The bottom line is, how well you were indoctrinated.

[Molal]

After speaking with some colleagues, I am unable to obtain copies of the other text books to which AV (Via the website) refer.

 

[AV1611VET]

After speaking with some colleagues, I am unable to obtain copies of the other text books to which AV (Via the website) refer.

Are you saying they were quietly blacklisted?

 

[driewerf]

Have you ever stood on this side of the Cross, Contracelsus? You don't know what it's like to want to spend a nice evening with your wife at a planetarium (yes, a planetarium); there to see the Horsehead Nebula, or Orion's Belt, or whatever; only to have the moment ruined by going through a 45 minute lecture on how it formed millions of years ago, etc.

Or to sit in front of the TV to see the wonders of God's creatures on Animal Planet, only to hear, "This trait evolved over centuries of..." etc.

It just takes away the awe of the moment.

Imagine, reality hurts AV1611VET's delicate feelings.

 

[AV1611VET]

Imagine, reality hurts AV1611VET's delicate feelings.

Merry Christmas!

 

[Yttrium]

Wow, this is a moldy old thread. But as long as it's back from the dead, I want to strongly disagree with the OP's position that: "to believe in creationism requires total abandonment of logic, deduction and thought."

Logic rests on a set of assumptions. You can build perfectly good logic from faulty assumptions. You can apply deduction and thought when processing that logic. If someone comes to a different conclusion than you, and you've determined to your satisfaction that your own logic is impeccable, it doesn't automatically mean that the other person's logic was flawed, since you can simply be starting with different sets of assumptions.

A creationist starts with an assumption that the creation story in Genesis is literally true. Someone can certainly use that as a logical axiom and use deduction and thought to work through the evidence. Being inflexible on assumptions may be a problem, but that doesn't prevent highly detailed logical analysis.

 

[Shemjaza]

I remember consol!

I'm surprised his account wasn't just removed the forum.
From memory he was incredibly obnoxious and would try to disrupt any discussion with something that seemed like an edgy teenager's interpretation of early 2000s "New Atheism".

Quite irritating to other atheists trying to cove a civil and coherent discussion.

 

[dlamberth]

Have you ever stood on this side of the Cross, Contracelsus? You don't know what it's like to want to spend a nice evening with your wife at a planetarium (yes, a planetarium); there to see the Horsehead Nebula, or Orion's Belt, or whatever; only to have the moment ruined by going through a 45 minute lecture on how it formed millions of years ago, etc.

Or to sit in front of the TV to see the wonders of God's creatures on Animal Planet, only to hear, "This trait evolved over centuries of..." etc.

It just takes away the awe of the moment.

For this Lover of God, I very much experience awe when the creative power of evolution is highlighted.

 

[AV1611VET]

I remember consol!

I'm surprised his account wasn't just removed the forum.
From memory he was incredibly obnoxious and would try to disrupt any discussion with something that seemed like an edgy teenager's interpretation of early 2000s "New Atheism".

Quite irritating to other atheists trying to cove a civil and coherent discussion.

Unless I'm wrong, I think his account was removed; then he came back as Fish Face, Tomatoman, and a couple others.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Have you ever stood on this side of the Cross, Contracelsus? You don't know what it's like to want to spend a nice evening with your wife at a planetarium (yes, a planetarium); there to see the Horsehead Nebula, or Orion's Belt, or whatever; only to have the moment ruined by going through a 45 minute lecture on how it formed millions of years ago, etc.

Sometimes I grade the presentation on accuracy. What have they cut out or simplified to keep it short. Fun times.

Or to sit in front of the TV to see the wonders of God's creatures on Animal Planet, only to hear, "This trait evolved over centuries of..." etc.

It just takes away the awe of the moment.

I think of it as the source of the awe. The connection to the deep past. The durability of objects or ways of life. Quite awesome.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sometimes I grade the presentation on accuracy. What have they cut out or simplified to keep it short. Fun times.

I think of it as the source of the awe. The connection to the deep past. The durability of objects or ways of life. Quite awesome.

Physics question:

How much power -- in watts -- would be required to instantly change a grain of sand into a grain of salt?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Physics question:

How much power -- in watts -- would be required to instantly change a grain of sand into a grain of salt?

Infinity, because you divided by zero time (instantly). As for the *energy* to do so I don't have it on hand, but you can start by looking at the difference in mass between sodium, chlorine, oxygen, and silicon and work it out for yourself (if you can define the mass "a grain".)

 

[Estrid]

Wow, this is a moldy old thread. But as long as it's back from the dead, I want to strongly disagree with the OP's position that: "to believe in creationism requires total abandonment of logic, deduction and thought."

Logic rests on a set of assumptions. You can build perfectly good logic from faulty assumptions. You can apply deduction and thought when processing that logic. If someone comes to a different conclusion than you, and you've determined to your satisfaction that your own logic is impeccable, it doesn't automatically mean that the other person's logic was flawed, since you can simply be starting with different sets of assumptions.

A creationist starts with an assumption that the creation story in Genesis is literally true. Someone can certainly use that as a logical axiom and use deduction and thought to work through the evidence. Being inflexible on assumptions may be a problem, but that doesn't prevent highly detailed logical analysis.

Maybe not TOTAL abandoment of logic.

But those with a bit of education, it does
require complete abandonment of intellectual
integrity.

And such logic as applied at first soon
thins out and vanishes, as one drifts further
and further from shore trying to apply logic
to nonsense.

As we see in these pages.

 

[AV1611VET]

Infinity, because you divided by zero time (instantly).

Love your answer!

There's where I stand in awe.

God's power is infinite.

He doesn't need time.

So while you (and others) are awed by baby steps (microevolution) that require great measures of time; I'm awed by infinite power over zero time.

 

[AV1611VET]

And such logic as applied at first soon thins out and vanishes, as one drifts further and further from shore trying to apply logic to nonsense.

Here's some logic that needs to be applied to creationism:

Never "drift further and further from shore."

Make the academian you're talking to stick to the Creation Week, else he will pummel you with such nonsense as deep time, macroevolution, the laws of thermodynamics, speed of light, and other complete and utter nonsense that wasn't around at the time of Creation.

Make sure he understands -- (which he won't on principle) -- that science didn't apply during the events documented in Genesis 1 & 2.

But if you feel like losing your argument, and don't want to give God the credit for what He can do in six day's time, just go ahead and let the person you're talking to have his principles and yak his science bologna; and I guarantee you he will win the argument every time -- and rightfully so.

You want logic?

Here it is:

Science has NO PLACE being in a discussion about the Creation Week.

And if you stick to that logic, you'll eat Earth's best scientists up for breakfast.

 

[dlamberth]

Love your answer!

There's where I stand in awe.

God's power is infinite.

He doesn't need time.

So while you (and others) are awed by baby steps (microevolution) that require great measures of time; I'm awed by infinite power over zero time.

I'm sitting on the other side of aweness where life is continually creating new life forms in an infinite variety. It's not a one shop stop, but rather a continual creating process that goes on and on and on. The process you provided where creation is a one time very short event is limited by it's very nature of being a one time event. That process limits the creation process and does not allow for infinite potential.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm sitting on the other side of aweness where life is continually creating new life forms in an infinite variety. It's not a one shop stop, but rather a continual creating process that goes on and on and on. The process you provided where creation is a one time very short event is limited by it's very nature of being a one time event. That process limits the creation process and does not allow for infinite potential.

In case you haven't realized this, my friend, I see life (and new life forms) going on and on and on as well.

 

[Estrid]

I'm sitting on the other side of aweness where life is continually creating new life forms in an infinite variety. It's not a one shop stop, but rather a continual creating process that goes on and on and on. The process you provided where creation is a one time very short event is limited by it's very nature of being a one time event. That process limits the creation process and does not allow for infinite potential.

Two sides of awareness being what?

 

[dlamberth]

Two sides of awareness being what?

Human Beings being human.

 

[Estrid]

Human Beings being human.

Sorryah, that makes no sense to me
as being " 2 sides".

 

[dlamberth]

Sorryah, that makes no sense to me
as being " 2 sides".

Being a Human Being makes no sense to you? We Humans have many sides to most any issue you can name.