"God cannot create a square circle"

[Rhea]

...science proves you cannot have repopulated the planet after a flood).

OK. Where has science proven this?

We proved it through the exercise of you naming the animals on the boat, then using the theory of evolution to do the math to how many species, how many individuals and what migration limits can be reached in the subsequent 4000 years and finding that you fall short, far FAR short, of what we actually see. And the story fails even more spectaularly when you realize you don't have 4,000 years, you only have 1000 years, because records show this full speciation and migration already by then.

We proved it by watching you abandon the calculation when you saw that it would prove your story to be an untruth. Perhaps you saw the flames of the eternal lake of fire licking at the sides of your calculator when you realized that reality proves the story is a lie and that's why you abandoned that part of the thread?

 

[Mageth]

Can you prove that God cannot create a square circle?

Why would I need to prove the negative that an uproven conjecture (god) cannot create a logical contradiction?

Or, to look at it another way, you're asking me to prove that MAGIC is not possible, or more specifically to prove that an IMAGINARY MAGICAL BEING cannot do MAGIC. It's a ridiculous question. And belief in magical creatures that can peform magic tricks is ridiculous in any case.

Would you know one if you saw one?

What...are you saying the coffee cup on my desk may well be a square circle? The pen? The kleenex box? That a magical creature may be creating square circles all over the place, but we just don't recognize them? What are you saying? Do you even know? I don't think so. You're just throwing out little snipes that sound clever to you. But they're not clever.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I don't see why. For the sun and moon to "stand still" requires only that the earth slow its rotation .

For the "sun to stand still," you MUST BELIEVE IT IS MOVING, therefore you must believe in geocentrism.

Well, he does have a point. It could be phenomenological language. Idiom, metaphor, etc.

The problem is, nothing within The Books gives us any clues on whether or not it is literally the case, in the mind of the author, that the sun moves or the sun only appears to moves. It takes extra-biblical knowledge (SCIENCE!), which even literalists cannot deny, to tell the Faithful that this should not be read as a literal description of the event. Science, in this case, has proven that the passage cannot be taken literally, and anyone who ever has, entertained a belief which was proven wrong by science.
It does fit in nicely with all the other descriptions of the Earth as flat, under a solid dome, with the sun and stars and moon rolling around inside, but that's a minor matter for a good apologist. OBVIOUSLY the Holy Spook helps the Faithful see the real truth despite what's written in plain text.

rhutchin will claim that on Christain has ever believed anything except that this passage is phenomenological, but he will be distinctly unable to provide any evidence of that claim.

As usual.

 

[Mageth]

BTW, in resorting to MAGIC to support your arguments/assertions ("Within context, the events described would not be beyond the ability of an omnipotent God") you are essentially waving a white flag, giving up on any rational or scientific argument you're attempting. Sure, if you invoke MAGIC, anything is possible (see LAST THURSDAYISM for a parody of religious magical thinking along these lines). With the exception of further rational discussion, of course.

Further to this, you invoke MAGIC ("the ability of an omnipotent God") as an explanation for "the sun standing still", indicating that said omnipotent God could have invoked his MAGIC and stopped the earth rotating, making it appear to those watching that the sun and moon stopped. However, the same God, through his MAGIC, could cause all the stars, planets, and the moon to elaborately orbit the earth so that it appears the earth is rotationg, whereas in actuality it is not...in other words, Magic God could implement a geocentric universe as Joshua's author observed...Magic God could actually stop the sun and moon as recorded...and we're all fooled into thinking the earth rotates on its axis!

In other words, once you've invoked MAGIC via omnipotent God, there's no real explanatory power left. Anything is possible. For example, everything could have been created by God Last Thurdsay.

 

[rhutchin]

Why would I need to prove the negative that an uproven conjecture (god) cannot create a logical contradiction?

What...are you saying the coffee cup on my desk may well be a square circle? The pen? The kleenex box? That a magical creature may be creating square circles all over the place, but we just don't recognize them? What are you saying? Do you even know? I don't think so. You're just throwing out little snipes that sound clever to you. But they're not clever.

