"God cannot create a square circle"

[Cheerful Charlie]

rhutchin, are you going to tell us what these "multiple consistent accounts" are, who authored these accounts, and why we should treat the opinions of these authors as fact? For example, how would one go about corroborating the Genesis creation myth? Who was witness to the events of these magic 6 days and provided credible testimony of these events? Or the mythology of the great flood? Who wrote this story and how can we test its veracity?

The accounts are included in the Bible and authors are normally stated within the accounts. It is only by faith that one accepts these accounts as truth.

We cannot corroborate the events of Genesis because they were one-time events initiated by a supernatural God. God was the only witness to the six days.

No way to test. Thus, faith. That conclusion is not in dispute, is it? No one is claiming that these events in history are empirically testable.

However, we can test certain aspects of this information. For example, when the Bible says that God created different kinds of life that would propagate after their kind, biologists can do research to see if life ever reproduces outside its kind. Or with the flood, researchers can determine whether large graveyards of animals exist in the world.

Genesis 1 tells us that animals were created on the 5th day, then the 6th, and last of all, mankind. Genesis 2 tells us man was created first, then animals. And that the Sun, moon and stars were created after Earth. The Bible cannot be true as it is incoherent and self contradictory. It also is wrong about cosmology.

The Bible claims God is good, merciful, just and compassionate, but Romans et al demonstrates God is none of these things. Contradictions and senseless nonsense. God obviously does not exist as per the Bible or Quran et al.

And as I demonstrated, the super-omnipotence argument established that naturalism exists, is transcendent to the greatest God imaginable and thus is the basic necessary state of existence. God is superfluous.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If God can create life in the first place, then raising the dead should be no big deal.

That doesn't follow. I can create life, but i can't raise the dead.
What you mean is that if God is omnipotent...no big deal.

Sure. Just show us a reason to think God exists and that God is omnipotent and/or that God created life, and/or that God raised the dead.

All the above are minor miracles, compared to the creation of the universe and life.

I really don't think there's any such thing as a minor 'suspension of the basic operation of the universe.' Either the universe operates or it violates its operation. There's no point in saying it slightly violates the order of things....

 

[Keith&Co.]

Evolution is not the problem, the theists who accept evolution, also accept that it could not happen without God.

Really? All of them think it COULD NOT happen without god? You're in a position to speak for them in this detail?

I will accept that they tend to think it DID NOT happen without god, but plenty of them are actually qualified to talk about the theory of evolution and biochemistry, far more qualified than you. And the best of them do not take their god to work with them.
I think you'll find that not everyone in the industry who believes in God and researches evolution actually thinks it COULD NOT happen without God.

But i may be wrong. Go ahead and show the evidence to support your claim.

 

[Elixir]

Rhutchin seems to have run off. I'd peg him as a drive-by, but heck - he has more posts than I do.
Guess he's just rhutchin around somewhere else.

 

[rhutchin]

Genesis 1 tells us that animals were created on the 5th day, then the 6th, and last of all, mankind. Genesis 2 tells us man was created first, then animals.

Not really. Genesis 2 deals with Day 6 and the creation of Adam, then the garden and ends with the creation of Eve. The verse that leads to confusion is v19 where KJV reads, "...out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them:" NIV has "...Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field..." The verb is not time specific and does not indicate when God formed the animals that He brought to Adam to name. Context indicates that the timeline in Genesis 1 rules. There is no contradiction between v19 and Genesis 1.

And that the Sun, moon and stars were created after Earth. The Bible cannot be true as it is incoherent and self contradictory. It also is wrong about cosmology.

The account in Genesis 1 is easy enough to understand. It is coherent and not contradictory.

The Bible claims God is good, merciful, just and compassionate, but Romans et al demonstrates God is none of these things.

God is good, merciful, just and compassionate while at the same time establishing standards for human behavior that entail just punishment. He clearly tells people how to behave and actions that they can take to avoid punishment if they do misbehave. God does not leave anyone in the dark about what is going on.

 

[rhutchin]

Elixir;

How do you explain the fact that well over 99% of relevant (earth and life sciences) scientists - many if not most of whom are theists - accept the fact of common ancestry?

Evolution is not the problem, the theists who accept evolution, also accept that it could not happen without God.

There are theists who accept evolution so far as it speaks to the issue of speciation and are fine with evolution explaining how the animals that left the ark expanded to fill the earth as we observe today. Thus, common ancestry runs from the ark to the present day.

