How do creationist explain fossil fuels?

Originally posted by Jams Yes, I have no reason to think otherwise. The notion that everything is an illusion and thus nothing can be concluded does not make a young earth any more logical than any other position. If you really believe that nothing can be trusted, that our senses tell us nothing of the world, then you can conclude nothing about the age of the earth - or anything else, for that matter.

I don't think that nothing can be trusted. But that you have to be careful what you trust.

I don't consider our senses useless but see different their utility. I see them as a way God communicates to us things.

In this case - yes, that was an impression, surely. That is because it was my impression of you, and therefore not something I could truly know. Hence I said "if". Nothing to do with the subject of the age of the world. You have actually not provided any good reason what so ever that the world should be only a few thousand years old. You only claim that it is "illogical" to think that it is old, and that "common sense" dictates that it is young. I don't really think we can get any further with this, unless you provide some kind of reasoning.

1. I excluded the materialist theory because mattery cann't exist without a cause.

2. From a theistic point of view, I compared the two variants, young earth and old earth and found the first one more probable, for the reasons I presented (the age of earth coincides with the age of humanity which could not be very old as I don't see why would God keep people in caves hundreds thousands years).

Originally posted by Jams 1. Well, then either nothing exists, or there is a cause. This still has nothing to do with the age of the world. It is quite irrelevant. The whole sentence lacks logic. 2. You call that reasoning? So, you decide what Gods intentions was? That is an assumption on your part, an idea in your head, and nothing more than that. And you criticise me for relying on my senses!

1. No. Mattery cann't have the explanation of its existence in itself, as can God.

2. God is not senseless and irrational. And also he is not playing with humans' lives. We know these from Bible where we are told about a good God. Why take Bible for understanding God? Because there is not other book that has such strong ideas about God, that hardly can be the creation of a human mind. Yes, is not perfect what I say. I tried to come with a theoretical-logical demonstration, but it seems that is not working. The Atheists want philosophical debates, I want to learn the truth beyond prejudices, we have not common objectives.

No one truly answered the OP's question.

I think I did, perhaps others too.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Your original comment was silly and childish. My response was meant to make that point (since it too was obviously silly and childish. 'You are...', 'No you are...', 'No you are...' is not a way to conduct any kind of sensible discussion.

My original comment was and still is true. You fail to understand most of the things I hold. I can only pity the one who finds sillyness when he's told he's missing the point.

No it doesn't. It's perfectly in line with my original position which was that the statement 'There was a deluge' is NOT a religious assertion, but 'God sent the deluge' IS a religious assertion. I'm suprised you continue to confuse the two.

Continuous denial. My original position was "God sent the deluge" (I was talking about the Biblical Deluge all along, should I quote myself? Have you read the Bible?). I'm surprised as well by your incapacity of understanding, moreover as it seems to be a chronic symptom.

Nope. An unnecessarily snide remark and not a straw man at all. You quoted the source.

I linked a source for defining the religious beliefs, I quoted something from the source, as well (a part of the definition I found relevant for our discussion). Since you obviously do not understand what I say, you're stripped off from the lucidity to claim what is a straw man or not. To realize such a thing, you need first to understand what I hold.

(positions). My stating that was therefore not erectiing a straw man, it was merely recapitulating what you had introduced. If you now don't want to accept that classification, then why quote the passage in the you now don't want to accept that classification, then why quote the passage in the(positions). My stating that was therefore not erectiing a straw man, it was merely recapitulating what you had introduced.

I accepted the classification and I didn't quote that passage.

It's a symptom I noticed often common to many forum trolls. They often jump to reply before they actually read what their opponent has to say. You practice it quite often, and I noticed it in our past debates. For instance in this case, you accused me of not accepting the classification, though in the next sentence (in the same paragraph!) I confirmed I accept all three categories of classification. Of course, my acceptance was ignored even when you replied to that portion of text which contains it. Which is another common trolling practice to dodge the inconvenient and continue monologuing.

You don't appear to understand the word 'explanation' (the first position

Since you don't know what it explains, you can't afford such a judgement.

What youj mean is you're beaten. The story of the deluge does not explain anything at all. What's to explain?  There was a universal flood. A man and his family survided with a load of animals. What does that 'explain'? Where's the 'morality' involved? In fact there's not even any supernatural power involved That story is investigatable by science, at least in principle - in fact it's refutable simply on the ground that in the lifespan of humanity there hasn't been enough water to completely cover the earth.

It explains, if you don't understand it's your problem, not mine, not the myth's. Honestly I am tired of providing free lessons for idiots and/or ignorants (whether they are really so or they just fake it). It's not my fault some people did not read the Bible, it's not my fault some people did not read scholarship related to it or simply they do not have the intellectual capacity to understand.
I'll just throw few references:
- of course, the Bible, Genesis, chapters 6-8, though some NT books worth rearding like Peter's epistles or apocryphals like the book of Enoch
- cultural anthropology: Andrei Oişteanu, Legenda românească a potopului (The Romanian legend of Deluge), a study on syncretic pagan-Christian account, some of the elements analysed are those from the Bible - the opposition between god's order and chaos, the ark symbolism, sending animals to check for land, etc. Among others the study focuses on the meanings (themselves mythical or not) of the elements present in this myth
- theology: Michel Quinot, De l'icône au festin nuptial. Image, Parole et Chair de Dieu, it discusses the meaning of various motifs, elements, narratives from the Bible, from iconic perspective but not only. Among others it shows the cosmis roles of waters, their sin cleansing nature. For clearer parallels with the Deluge check the "classical" Christian theology, e.g. John of Damascus about the three prefigurations of the Christian baptism
This could expand endlessly, topic for an entire thread, for an entire book.