Seems that we have a problem of definition. Having never seen a square circle, you cannot describe what it looks like and would not know it if you saw it. Just because you cannot describe it does not mean that God cannot make it.

 

[rhutchin]

...science proves you cannot have repopulated the planet after a flood).

OK. Where has science proven this?

We proved it through the exercise of you naming the animals on the boat, then using the theory of evolution to do the math to how many species, how many individuals and what migration limits can be reached in the subsequent 4000 years and finding that you fall short, far FAR short, of what we actually see. And the story fails even more spectaularly when you realize you don't have 4,000 years, you only have 1000 years, because records show this full speciation and migration already by then.

Then you need to learn science. As far as I know, science has not addressed the issue. Science has proved nothing regarding this issue. Obviously, if science had done so, you would have already offered a citation. You didn't, because you couldn't.

 

[rhutchin]

I don't see why. For the sun and moon to "stand still" requires only that the earth slow its rotation . There is the physical observation that was made - "the sun stood still, and the moon stayed,...So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." That was the observation of those who witnessed the event. Within context, the events described would not be beyond the ability of an omnipotent God.

For the "sun to stand still," you MUST BELIEVE IT IS MOVING, therefore you must believe in geocentrism.

Not really. From the earth, the sun does appear to move across the sky. We see this by observing shadows change during the day. For the sun to stand still only tells the observer on earth that it stays in one place in the sky. It says nothing about what is revolving around what.

Notwithstanding that science proves that if you take an object like earth with a surface rotation speed of over 1000 miles per hour and you STOP IT, there will be very severe and deadly effects and likewise when you START IT AGAIN there will be equally violent surface effects. And neither history nor geology records this event. So that part is disproved - i.e. determined to be a lie - also.

Of course, an omnipotent God could handle all that. No reason for geology to record this. History books of that time may be scarce and hard to come by.

 

[rhutchin]

In other words, once you've invoked MAGIC via omnipotent God, there's no real explanatory power left. Anything is possible. For example, everything could have been created by God Last Thurdsay.

Yep. But in this case, God pretty much explains everything that has happened and what the future holds for you and everyone else. At least, there will be no surprises as you do not have to be ignorant of these things.

 

[Mageth]

In other words, once you've invoked MAGIC via omnipotent God, there's no real explanatory power left. Anything is possible. For example, everything could have been created by God Last Thurdsay.

Yep. But in this case, God pretty much explains everything that has happened and what the future holds for you and everyone else. At least, there will be no surprises as you do not have to be ignorant of these things.

No, in that case god is useless as an explanation. Goddidit is the epitome of ignorance.

 

[Rhea]

...science proves you cannot have repopulated the planet after a flood).

OK. Where has science proven this?

We proved it through the exercise of you naming the animals on the boat, then using the theory of evolution to do the math to how many species, how many individuals and what migration limits can be reached in the subsequent 4000 years and finding that you fall short, far FAR short, of what we actually see. And the story fails even more spectaularly when you realize you don't have 4,000 years, you only have 1000 years, because records show this full speciation and migration already by then.

Then you need to learn science. As far as I know, science has not addressed the issue. Science has proved nothing regarding this issue. Obviously, if science had done so, you would have already offered a citation. You didn't, because you couldn't.

Nonsense. We were walking you through it. You ran away. Let's start again, shell we? And we will demonstrate together that science proves it wrong.

Step

1. Name the animals on the ark. This will give us our starting point. This is ON YOU. I cannot cite what animals you believe were on the ark because it is listed NOWHERE by Christians. Obviously, because they would then have to face the logic of how those particular animals gave rise to the ones we have today. This is YOUR STEP, not mine. If you would like to make it mine, I will say there was one animal on the ark, humans, and it is not possible they gave rise to mice in as few as 4000 years. This is on you. NAME THE ANIMALS that we are starting from.
2. Use ToE to calculate how much mutation would occur over what time period.
3. Use Science and ToE to calculate the max number of reproducing offspring each of those will have
4. Multiply ToE-based speciation rates by how many years pass between flood and the first mention of those new animals in the historic record.
5. Multiply ToE based reproduction rates by 4000 years
6. Use known scientific species migration rates to determine the rate of spread of those animals from Mt. Ararat to where we see them today
7. Multiply that rate by the miles to the current locations of these animal populations AND the die-out of any animals along the migration route to account for the fact that kangaroos only exist in Australia
8. ...
9. See if you come up with the number of species and the number of individual animals alive today.
10. See if you come up with the animal locations that we see today

