The 7 deadly myths about creationism

Misconceptions about what creationist believe

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: The 7 deadly myths about creationism

#121  Postby BlackBart » Aug 20, 2018 7:34 pm

Fallible wrote:OH MY GOSH, A WICKED LIE??


Sounds like Nellie Olson from Little House on the Prairie.

Image
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Posts: 11732
Age: 57
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The 7 deadly myths about creationism

#122  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 20, 2018 8:04 pm

I see Wortfish has returned again to pretend the past 6 pages don't exist. As well as the dozens of others in other threads. :rolleyes:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30125
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The 7 deadly myths about creationism

#123  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 20, 2018 8:05 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Spinozasgalt wrote:
Erm, which theologians? Because the way you have God's essence standing in for an outside substance looks and sounds like ex Deo rather than ex nihilo. And that would again be steering close to something like process theology or panentheism. Neither of those count as classical theism.


Creatio ex nihilo means that God did not use a pre-existing substance to make the world with. He just used his own omnipotence and essence. That isn't to say that the created order is an "emanation" from God's own being, that has become separate and detached from him, but rather a complete manifestation of God's essential existence.

This has already been adressed and debunked. That you repeat it without shame serves as further demonstration of your intellectual dishonesty.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30125
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The 7 deadly myths about creationism

#124  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 20, 2018 8:09 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Third, what Krauss is proposing isn't creation ex nihilo, what he's proposing is that there exists a testable natural process for converting vacuum energy into matter. On this basis, he has a nice, safe precedent to build upon, in the form of E=mc2. An equation which underpins the operation of such diverse technologies as particle accelerators (which convert collision and kinetic energy into matter) and the various uses of nuclear fission (converting mass into energy via the release of nuclear binding energy, which is itself a contributor to the mass of the atomic nucleus). All those atmospheric nuclear tests conducted by the superpowers, provide ample empirical evidence that this equation is not only sound, but real world applicable. Indeed, the view of modern cosmologists is that the vacuum is itself a physical entity, a point that is totally lost on the various pedlars of apologetics who continue misrepresenting cosmological physics.


I am a little curious. If the first law of thermodynamics has always held, then the energy within the universe must have been the same as in this pre-Bang vacuum. Right? Clearly, to say the universe came from "nothing" is either a misnomer or a wicked lie.

1. There was no vacuum before the big bang.
2. You're begging the question that here is such a thing as 'outside' the universe.
3. Your failure to properly understand scientific terms vs the ever changing vernacular is your problem and doesn't support creationism in the slightest.
Wortfish wrote:
But that's the whole problem with mythology - it's the epistemological equivalent of quicksand, and trying to extract genuinely substantive knowledge from it is like trying to plough the Mediterranean Sea.

Genesis is a work of theology.

Which in no way precludes it from also being mythology.

Wortfish wrote:It explains asserts things about the relationship between an unsubstantiated God and Nature, not the mechanisms by which the natural world was created.

FIFY and you're still begging the question that nature was created.
So, I'll remind you again: your rectum is not a source of information.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30125
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The 7 deadly myths about creationism

#125  Postby Keep It Real » Aug 20, 2018 8:17 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
1. There was no vacuum before the big bang.


That's far from proven actually, not that I agree with wortfish you understand. An ever-expanding universe requires that an ever-increasing further vacuum be created between objects of mass as the distance between those objects and their velocities increase. Many view that as being highly improbable IIRC, myself included.
Arthur : All my life I've had this strange feeling that there's something big and sinister going on in the world. Slartibartfast : No, that's perfectly normal paranoia.
User avatar
Keep It Real
Suspended User
 
Posts: 8694
Age: 38
Male

England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: The 7 deadly myths about creationism

#126  Postby scott1328 » Aug 20, 2018 8:42 pm

If space/time came into existance at the Big Bang, one wonders how the terms "before" and "vacuum" have any meaning in the sentence "there was no vacuum before the Big Bang"
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8515
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The 7 deadly myths about creationism

#127  Postby Spinozasgalt » Aug 20, 2018 11:14 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Spinozasgalt wrote:
Erm, which theologians? Because the way you have God's essence standing in for an outside substance looks and sounds like ex Deo rather than ex nihilo. And that would again be steering close to something like process theology or panentheism. Neither of those count as classical theism.


Creatio ex nihilo means that God did not use a pre-existing substance to make the world with. He just used his own omnipotence and essence. That isn't to say that the created order is an "emanation" from God's own being, that has become separate and detached from him, but rather a complete manifestation of God's essential existence.
When the straight and narrow gets a little too straight, roll up the joint.
Or don't. Just follow your arrow wherever it points.

Kacey Musgraves
User avatar
Spinozasgalt
RS Donator
 
Name: Jennifer
Posts: 18138
Age: 32
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The 7 deadly myths about creationism

#128  Postby Wortfish » Aug 20, 2018 11:24 pm

laklak wrote:From his own "essence". That means jizz. We're all God jizz.

We are and...at the same time...we are not.....quite.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 865

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The 7 deadly myths about creationism

#129  Postby Calilasseia » Aug 20, 2018 11:26 pm

Ah, entertainment time again I see ...