Some theists reject the clear statements of Genesis 1-11 even though Hebrew scholars say that the literary genre is historical narrative and should be read as any historical narrative (e.g., the books of Kings and Chronicles). Rejecting Gen 1-11 as historical narrative leads to a lot of theological problems and causes its proponents to get into weird stuff - Hugh Ross is a good example but I have not kept up with his organization recently.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Not really. Genesis 2 deals with Day 6 and the creation of Adam, then the garden and ends with the creation of Eve. The verse that leads to confusion is v19 where KJV reads, "...out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them:" NIV has "...Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field..." The verb is not time specific and does not indicate when God formed the animals that He brought to Adam to name. Context indicates that the timeline in Genesis 1 rules. There is no contradiction between v19 and Genesis 1.

Genesis 1:24 says:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

After that, man is supposedly created.

Genesis 2:18 says:

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

There is a clear contradiction.

 

[rhutchin]

If God can create life in the first place, then raising the dead should be no big deal. All the above are minor miracles, compared to the creation of the universe and life.

God did raise Jesus Christ from the dead (and before Him, Christ raised Lazarus and the son of the widow) and the Bible tells us that all will be raised on the last day, some to eternal life and some to judgement and eternal death.

 

[rhutchin]

The fact of the matter, however, is that a natural universe has fewer arbitrary explanations than a supernatural one.

Try "No" explanation. Lot of speculation though.

But none of it is arbitrary and none of it requires ignoring the rules of the game to make it work, ie "the great everything needs to be created exception".

It is because scientists refuse to ignore the rules of the game that they cannot find a way for the universe or life to exist. In order to get the universe and life, you have to break the rules (i.e., the natural laws that we see governing the universe and life).

Alright, procreation, source/spread/prevention of disease then.

In context with the Bible, God exercises sovereign control over all things and nothing can happen unless He first ordains it to happen.

 

[rhutchin]

Genesis 1:24 says:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

After that, man is supposedly created.

Genesis 2:18 says:

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

There is a clear contradiction.

What contradiction do you see here? V24 speaks of the creation of animals. After this v26 speaks of the creation of man. Genesis 2 then gives specific details regarding the creation of the man and the woman. I don't see the issue you see. Did you mean to bring up 2:19?

 

[Elixir]

How do you explain the fact that well over 99% of relevant (earth and life sciences) scientists - many if not most of whom are theists - accept the fact of common ancestry?

There are theists who accept evolution so far as it speaks to the issue of speciation and are fine with evolution explaining how the animals that left the ark expanded to fill the earth as we observe today.

And there are theists who actually have educations, and understand that there is no way a boatload of animals HyperCrevolutes into 100million species without anyone noticing. They also know that the mechanisms of evolution don't permit it. But they are theists, and they accept the ACTUAL theory of evolution. Those are the ones I refer to. I don't think you could find five theistic bona-fide evolutionary biologists on the whole planet who think evolution permits your laughable scenario.

Some theists reject the clear statements of Genesis 1-11

Actually the vast majority of theists reject most of your fav book, rhutchin. Only a few desperate yecs cling to your literalist fantasy.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Genesis 1:24 says:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

After that, man is supposedly created.

Genesis 2:18 says:

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

There is a clear contradiction.

What contradiction do you see here? V24 speaks of the creation of animals. After this v26 speaks of the creation of man. Genesis 2 then gives specific details regarding the creation of the man and the woman. I don't see the issue you see. Did you mean to bring up 2:19?

Right after it says God created the animals, it says he created man. Here it is in full:

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Here is the other section in full:

18Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” 19Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

 

[rhutchin]

Try "No" explanation. Lot of speculation though.

And the speculation would include an explanation. Even if it says 'maybe' as a prefix. You can't say there's no explanation and then admit there're explanations.

Did you mean 'evidence?' Are you trying to say that the speculation is based upon zero evidene? Which would be an odd claim, if we're speculating about chemistry, because we have discovered chemistry. So there's going to be some evidence contributing to the speculation.

Or did you mean: ' "No" explanation I'm willing to accept.' and then use 'speculation' as a put-down sort of sneer kind of label-game?

The speculations about the creation of the universe and life try to explain the viability of the speculation under the constraints of known natural laws. In every case, people conclude that reliance on natural laws cannot explain how the universe or life came to be. That is why we see scientists wanting to avoid the issue altogether by suggesting things like a multiverse where you don't have to deal with the initial creation of anything where nothing had existed or the seeding of the earth by aliens. People would not be entertaining these ideas if they could figure out how the universe or life could arise in the face of known natural laws which basically make these impossible.

 

[rhutchin]

Genesis 1:24 says:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

After that, man is supposedly created.

Genesis 2:18 says:

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

There is a clear contradiction.

What contradiction do you see here? V24 speaks of the creation of animals. After this v26 speaks of the creation of man. Genesis 2 then gives specific details regarding the creation of the man and the woman. I don't see the issue you see. Did you mean to bring up 2:19?