We are still on step one. That is the point at which you ran away from the argument. YOU have to provide the citation for which animals you say were on the ark, and then I will be able to prove to you that it is not possible for them to have given rise to the animals we see today.

Ball's in YOUR court. You are the one who ran away from the proof at step #1.

 

[Rhea]

I don't see why. For the sun and moon to "stand still" requires only that the earth slow its rotation . There is the physical observation that was made - "the sun stood still, and the moon stayed,...So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." That was the observation of those who witnessed the event. Within context, the events described would not be beyond the ability of an omnipotent God.

For the "sun to stand still," you MUST BELIEVE IT IS MOVING, therefore you must believe in geocentrism.

Not really. From the earth, the sun does appear to move across the sky. We see this by observing shadows change during the day. For the sun to stand still only tells the observer on earth that it stays in one place in the sky. It says nothing about what is revolving around what.

The language tells all. If they _say_ the sun stood still, they are admitting that they think the sun is moving. If they knew the earth was not the center, they would have said so. This demonstrates unequivocally that they believed the earth was static and the sun was moving.

Notwithstanding that science proves that if you take an object like earth with a surface rotation speed of over 1000 miles per hour and you STOP IT, there will be very severe and deadly effects and likewise when you START IT AGAIN there will be equally violent surface effects. And neither history nor geology records this event. So that part is disproved - i.e. determined to be a lie - also.

Of course, an omnipotent God could handle all that. No reason for geology to record this. History books of that time may be scarce and hard to come by.

Let's save this for a little later, because...

In other words, once you've invoked MAGIC via omnipotent God, there's no real explanatory power left. Anything is possible. For example, everything could have been created by God Last Thurdsay.

Yep. But in this case, God pretty much explains everything that has happened and what the future holds for you and everyone else. At least, there will be no surprises as you do not have to be ignorant of these things.

No. No, one remains completely ignorant because the god will do whatever the fuck he feels like, including defying physics and this leaves you no ability to predict anything at any time because the god changes anything it wants including your salvation (see: "hardened their hearts so they would not believe")

You don't know anything at all about what this magical creature that you've invented will do. Because it changes the very laws of physics on a whim. You remain completely ignorant of whatever it does next.

So if you're going to fabricate an answer as "I claim a magical being that can do anything as the answer" then you are just delusional and kinda nuts.

 

[Rhea]

rhutchin\, here is a citation. Please read it. Comment on the specifics.

The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark

Suppose you picked up the newspaper tomorrow morning and were startled to see headlines announcing the discovery of a large ship high on the snowy slopes of Mt. Ararat in eastern Turkey. As you hurriedly scanned the article, you learned that a team from the Institute for Creation Research had unearthed the vessel and their measurements and studies had determined that it perfectly matched the description of Noah's Ark given in the book of Genesis. Would this be proof at last—the "smoking gun" as it were—that the earliest chapters of the Bible were true and that the story they told of a six-day creation and a universal flood was a sober, scientific account?

Perhaps surprisingly, the answer is no. Even this sensational find is not enough to validate a literal reading of Genesis. Our continuing skepticism is in the tradition of philosopher David Hume, who wrote that "the knavery and folly of men are such common phenomena that I should rather believe the most extraordinary events to arise from their concurrence than admit of so signal a violation of the laws of nature." As we shall see, the story of the great flood and the voyage of the ark, as expounded by modern creationists, contains so many incredible "violations of the laws of nature" that it cannot possibly be accepted by any thinking person. Despite ingenious efforts to lend a degree of plausibility to the tale, nothing can be salvaged without the direct and constant intervention of the deity.