Wortfish wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Third, what Krauss is proposing isn't creation ex nihilo, what he's proposing is that there exists a testable natural process for converting vacuum energy into matter. On this basis, he has a nice, safe precedent to build upon, in the form of E=mc2. An equation which underpins the operation of such diverse technologies as particle accelerators (which convert collision and kinetic energy into matter) and the various uses of nuclear fission (converting mass into energy via the release of nuclear binding energy, which is itself a contributor to the mass of the atomic nucleus). All those atmospheric nuclear tests conducted by the superpowers, provide ample empirical evidence that this equation is not only sound, but real world applicable. Indeed, the view of modern cosmologists is that the vacuum is itself a physical entity, a point that is totally lost on the various pedlars of apologetics who continue misrepresenting cosmological physics.


I am a little curious. If the first law of thermodynamics has always held, then the energy within the universe must have been the same as in this pre-Bang vacuum. Right?


Well first of all, you'll have to take this up with the requisite physicists. My understanding is that the 1LT certainly holds for the currently observable universe, and that this is the current consensus in physics. Whether or not the 1LT holds outside the currently observable universe, on the other hand, is one of those postulates awaiting test. I'm not aware of any physicist who claims otherwise, but, that isn't a problem. The reason it isn't a problem is because, as I've already stated, E=mc2 enjoys a large body of empirical support.

As a corollary, physicists were already aware some time ago, that in order for the energy tied up in observable matter to be available, that energy had to come from somewhere, and one of the postulates under consideration in physics, is the existence of quantum vacuum states. The transition from a higher-energy quantum vacuum state to a lower-energy quantum vacuum state, is postulated to provide the requisite energy in some cosmological models. Other models have their own energy mechanisms, such as the braneworld collision model of Steinhardt & Turok, on which I've dwelt at length elsewhere.

In short, the 1LT isn't a problem for actual trained physicists.

Wortfish wrote:Clearly, to say the universe came from "nothing" is either a misnomer or a wicked lie.


Ah, the comedy begins in earnest.

Well first of all, as I stated previously, physicists don't consider creation ex nihilo to have happened. That notion is the product of religious apologetics. Though even Augustine of Hippo, handicapped by being alive in the 4th century CE, when science as we know it barely existed, was still moved to issue his now-famous proclamation (emphasis mine):

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.


More recently, one Father Stanley Jaki, wrote the following:

Insofar as the study of the original languages of the Bible was severed from authoritative ecclesiastical preaching as its matrix, it fueled literalism ... Biblical literalism taken for a source of scientific information is making the rounds even nowadays among creationists who would merit Julian Huxley's description of 'bibliolaters.' They merely bring discredit to the Bible as they pile grist upon grist on the mills of latter-day Huxleys, such as Hoyle, Sagan, Gould, and others. The fallacies of creationism go deeper than fallacious reasonings about scientific data. Where creationism is fundamentally at fault is its resting its case on a theological faultline: the biblicism constructed by the [Protestant] Reformers.


Consequently, if you want to assert that creation ex nihilo constitutes a "wicked lie", then the principal perpetrators thereof would appear to be, oh wait, creationists. For example, Ken Ham and Arsewater in Genesis are particularly fond of this notion, as expounded in Basic Assumption C4 on AiG's "Basic Assumptions of Creationism" page, viz:

C4: The matter of the entire universe has been created without the use of previously existing matter. This basic principle is formulated in Hebrews 11:3: “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.”


But that's the whole problem with mythology - it's the epistemological equivalent of quicksand, and trying to extract genuinely substantive knowledge from it is like trying to plough the Mediterranean Sea.


Genesis is a work of theology. It explains the relationship between God and Nature, not the mechanisms by which the natural world was created.[/quote]

So why do so many creationists treat it as a work of scientific and historical fact?
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22011
Age: 57
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The 7 deadly myths about creationism

#130  Postby laklak » Aug 21, 2018 2:17 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Which in no way precludes it from also being mythology.


Or from being a bunch of wibbling bullshit.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 19694
Age: 65
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: The 7 deadly myths about creationism

#131  Postby Spinozasgalt » Aug 21, 2018 2:52 am

It's kinda meh having a conversation with six month gaps in it.
When the straight and narrow gets a little too straight, roll up the joint.
Or don't. Just follow your arrow wherever it points.

Kacey Musgraves
User avatar
Spinozasgalt
RS Donator
 
Name: Jennifer
Posts: 18138
Age: 32
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The 7 deadly myths about creationism

#132  Postby aban57 » Aug 21, 2018 7:27 am

Spinozasgalt wrote:It's kinda meh having a conversation with six month gaps in it.


Especially if your interlocutor doesn't use this time to come with new (better ?) arguments, and keep repeating the same shit as before. That's where a question pops in my mind : why does he even bother ?
User avatar
aban57
 
Posts: 6788
Age: 40
Female

Country: France
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: The 7 deadly myths about creationism

#133  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 21, 2018 7:54 am

Keep It Real wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
1. There was no vacuum before the big bang.


