses science to argue that the earth isn't flat.

 

[Learner]

Mathematics including fractals are human abstractions we superimpose over reality.

It's true, but we can devise ANY units of measure, of any length that takes one's fancy, a steve-bank unit, which would be a different measure of unit to the conventional, will still have a calculable expectancy, for example, the basic arithmetic can be determined or sussed out e.g., a cow in the field added to another cow, that's later aquired, is now twice the produce etc.. It just works naturally in reality.

 

[AdamWho]

So this is one of those "X is really interesting/amazing/trippy therefor god exists"

 

[lostone]

Steve Tegmark would have us think that reality is mathematics, in which case the emergence of fractals as a basic part of nature would not be surprising.

Panpsychists / panentheists might say nature that builds itself.

 

[steve_bank]

There are some who make math and science into a form of mysticism. Someone used the word trippy, it is appropriate.

 

[lostone]

Any sort of ultimate answer is trippy. We just don't know, and never will know many things. Even An ultimate answer would probably lead to more questions.

 

[SIB]

Any sort of ultimate answer is trippy. We just don't know, and never will know many things. Even An ultimate answer would probably lead to more questions.

exactly. Thats why I like to see f the trippy response matches what we see and experience. Use our commonsense to sort through the noise.

 

[steve_bank]

Carl Sagan was about as trippy as it gets. Mako's scrince shows. NOVA shows.

 

[lostone]

Yeah, Sagan was all of that - The Templeton Foundation must have loved him

 

[steve_bank]

Yeah, Sagan was all of that - The Templeton Foundation must have loved him

He acknkowed using pot for inspiration.

 

[atrib]

Mathematics including fractals are human abstractions we superimpose over reality.

It's true, but we can devise ANY units of measure, of any length that takes one's fancy, a steve-bank unit, which would be a different measure of unit to the conventional, will still have a calculable expectancy, for example, the basic arithmetic can be determined or sussed out e.g., a cow in the field added to another cow, that's later aquired, is now twice the produce etc.. It just works naturally in reality.

What are you talking about? If there's one cow in the field, and another walks in and increases the count to two, that means Godditit? Do you realize how absurd that sounds?

Numbers are abstractions created by human minds to describe some aspects of reality. How can this fact be extrapolated to the arguments made by AiG? Can you explain please? Do you even understand AiG's position?

 

[steve_bank]

For Christians all things must include god.

Cosmology and science in the RCC histrory had to allow for god. In the 90s the pope wrote that evolution may be part of god's plan, in the face of overwhelming evidence for evolution.

I think out r iconic scientist Newton used god of the gaps.

 

[SIB]

For Christians all things must include god.

Cosmology and science in the RCC histrory had to allow for god. In the 90s the pope wrote that evolution may be part of god's plan, in the face of overwhelming evidence for evolution.

I think out r iconic scientist Newton used god of the gaps.

Its not that there is a god or not. Its the traits of the thing that are in question. And the issue of Christians saying "The god must be a Christian god." is what is problematic. Well, using observations to support the claim anyway.

The belief in something more is far more reliable than the reverse. But it is not a deity that had to send its son to save us.

 

[lostone]

Christian logic often seems to me to work like this...we found a tomb in Jerusalem! It must be the tomb of Jesus! We have proved the Bible is true!

 

[excreationist]

Christian logic often seems to me to work like this...we found a tomb in Jerusalem! It must be the tomb of Jesus! We have proved the Bible is true!

Then there's this:
1 Corinthians 3:18-19
Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”

Atheists might seem to be logical and wise but if you want to be saved you need to use logic that seems like foolishness....

 

[SIB]

Christian logic often seems to me to work like this...we found a tomb in Jerusalem! It must be the tomb of Jesus! We have proved the Bible is true!

I love "But he had to send its son to save us or we'd be lost."

I am like, maybe he sent a math book to show us how to save ourselves." aka Noak's ark.

 

[Jarhyn]

Christian logic often seems to me to work like this...we found a tomb in Jerusalem! It must be the tomb of Jesus! We have proved the Bible is true!

Then there's this:
1 Corinthians 3:18-19
Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”

Atheists might seem to be logical and wise but if you want to be saved you need to use logic that seems like foolishness....

Or perhaps someone who wrote to the Corinthians knew that to become wise, you have to first accept that you are wrong, for feeling yourself to be right is almost certainly walking foolishly into wrongness with your eyes closed.

 

[steve_bank]

The difficulty is always in practicing what you preach, at least if you are human.

Matthew 23:1-12
“You must be careful to do everything [the Pharisees] tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.”Mar 25, 2020

Who said practice what you preach?


But the first expression of the saying came two centuries before Matthew in the works of the Roman playwright, Titus Maccius Plautus. 'Practice yourself what you preach' appears in the comedy, Asinaria, Act 3, Scene 3.