The failure of the effort.
It has by now become abundantly clear that the case for the ark utterly and completely fails. Despite the clever ingenuity of its proponents, nothing, from the trickiest problems to the tiniest details, can be salvaged without an unending resort to the supernatural. This includes so many pointless prodigies, so many inane interventions for no reason other than to save a literalistic Bible, that religion itself is cheapened in the process, not to mention the total abandonment of any semblance of science. No doubt in days to come some erstwhile arkeologists will concoct "solutions" to some of the difficulties we have raised, but no intellectually honest person can any longer pretend that the legend of Noah can possibly represent a historical occurrence.

 

[Eric H]

atrib;

Wrong again! We don't have faith that natural processes caused the diversity of life we observe on this planet. We KNOW what these natural processes and mechanisms are and can describe them in great detail. This is called science. The science that specifically deals with the mechanisms that caused the diversity of life on this planet is called evolutionary biology. We know a lot of stuff that the authors of the Bible did not know. You should try to keep up, especially if you are going to be debating on an online forum

I have not come across the great detail, that describes how the eye, or a full skeletal system evolved, the papers tend to use words like assume, possible, may have, lack of evidence, etc.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I have not come across the great detail, that describes how the eye, or a full skeletal system evolved,

Because you stick to summaries, examples, and elementary school boiled-down discussions of what evolution is.

the papers tend to use words like assume, possible, may have, lack of evidence, etc.

No, they do not. You made this claim before. There are papers that have the detail you say you want but you avoid them.
So is it the science that lacks detail or your understanding of the science?

 

[Eric H]

Keith&Co.;
There are papers that have the detail you say you want but you avoid them.
So is it the science that lacks detail or your understanding of the science?

Are there papers that describe, not only how the eye evolved in incremental stages, but how this increased information was passed onto the brain. How the brain also increased in understanding the images, and how the brain was able to pass this message onto the limbs.

I have looked, but have been unable to find this cumulative detail.

 

[Mageth]

Keith&Co.;
There are papers that have the detail you say you want but you avoid them.
So is it the science that lacks detail or your understanding of the science?

Are there papers that describe, not only how the eye evolved in incremental stages, but how this increased information was passed onto the brain. How the brain also increased in understanding the images, and how the brain was able to pass this message onto the limbs.

I have looked, but have been unable to find this cumulative detail.

Therefore goddidit???

You're squeezed all the juice out of that argument from ignorance already.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Keith&Co.;
There are papers that have the detail you say you want but you avoid them.
So is it the science that lacks detail or your understanding of the science?

Are there papers that describe, not only how the eye evolved in incremental stages, but how this increased information was passed onto the brain. How the brain also increased in understanding the images, and how the brain was able to pass this message onto the limbs.

I have looked, but have been unable to find this cumulative detail.

Where? Where have you looked?

 

[Mageth]

Why would I need to prove the negative that an uproven conjecture (god) cannot create a logical contradiction?

What...are you saying the coffee cup on my desk may well be a square circle? The pen? The kleenex box? That a magical creature may be creating square circles all over the place, but we just don't recognize them? What are you saying? Do you even know? I don't think so. You're just throwing out little snipes that sound clever to you. But they're not clever.

Seems that we have a problem of definition. Having never seen a square circle, you cannot describe what it looks like and would not know it if you saw it. Just because you cannot describe it does not mean that God cannot make it.

So then my coffee cup could well be a square circle. Or your carkeys could be a square circle.

Yes, rhutchin, that's the sort of screwball nonsense you're spouting here.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Are there papers that describe, not only how the eye evolved in incremental stages, but how this increased information was passed onto the brain. How the brain also increased in understanding the images, and how the brain was able to pass this message onto the limbs.

I have looked, but have been unable to find this cumulative detail.

I find it hard to imagine where you might have looked or how much effort it would take for you, personally, to conclude that such detail did not exist.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

This is ON YOU.

Ah, but you see, the Bible says that we have no excuse to not believe, therefore there's no reason for him to explain anything! Clearly, everything is completely obvious and we just need to accept it.