Though I believe one needs not to be a rocket scientist to realize the baselessness of your position if he'll just sacrifice a bit of time to read the Bible:
gcle2003: In fact there's not even any supernatural power involved (so far)
Bible, Genesis, 6.13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Bible, Genesis, 7.4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth

However, once the story is 'explained' by attributiing it to God's will then it becomes a religious statement, and it is no longer refutable by scientific investigation. investigation. (As no religious statement is)

You have a short memory. Let me quote from that site what you have already summarized: "The first position asserts that all religious beliefs are false: they attempt to explain perceived phenomena in a way that is often contrary to scientific principles, and in any case religious beliefs cannot be empirically verified". So, according to some, religious beliefs can be refuted by science when they cross each other's paths or they can be simply get ignored (because they are not empirically testable).

I note you dodge around confronting my point. What does it explain? In that whole paragraph you don't address that

You have no point, you have a limitation in understanding. I don't owe you any answers. It explains to me. Call me a liar and join my fanclub, or trust me and concede the argument. Or change your personality and maybe I'll be giving more answers.

But it is devoid of God. That's the point you keep missing. The assertion I made in the first place has no God in it at all. The statement that 'there was a universal flood' (which is common to more than the Abrahamic traditions) has nothing about God in it at all.   Which is part of the reason it isn't a religious statement, and is therefore testable empirically

But this is your strawman, we're not talking about your statement (maybe you do, but I don't and you attacked my position), but about the Biblical flood. And God is everywhere in those passages. And at the same time, some of the claims made there can be tested empirically (or refuted by scientific grounds, based on other theories built empirically).

What on earth are you talking about? Just what are you claiming I don't understand? People have believed the universe was created by God for much longer than we have ever known fossil fuels existed. When fossil fuels were discovered (without checking, in western Europe that would be in the later middle ages, no? - certainly long before Darwin) any cleric would have told you that, like the rest of the world they were created by God (as a help to mankind, or whatever).   Scientific theories about the origin of fossil fuels aren't more than what? A couple of centuries old?   It isn't me that's demonstrating misunderstanding.

Like I said, I'm not going to clarify this point to you. You're further off the track, but I won't ruin your pleasure to keep monologues.

 

Edited by Chilbudios - 20-Nov-2008 at 13:05

not a specific modern day Creationist explanation of the existence of fossil fuels

You're correct, the OP did not quite get his answer. Because almost no one has dealt with modern Creationism and its claims and methods. I'm not very familiar with them (I had patience to read only one Creationist book, and that was too much for me, most of the information I have from discussion boards like IIDB) but if I reckon correctly an often position is that of denying the scientific results. I encountered two positions, sometimes held together:

- fossilization happened more recently and took less time than mainstream scholars argue

- fossil fuels are abiotic, i.e. not from fossils - on this one I remember some creationists gloating when the estimates for oil reserves failed/changed, in their view that proved the mainstream fossil fuel theoretization is wrong

Originally posted by Chilbudios Originally posted by gcle2003 Your original comment was silly and childish. My response was meant to make that point (since it too was obviously silly and childish. 'You are...', 'No you are...', 'No you are...' is not a way to conduct any kind of sensible discussion. My original comment was and still is true. You fail to understand most of the things I hold. I can only pity the one who finds sillyness when he's told he's missing the point.

Originally posted by Jams Originally posted by Menumorut No one truly answered the OP's question. I think I did, perhaps others too.   Not really, you may have explained your personal reasons, but that isn't necessarily the explanation of "creationists" in general.

Well I don't know if the last few pages were informative or not but it was an entertaining read for me. I have an idea. How about interested members present a conclusive closing arguement regarding your respective perspectives. That way we could cut through all of the supposed 'straw' from cloggin up the thread!

Edited by Seko - 20-Nov-2008 at 19:11

I wouldn't want this thread to be closed though Chilbudios. Try my idea first. All interested parties can make closing arguements about their repective points of view. One other suggestion. Let's all refrain from comapring ourselves to other members or even mentioning them in posts.

Okay, my concluding statement: Anyone can just read the Bible, the book of Genesis, chapters 6, 7 and 8. The Biblical myth of Flood has both claims which can be verified and which cannot. In its entirety it is a religious belief that Flood happened as it is described in the Bible. To save Biblical literalism, God cannot be used always to trump science (or logic, because Bible also holds internal contradictions), unless we end in a 'all-is-simulation' type of worldview.

1: I agree that the Bible contains both testable ('scientific' or at least empirical) truth-claims and non-testable ('religious' or at least metaphysical) truth-claims. The same is true of pretty well all primarily religious works that make assertions about the world, just as it is true of most primarily scientific ones.

Edited by gcle2003 - 20-Nov-2008 at 21:12