Right after it says God created the animals, it says he created man. Here it is in full:

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Here is the other section in full:

18Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” 19Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

You seem to be relying on 2:19 where it says "...formed..." The verb is not time specific. It does not indicate when God formed the animals. We can only discover the time element by what is said in Genesis 1.

Did you intend to make a different argument?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

You seem to be relying on 2:19 where it says "...formed..." The verb is not time specific. It does not indicate when God formed the animals. We can only discover the time element by what is said in Genesis 1.

Did you intend to make a different argument?

I am focusing on where it says "it is not good for the man to be alone". In Genesis 1:24, man is not alone.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Genesis 1:24 says:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

After that, man is supposedly created.

Genesis 2:18 says:

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

There is a clear contradiction.

What contradiction do you see here? V24 speaks of the creation of animals. After this v26 speaks of the creation of man. Genesis 2 then gives specific details regarding the creation of the man and the woman. I don't see the issue you see. Did you mean to bring up 2:19?

Right after it says God created the animals, it says he created man. Here it is in full:

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Here is the other section in full:

18Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” 19Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

You seem to be relying on 2:19 where it says "...formed..." The verb is not time specific. It does not indicate when God formed the animals. We can only discover the time element by what is said in Genesis 1.

Did you intend to make a different argument?

Again. Genesis 1. Animals created on the 5th day, the 6th day, and THEN man.
Genesis 2, man, and THEN animals.

Time specific for those not making desperate special pleading.

Genesis 1, plants on the third day. Genesis 2, no plants until after man is created.Genesis is a collection of silly oriental tall tales, self-contradictory, false and foolish.

 

[atrib]

Elixir;

How do you explain the fact that well over 99% of relevant (earth and life sciences) scientists - many if not most of whom are theists - accept the fact of common ancestry?

Evolution is not the problem, the theists who accept evolution, also accept that it could not happen without God.

There are theists who accept evolution so far as it speaks to the issue of speciation and are fine with evolution explaining how the animals that left the ark expanded to fill the earth as we observe today. Thus, common ancestry runs from the ark to the present day.

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate. You have been called out on this shit before and asked to show us the math behind this hyper-evolution fantastic claim you have made, but you have ignored it. You have been called out to support your claim that the Biblical description of seemingly supernatural events is credible, but you have ignored those as well. Creationists are a lot like cockroaches, they scurry around in the dark and make a mess, and they run and hide when science turns the lights on.

 

[atrib]

The fact of the matter, however, is that a natural universe has fewer arbitrary explanations than a supernatural one.

Try "No" explanation. Lot of speculation though.

But none of it is arbitrary and none of it requires ignoring the rules of the game to make it work, ie "the great everything needs to be created exception".

It is because scientists refuse to ignore the rules of the game that they cannot find a way for the universe or life to exist. In order to get the universe and life, you have to break the rules (i.e., the natural laws that we see governing the universe and life).

Your claim that scientists have discovered the universe requires a creator has been shown to be hollow. Please pay attention and try to keep up with the conversation.

 

[atrib]

Try "No" explanation. Lot of speculation though.

And the speculation would include an explanation. Even if it says 'maybe' as a prefix. You can't say there's no explanation and then admit there're explanations.

Did you mean 'evidence?' Are you trying to say that the speculation is based upon zero evidene? Which would be an odd claim, if we're speculating about chemistry, because we have discovered chemistry. So there's going to be some evidence contributing to the speculation.

Or did you mean: ' "No" explanation I'm willing to accept.' and then use 'speculation' as a put-down sort of sneer kind of label-game?

The speculations about the creation of the universe and life try to explain the viability of the speculation under the constraints of known natural laws. In every case, people conclude that reliance on natural laws cannot explain how the universe or life came to be.

It has been pointed out to you several times that this statement is untrue. Why do you knowingly repeat this lie?

 

[Keith&Co.]

It has been pointed out to you several times that this statement is untrue. Why do you knowingly repeat this lie?

Note:

Some theists reject the clear statements of Genesis 1-11 even though Hebrew scholars say that the literary genre is historical narrative and should be read as any historical narrative (e.g., the books of Kings and Chronicles). Rejecting Gen 1-11 as historical narrative leads to a lot of theological problems and causes its proponents to get into weird stuff -

It is not only clear that rhutchin holds his faith in higher priority than facts, facts must be subservient to his particular flavor of faith.

The theists who accept evolution change their interpretation of The Books to match the reality they cannot deny. They've seen facts, they try hard to keep some sort of pact with the god they still believe in.
rhutchin changes reality to match his interpretation. It's simpler that way. increasingly at odds with the science he pre-rejects, but then, fundamentalism means never having to say you're sorry... Or I was wrong.... Or maybe that deserves a second look...