I have now met a real life creationist.

[wilson]

Tis funnier and funnier. Ok, so you want Job to be a document to wow us heathen with it's amazing and accurate descriptions of the cosmos, but dodge and weave when its pointed out that your argument is not well founded.

You haven't done that yet. You point things out to me, I point things pout to you. Why do you think that what you point to is more important? Please show me where I dodged anything. Your "theologians' " estimate of the time of composition is very far off the mark because the book itself contains many clues as to its origin and author.

I don't care that you can ramrod all the odd parts of the Bible into your religious dogma, not my concern. But there is no 'wow' factor of 'wiseness' here.

You cannot support such dogmatism! I am not concerned about any "ramrod" and "wow" factors. The book contains a great deal of wisdom and answers vital question like: "Why do the innocent suffer?" and "Why does God permit wickedness in the earth?" Have you found the non-conjectural, truthful answer to either of those questions?

You declaring that a circle is actually a sphere is not exactly 'wow' material.

Is that the truth? Is that really what I said? If you quote me verbatim and you will not be likely to make such gross errors.

Renowned Christian theologians say Job is a poetic folk tail;

If they said that they are wrong! In that historical narration, only the cattle had tails.

what is your argument showing that they are factually wrong?

Good question. My first objection is - purpose. Nothing written in the Bible is without purpose. What, do you suppose, is the purpose of the "tale?"

You also seem to suggest that Job's background is virtually unknowable,

Why do you attribute your own erroneous suggestion to me? It was you who quoted:"We cannot put a date on the composition of the book of Job, except for the outer limits, perhaps the seventh and the second centuries BC. A folk tale of a righteous sufferer probably existed long before the present poem came into being." The uncertainty which you seem to have accepted, is underscored by the words "perhaps" and "probably."
A lot of facts are known about Job. Some of them are:
Job lived in Uz, located in northern Arabia near the territories occupied by the Edomites the Sabeans and the Chaldeans on the east.(Job 1:1, 3, 15,*17)
No nation on earth worshipped the God of Heaven; the nation of Israel, who later became the only monotheistic people and chosen by God, was not yet established.
Yet, Job was not a Jew, a Hebrew nor an Israelite. Still he alone, of all the people on the entire earth, worshipped the God of Heaven. (Job 1:8) Did your source say "seventh and second century BC?" Boy! Are they wrong!
There is much more, all gleaned from several early Bible writers.

but at the same time YOU KNOW THE RIGHT INTERPRETATION. Lets see you explain that.

Explain what? I made no such claim. What "interpretation" have I given to the book of Job?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

wilson,

What I find most interesting about your argument is that you say everything is designed. That means you have no example to point to of anything lacking design. So how do you know everything is either designed or not designed?

Doesn't that mean your argument is flawed? Or can you simply give me an example of something lacking design?

 

[wilson]

wilson,

What I find most interesting about your argument is that you say everything is designed. That means you have no example to point to of anything lacking design.

Reason a bit on what you are saying. I claim that everything physical is designed. I provided 16 reasons why I am drawn to that conclusion. Those who claim that there is no design anywhere are now under obligation to show how they arrived at that conclusion. I do not have to provide reasons for their conclusions.

So how do you know everything is either designed or not designed?

I already gave you 16 reasons for the conclusion of design. I do not claim that there is anything not designed because I do not believe that. The burden of proof rests on those who disagree.

Doesn't that mean your argument is flawed?

No! No evidence has been offered against it.

Or can you simply give me an example of something lacking design?

Again - that is not my contention and that is the object of my first post.
Illustration:
A person claims that there is no God.
My question: How do you know that?

Can you provide me with an example of a God who does not exist?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Thor. He's actually an Australian actor who's just pretending.

 

[sdelsolray]

...Remember - there is no such thing as more complexity from less.
...

This one doesn't even understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

...
Evolution is not fact. It is an unproved and unprovable idea.
...

This one doesn't understand the difference between evolution and the Theory of (Biological) Evolution.

That's strike two for this creationist.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Reason a bit on what you are saying. I claim that everything physical is designed.

You have evidence of things that are non-physical? Like what?

 

[Keith&Co.]

This one doesn't even understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

...
Evolution is not fact. It is an unproved and unprovable idea.
...

This one doesn't understand the difference between evolution and the Theory of (Biological) Evolution.

That's strike two for this creationist.

Three. He's weak on the burden of proof. Or at least, very cagey.

 

[wilson]

Reason a bit on what you are saying. I claim that everything physical is designed.

You have evidence of things that are non-physical? Like what?

YES!
Life itself.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You have evidence of things that are non-physical? Like what?

YES!
Life itself.

Oh, that's right. Life is 'spiritual.'
Not to be quantified or understood by science.

No support for this claim, not argument, no explanation, not even a definition of how wilson means the word 'spiritual' in this context.

Just throw it on out there, like tossing a snowball out as the first pitch of the season and expecting it to play.

 

[blastula]

Wilson's 'arguments' are cute.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You have evidence of things that are non-physical? Like what?

YES!
Life itself.

Well then show me some non-physical life.

 

[Keith&Co.]

YES!
Life itself.

Well then show me some non-physical life.

Forty quatloos says that he says it's self-evident so he doesn't need to bother deigning to show you any.

 

[wilson]

Wilson's 'arguments' are cute.