That's far from proven actually

Not at all, the current hypothesis is that the big bang is an expansion of pre-existing matter, not a explosion in a vacuum.

Keep It Real wrote:An ever-expanding universe requires that an ever-increasing further vacuum be created between objects of mass as the distance between those objects and their velocities increase. Many view that as being highly improbable IIRC, myself included.

Not only does it not require that, I have not made any claims about an ever expanding universe.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30125
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The 7 deadly myths about creationism

#134  Postby Fallible » Aug 21, 2018 11:41 am

aban57 wrote:
Spinozasgalt wrote:It's kinda meh having a conversation with six month gaps in it.


Especially if your interlocutor doesn't use this time to come with new (better ?) arguments, and keep repeating the same shit as before. That's where a question pops in my mind : why does he even bother ?


Yep. Half-arsd proselytising is surely an oxymoron.
Sorry that you think you had it rough in the first world.
You ought to get out a map sooner than later.
Knowledge has turned into a trap; you have to slow down.
Get out of your head and spend less time alone.
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 49259
Age: 46
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The 7 deadly myths about creationism

#135  Postby Wortfish » Aug 21, 2018 12:14 pm

Calilasseia wrote:
So why do so many creationists treat it as a work of scientific and historical fact?

I think because they do read Genesis as history rather than as theology. There are books in the Bible that are essentially chronicles of events happening in the Levant. Genesis, however, is not one of them. It is a creation myth used to explain God's purposes. Nobody in the ancient world actually believed there was literally a "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" or a talking snake. These would have been interpreted allegorically. But Protestant fundamentalism insists that every word in the Bible is the literal truth. However, not all creationists see it that way. Progressive creationists and ID creationists are not inclined to think that way.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 865

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The 7 deadly myths about creationism

#136  Postby felltoearth » Aug 21, 2018 12:35 pm

Spinozasgalt wrote:It's kinda meh having a conversation with six month gaps in it.

Ikr.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 11745
Age: 52

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The 7 deadly myths about creationism

#137  Postby felltoearth » Aug 21, 2018 12:38 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
So why do so many creationists treat it as a work of scientific and historical fact?

I think because they do read Genesis as history rather than as theology. There are books in the Bible that are essentially chronicles of events happening in the Levant.

Please. Name factual historic account of an event from the bible. Preferably a factual account involving god.

ETA for accuracy.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 11745
Age: 52

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The 7 deadly myths about creationism

#138  Postby aban57 » Aug 21, 2018 12:42 pm

Wortfish wrote:Genesis, however, is not one of them. It is a creation myth used to explain God's purposes.


Who decides that exactly ? Who decides what has to be taken litterally, and what is myth ? And how do these people know they're right, compared to the other people having a different interpretation ?
I mean, if you believe the Bible is sacred, transmitted to us by God, who are you to say that some parts are myths ? Shouldn't you believe it to the letter ?
User avatar
aban57
 
Posts: 6788
Age: 40
Female

Country: France
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: The 7 deadly myths about creationism

#139  Postby laklak » Aug 21, 2018 1:44 pm

That's always been my question. Bring up Teh Flud and they'll say "oh, that's just allegory" (unless your talking to Ken Hambone, of courser). Bring up the resurrection and that's literal truth. How do they know which is which? It's not like they print the allegorical bits in a different font or color. One said to me "well, we know Genesis is allegorical because it couldn't happen that way". Well, you should apply that same razor sharp logic to the rest of the fairy tale and you'll realize the entire thing is a load of codswallop.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 19694
Age: 65
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: The 7 deadly myths about creationism

#140  Postby Blackadder » Aug 21, 2018 5:20 pm

aban57 wrote:
Wortfish wrote:Genesis, however, is not one of them. It is a creation myth used to explain God's purposes.


Who decides that exactly ? Who decides what has to be taken litterally, and what is myth ? And how do these people know they're right, compared to the other people having a different interpretation ?
I mean, if you believe the Bible is sacred, transmitted to us by God, who are you to say that some parts are myths ? Shouldn't you believe it to the letter ?


This has been a slow, steady retreat by (most) religions over the last four centuries, as scientific progress has destroyed one myth after another, at which point those myths have been reclassified to the status of "oh that's just allegory", where they were previously required to be accepted as gospel truth. What remains now as required truth is the more vague theological obfuscations that are not susceptible (yet) to scientific examination.

Hence God is now not an angry Jewish man sitting on his throne controlling the weather, but instead is a vaporiferous-cloud-of-essence, a consciousness-existing-outside-of-time-and space, an all-encompassing-love-field, and similar blobulous wibble. I don't think there has been an orderly examination of what bits of scripture are true and what are, erm, subject to discretionary interpretation. Instead the retreat into the far reaches of epistomological deep-space has been piecemeal, forced by the somewhat uneven breakthroughs in our empirical knowledge of the world around us.
That credulity should be gross in proportion to the ignorance of the mind that it enslaves, is in strict consistency with the principle of human nature. - Percy Bysshe Shelley
User avatar
Blackadder
RS Donator
 
Posts: 3673
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest