How do creationist explain fossil fuels?

Originally posted by Menumorut By common sense I understand logic.

Edited by Jams - 18-Nov-2008 at 17:19

Originally posted by Menumorut Originally posted by Jams It is different for me, and people like me, - to us common sense dictates that the observable represents the world as it is, as there's really nothing that speak against that notion. By common sense I understand logic.

Hello to you all

Originally posted by Flipper Menumorut, i'm sorry, i don't want to sound rude or so, but the understanding of some "ilogical" things here as you call them, is based on a fair background of positive sciences. Certain things mentioned here are not at all illogical to me and as i stated before, I'm not an atheist nor someone that disrespects highly religious persons.

The so called sciences are a conglomerate of ideas perpetuated in the branch of each one by the unchecked taking of preceding 'discoveries' and theories. Born in the ideologically ossified society, one is brainwashed since young and has not the inspiration to reconsider all this tradition from its origins. When he/she becomes a licentiate and get a profession he may reach the necessary maturity to question these theories but it would mean to lose his/her job and social advantages so he/she rejects the idea.

Originally posted by Jams Well, so what's illogical about it? You have said that several times in this thread, but you have substantiated nothing.

Its illogical to believe that from nothing can appear something or that something can exist from eternity without its existence having an explanation. God is the only explanation because an absolute rational and alive Being has the explanation of His existence in Himself: the nature of existence is infinitely different than what we naturally think. We think with our mind which see its sort of existence as the absolute kind of existence but actually this is a relative form of existence, bring from non-existence by a infinite superior Being Who has the real form of existence. So, the existence is far more different and grandious than we usually think.


And this kind of miraculous (for us) existence (of God) has the explanation in itself.

Now compare the materialist theory with this one. Which is more logical?

Is it logic to have a belief that goes against all that we can observe? What is the logic in that?

Yes, is logical, because nothing tell us our senses represents absolute guide marks.

I've already mentioned that the Bible is based on a long oral tradition, and the people who wrote it down surely had to use concept that they themselves understood. That seems pretty logical to me. I see no reason to believe that everything in the old testament (or Torah) is a literal truth.

I disagree with your first idea but agree with the second one. I disagree because nothing happens fortuitous and I agree because Bible is not the literal truth (as most of Christians believe) but a helpful book and nothing more. God's plans are more complex than we think and the idea of a message of God to humanity is a human prejudice. Bible is a relative book but it serves God's purposes precisely.

Now, you claimed that you didn't base your idea of the age of the world on the Bible, but seriously, I can't imagine what else you could base it on. Where else would you get the idea that the world is only a little older than the first civilizations?

I don't contest that I took involuntary this idea from Bible, as I took ideas which I consider good from profane books. (Not as an order from God but as a useful source of inspiration)

Again, I don't know how or what you think, but claiming such a young age for the whole world seems very illogical to me, especially if you came to this conclusion without the bible.

Again, stop trusting your feelings, use your reason.

Originally posted by gcle2003 That's a really bad start. I don't see how you can recover from it. However you have to be prepared to accept that for most people 'logic' and 'common sense' are diffferent things entirely.

I may have used wrong this expression. In Romanian it means both "common understanding" and "well aimed".

There is nothing anyway logical or illogical about the age of the earth, whether you are arguing the creationist side or the generally accepted one. Logic doesn't deal with reality.

There is a superficial logic and a more profound one. From the perspective of God's plan, we see no reason for Him to wait millions/billions of years to create the material world and animal species when He can bring anything into existence instantaneously. And even He would wished to make His creation in a long period of time, it would be the same thing because He is outside time.

So, the age of world coincides with the apparition of the first human consciences, the first human beings which from the most reasonable POV is some thousands years BC. Why? Because God has a purpose for creating the humanity and that purpose is more reasonable the one explained by a young existence of world than one in which savage people lives in caves hundreds thousands years, as scientists 'discovered'.

Yes, there are proofs that such things (the savages) existed. God created the material world in such way that some may consider that it has not a creator because else (if the world would obviously has a creator) it would harmed the human conscience of free and respected being.

Edited by Menumorut - 19-Nov-2008 at 05:43

Originally posted by Chilbudios Originally posted by gcle2003 I don't think the story of the deluge arose from a religious belief. Deluge stories are widespread in various cultures and almost certainly derive either from folk memories or possibly from sheer poetic imagination / exaggeration.   That the deluge was caused by God is then a derived belief - a rationale created in order to explain the fact (at least, accepted fact) of the deluge. Deluge motifs may have a true core to it, but that deluge story was so and so it is about several religiously derived beliefs. Examples: - the chronology of the deluge related to the creation of the world, it is a moment when god wanted to wash away the sins of humanity and start afresh - only a family chosen by god survive (though here it may be argued that it's a oral tradition of a moment in the past when the tribe's population decreased due to deluge, famine, disease etc. and they saw it as a punishment from the skies) - they save all the species by preserving a pair of each and similar such claims which can be refuted by scientific investigation if they are to be taken literally.

Originally posted by Menumorut Originally posted by gcle2003 That's a really bad start. I don't see how you can recover from it. However you have to be prepared to accept that for most people 'logic' and 'common sense' are diffferent things entirely. I may have used wrong this expression. In Romanian it means both "common understanding" and "well aimed".

Originally posted by Menumorut Originally posted by Jams Well, so what's illogical about it? You have said that several times in this thread, but you have substantiated nothing. Its illogical to believe that from nothing can appear something or that something can exist from eternity without its existence having an explanation. God is the only explanation because an absolute rational and alive Being has the explanation of His existence in Himself: the nature of existence is infinitely different than what we naturally think. We think with our mind which see its sort of existence as the absolute kind of existence but actually this is a relative form of existence, bring from non-existence by a infinite superior Being Who has the real form of existence. So, the existence is far more different and grandious than we usually think. And this kind of miraculous (for us) existence (of God) has the explanation in itself. Now compare the materialist theory with this one. Which is more logical?

Originally posted by Chilbudios Originally posted by gcle2003 Again you're mixing up religious beliefs with factual assertions. That the flood happened, that one family only survived, that they kept with them representatives of all the world's animals are all factual assertions, that are subject to scientific investigation. That God had something to do with all this, that it happened because the world was evil, and so on are all religious assertions that are not so subject.    I pointed out that, for instance, it could be simply poetic imagination. Maybe it happened, maybe something happened that got exaggerated, maybe it didn't happen at all. It's still a factual assertion.   You, like Bey, like to argue though you don't understand what you argue against.

Now I understand. Thanks

Originally posted by Menumorut Originally posted by Jams Actually, none of what you wrote above require a young world. There's no "logical" conclusion about the age of the world from what you wrote. Take the other variant, of a billion years old earth. It seems more credible?