Cute?
Life is real. It cannot be encapsulated, demonstrated, visualized nor explained by science.
There is evidence of many other non-physical things; like:
Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness and self-control.
I can even add - conscience.
All non-physical, all real and all contribute to making life very pleasant.
Science cannot explain its origin, but the bible does.
Life comes only from life.
(Genesis 1:24-28) . . .Then God said: “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds, domestic animals and creeping animals and wild animals of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God went on to make the wild animals of the earth according to their kinds and the domestic animals according to their kinds and all the creeping animals of the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every creeping animal that is moving on the earth.” 27 And God went on to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. 28 Further, God blessed them, and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving on the earth.”

Although this is rejected by materialists, it cannot be successfully disproved by them and leaves no place for physical, biological evolution.

 

[Ford]

I am not a "creationist" whatever that is. I do not believe that the universe was created in 6 twenty-four-hour days, nor do I believe that the earth or universe is only 6 thousand years old. That should take care of the "creationist" label.

Quotes Genesis


I think we're done here, folks.

 

[Learner]

Because?

Because it behaves like an arrangement henceforth predictability and formulations.
Quacks like a duck but not like luck.

 

[Learner]

wilson,

What I find most interesting about your argument is that you say everything is designed. That means you have no example to point to of anything lacking design. So how do you know everything is either designed or not designed?

Doesn't that mean your argument is flawed? Or can you simply give me an example of something lacking design?

This would rather be a problem for Atheists. How would one demonstrate a 'natural by itself ' design coming from something lacking design in the first place? Especially when everything so far abides to its respective notably predictable calculable behaviour by the mentioned laws anyway.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Wilson's 'arguments' are cute.

Life is real. It cannot be encapsulated, demonstrated, visualized nor explained by science.

What the hell are you talking about? I was about to say this is the craziest thing you've said so far. But it isn't. It also reveals how you have no idea what science is or what it is for.

Science has no difficulty "encapsulated, demonstrated, visualized or explain" science. It's pretty basic really. What are you smoking?

There is evidence of many other non-physical things; like:
Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness and self-control.
I can even add - conscience.
All non-physical, all real and all contribute to making life very pleasant.
Science cannot explain its origin, but the bible does.

All human emotions come from neurochemicals in the brain. We've known that since the 1950'ies. How old science books are you reading? Are you reading 17'th century tomes on alchemy or something? Science has since moved on.

Life comes only from life.
(Genesis 1:24-28) . . .Then God said: “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds, domestic animals and creeping animals and wild animals of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God went on to make the wild animals of the earth according to their kinds and the domestic animals according to their kinds and all the creeping animals of the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every creeping animal that is moving on the earth.” 27 And God went on to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. 28 Further, God blessed them, and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving on the earth.”

Although this is rejected by materialists, it cannot be successfully disproved by them and leaves no place for physical, biological evolution.

This is poetry. This is not science. It's like saying that the Bible is incorrect since the only thing that can explain anything is interpretive dance.

All you need to do now is explain why the Bible is relevant in this discussion?

 

[wilson]

I am not a "creationist" whatever that is. I do not believe that the universe was created in 6 twenty-four-hour days, nor do I believe that the earth or universe is only 6 thousand years old. That should take care of the "creationist" label.

Quotes Genesis


I think we're done here, folks.

You can only speak for yourself. Do you mean that you have nothing further to add?
If you're done, then just relax and watch the rest of the emerging dialogue.

 

[wilson]

Life is real. It cannot be encapsulated, demonstrated, visualized nor explained by science.

What the hell are you talking about? I was about to say this is the craziest thing you've said so far. But it isn't. It also reveals how you have no idea what science is or what it is for.

FYI - I am not discussing science, Sir. I am discussing LIFE! I hope you can see the difference.

Science has no difficulty "encapsulated, demonstrated, visualized or explain" science. It's pretty basic really. What are you smoking?

I see an error there. But if you mean that science has no difficulty encapsulating, demonstrating, visualizing or explaining life, then go ahead and show us your representations.

There is evidence of many other non-physical things; like:
Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness and self-control.
I can even add - conscience. All non-physical, all real and all contribute to making life very pleasant.
Science cannot explain its origin, but the bible does.

All human emotions come from neurochemicals in the brain. We've known that since the 1950'ies. How old science books are you reading? Are you reading 17'th century tomes on alchemy or something? Science has since moved on.

Do you actually believe that peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, self-control, and mildness are EMOTIONS? If that is true, then they should be present in everyone - right? Maybe you can explain why these qualities are absent in almost all of humanity, as demonstrated by the violence and chaos that governments now face. Does that telling absence mean that they have no neurochemicals in their brains, or that they aren't working?

Life comes only from life.
(Genesis 1:24-28) . . .Then God said: “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds, domestic animals and creeping animals and wild animals of the earth according to their kinds.”
Although this is rejected by materialists, it cannot be successfully disproved by them and leaves no place for physical, biological evolution.

This is poetry.

Please explain how that statement disproves anything in Genesis.
Poetry? Really? Do you mean it was written for the beauty and expression of feelings and ideas by rhythm and style?
Or do you mean that it contains nothing of truth and substance that can be used for more than entertainment?
Just what do you mean?

This is not science.

Have you been arguing with someone else? Who said that it is?

It's like saying that the Bible is incorrect since the only thing that can explain anything is interpretive dance.

Your sarcasm is unnecessary. Try to replace it with usable information.

All you need to do now is explain why the Bible is relevant in this discussion?

The origin of life. Life comes only from life.
Can you account for the origin of life outside of the bible? Can anyone?

 

[Keith&Co.]

FYI - I am not discussing science,

I don't think anyone here is going to dispute that.