[GoldEaglev2]

Originally Posted by MVPaintballer

I just had this overwhelming feeling of God.

That's it: it's a feeling, nothing more. I've had overwhelming feelings that ghosts inhabit my house. Does that mean they do?

[mynameisjonathon]

Originally Posted by MVPaintballer

I can tell you what I believe, but I'll ask you this first: Why does it matter? Their children had bellybuttons, we have bellybuttons...

It would prove if the first man was created by an outside force or not...

[9a0k7]

Originally Posted by GoldEaglev2

That's it: it's a feeling, nothing more. I've had overwhelming feelings that ghosts inhabit my house. Does that mean they do?

Thanks for the oversimplified straw-man argument.

[Derr]

Originally Posted by MVPaintballer

Philosophers often define words differently to fit their premise. Its not the word that is important, but the definition or concept which the composer creates.

I'm no philosopher, but I see no reason why I can't do it too.

Well, I guess that's your perogative. Isn't that a little deceptive though?

[MVPaintballer]

Originally Posted by mynameisjonathon

It would prove if the first man was created by an outside force or not...

No, it wouldn't.
If we somehow found his intact body and it didn't have a belly-button, then it would support creation greatly.

If he did have a belly button, then he'd just fall into my idea, and God created a man with a belly-button.

[MVPaintballer]

Originally Posted by GoldEaglev2

That's it: it's a feeling, nothing more. I've had overwhelming feelings that ghosts inhabit my house. Does that mean they do?

I literally mean overwhelming.

I knew a lot more than I did an hour before - about Biology, myself, and God.

[mynameisjonathon]

Originally Posted by MVPaintballer

No, it wouldn't.
If we somehow found his intact body and it didn't have a belly-button, then it would support creation greatly.

If he did have a belly button, then he'd just fall into my idea, and God created a man with a belly-button.

If I beleived the world started last thursday, would my theory be any less correct than yours?

[MVPaintballer]

Originally Posted by Derr

Well, I guess that's your perogative. Isn't that a little deceptive though?

No, because I don't do it with intent
How's that for irony.

[MVPaintballer]

Originally Posted by mynameisjonathon

If I beleived the world started last thursday, would my theory be any less correct than yours?

Actually it's not a theory, its a belief, faith, or idea.

No, and in fact, when I was younger I would think about that all the time. "What if everything was created right here and now, including memories and experiences?".

But I'm not attempting to provide evidence for creation, just to give an idea that works with literal biblical creation, and works with the evidence we find around us. Not that the evidence we find supports creation.

[Derr]

Originally Posted by MVPaintballer

No, because I don't do it with intent
How's that for irony.

I think you do, and regardless, you were saying that they didn't have intent either. Look at it this way: I could say, "I believe in God." But if I decide to define 'God' differently than everyone else on this planet, I'm decieving them. Saying one thing that I know will make them think ONE thing, and actually meaning something very much different.

I would also make the claim that 'philosophers' are not 'allowed' to do that either.

[mynameisjonathon]

Originally Posted by MVPaintballer

Actually it's not a theory, its a belief, faith, or idea.

No, and in fact, when I was younger I would think about that all the time. "What if everything was created right here and now, including memories and experiences?".

But I'm not attempting to provide evidence for creation, just to give an idea that works with literal biblical creation, and works with the evidence we find around us.

Well I can't technicaly prove your wrong, I'll just chose to inform you that I think your idea is very foolish, but none the less your idea.

[MVPaintballer]

Originally Posted by Derr

I think you do, and regardless, you were saying that they didn't have intent either. Look at it this way: I could say, "I believe in God." But if I decide to define 'God' differently than everyone else on this planet, I'm decieving them. Saying one thing that I know will make them think ONE thing, and actually meaning something very much different.

I would also make the claim that 'philosophers' are not 'allowed' to do that either.

You're micro analyzing this.

I just read Hume's Determinism argument and he did it ;P I know, I know, it doesn't make it right.

[MVPaintballer]

Originally Posted by mynameisjonathon

Well I can't technicaly prove your wrong, I'll just chose to inform you that I think your idea is very foolish, but none the less your idea.

I say its fairly clever

Which is better:

Dinosaurs are vegans and walked with man (Contradicts science)
God made dinosaurs evolve then kill them (Contradicts Bible)
Dinosaurs are made up by the devil-worshiping paleontologists. (Contradicts reality)
Dinosaurs are a byproduct of creation. (Infallible, perfect, and correct )

[Derr]

Originally Posted by MVPaintballer

You're micro analyzing this.

I just read Hume's Determinism argument and he did it ;P I know, I know, it doesn't make it right.

True, but that's because I'm a microbe. That just stood out to me.

Either way, what difference does it make? Your idea is as valid as the one you thought up when you were a kid. It does make perfect logical sense, even though it is impossible to prove. Here's the catch22 though: your idea is not held valid by any form of Christianity (feel free to prove me wrong on that). And given that fact, it doesn't really matter. This is an exercise in futility, like creation science, you are trying to come up with a scientifically valid argument for religion that is both scientifically accurate and Biblically allowable. I'm not sure what you want people to say.

[mynameisjonathon]

If the time everything starts at is 0 then all god did was really create a 6 day old galaxy. How do you know all six day old galaxys dont look like this?

[MVPaintballer]

Originally Posted by mynameisjonathon

If the time everything starts at is 0 then all god did was really create a 6 day old galaxy. How do you know all six day old galaxys dont look like this?

Time starts at 14 billion years.

[MVPaintballer]

Originally Posted by Derr

Either way, what difference does it make? Your idea is as valid as the one you thought up when you were a kid. It does make perfect logical sense, even though it is impossible to prove. Here's the catch22 though: your idea is not held valid by any form of Christianity (feel free to prove me wrong on that). And given that fact, it doesn't really matter. This is an exercise in futility, like creation science, you are trying to come up with a scientifically valid argument for religion that is both scientifically accurate and Biblically allowable. I'm not sure what you want people to say.

Actually the intentions of my idea are the complete opposite.

It fits in Genesis 1 and 2, includes a literal 6-day interpretation, and also explains scientific findings that say otherwise without twisting science to support Christian creationism.

Edit: The Bible, especially Genesis, is a summary. Creation takes up a page and a half in my Bible - doesn't go on to the exact mechanism and such.

[mynameisjonathon]

I mean I could make the argument evolution occured over a period of 6 days.

[MVPaintballer]

Originally Posted by mynameisjonathon

I mean I could make the argument evolution occured over a period of 6 days.

Wouldn't fit into the Bible.

[MVPaintballer]

Taking a break>>> dinner

[Derr]

Originally Posted by MVPaintballer

Actually the intentions of my idea are the complete opposite.

Lol@the guy who says, 'No I'm not' and then proceeds to describe exactly what I just said.