- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 3/12/26 at 2:38 pm to TheMonTSteR
Tell us why you think that it does.
Posted on 3/12/26 at 2:38 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I'm making the case that the Scriptures do teach plainly a young earth, and that creation was done in a short amount of time.
Asinine.
Posted on 3/12/26 at 3:57 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
Asinine
Nuts
Posted on 3/12/26 at 3:58 pm to RebelExpress38
Or billions of years of nature constantly correcting itself
Posted on 3/12/26 at 4:00 pm to jcaz
quote:
Or billions of years of nature constantly correcting itself
You think "nature" has agency?
Posted on 3/12/26 at 5:13 pm to FooManChoo
quote:... and I am trying desperately not to be disrespectful in obliterating that "case."
I'm making the case that the Scriptures do teach plainly a young earth, and that creation was done in a short amount of time.
I like you as a poster.
I very much appreciate your contributions here.
When it's Foo against some """intellectual""" 'atheist,' I've been your deliberate and invertible ally, as I'll continue to be.
But the Scriptures do NOT teach """young earth."""
The Scriptures do NOT REMOTELY teach that 'creation' was done in a short amount of time.
Sorry!
But I've cited MULTIPLE examples.
PLEASE, do not perpetuate ignorance in the supposed name of misinterpreted scripture.
This post was edited on 3/12/26 at 5:17 pm
Posted on 3/12/26 at 5:19 pm to TheMonTSteR
Because this vignette is confused in a phenomenological sense. I could make a description of something unique to a species like how the frog sees or olfactory receptors in whales and use the same relational language to things like a computer which might make things seem fantastical and thus beyond the ability of science to comprehend. For example, the genes encoding mammalian MHC molecules are so polymorphic that they have 1.7 x 10^24 combinations or so, which is an incredibly large number and implies infinite combinations. But we understand clearly the method by which this recombination occurs. If we don't make a relational analogy for it, it might be meaningless. If I said, it would take you something like 31 trillion years to spend 1 x 10^24 amount of money if you were given 1 trillion dollars every second, perhaps you might understand the scale. But that isn't a meaningful description of the scientific processes. Likewise, this passage makes a bunch of relational analogies, which seem impressive only in relation to other things. The human body is decidedly not a computer and thus making references to the brain's 'wattage' and how insufficient current neural networks are in mimicking or even making a 1 to 1 scale representation of the human brain is certainly not evidence for 'intelligent design.'
There is nothing in the passage that shows that supports any notion of ID, unless you know nothing about biology.
There is nothing in the passage that shows that supports any notion of ID, unless you know nothing about biology.
Posted on 3/12/26 at 5:21 pm to AlwysATgr
quote:
AlwysATgr
Are you a young earther too?
Posted on 3/12/26 at 5:22 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:Unfortunately, yes.
Asinine.
Posted on 3/12/26 at 5:23 pm to AlwysATgr
quote:Brilliant
Nuts
Posted on 3/12/26 at 5:26 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:Define "supports"
Because this vignette is confused in a phenomenological sense.
Posted on 3/12/26 at 5:26 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Unfortunately, yes.
I like Foo too, and I generally try not to be so dismissive of people’s religious beliefs, but I just don’t understand being so tied to a literal reading of a religious text so much so that it will make someone reject categorically our understanding of the natural world.
Posted on 3/12/26 at 5:34 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:He is rejecting a literal reading of the same religious text. That is the problem. He's admitted as much.
I just don’t understand being so tied to a literal reading of a religious text
I hope in terms of my Psalms citation ("The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands."), he'll reconsider, and come around to a God-Science synergy.
Posted on 3/12/26 at 5:39 pm to NC_Tigah
In the sense the OP uses it? As in something rhetorically convincing or plausible. The reference by itself is not impressive nor would it count as something convincing to my eyes.
Posted on 3/12/26 at 5:48 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:I hope you don't mind, but I did a tl:Dr for the many guys ITT that will skip right past that once they see "mammalian MHC molecules are so polymorphic that they have 1.7 x 10^24," but you make very solid points.
Because this vignette is confused in a phenomenological sense. I could make a description of something unique to a species like how the frog sees or olfactory receptors in whales and use the same relational language to things like a computer which might make things seem fantastical and thus beyond the ability of science to comprehend. For example, the genes encoding mammalian MHC molecules are so polymorphic that they have 1.7 x 10^24 combinations or so, which is an incredibly large number and implies infinite combinations. But we understand clearly the method by which this recombination occurs. If we don't make a relational analogy for it, it might be meaningless. If I said, it would take you something like 31 trillion years to spend 1 x 10^24 amount of money if you were given 1 trillion dollars every second, perhaps you might understand the scale. But that isn't a meaningful description of the scientific processes. Likewise, this passage makes a bunch of relational analogies, which seem impressive only in relation to other things. The human body is decidedly not a computer and thus making references to the brain's 'wattage' and how insufficient current neural networks are in mimicking or even making a 1 to 1 scale representation of the human brain is certainly not evidence for 'intelligent design.'
Let me know if I fricked it up:
First, describing something in ways that make it sound fantastically complex isn’t the same as showing it’s beyond scientific explanation. Biology deals with enormous numbers and complicated systems all the time.
Second, analogies can mislead. Comparing the brain to a computer or pointing out that current AI can’t replicate it might sound impressive, but those are comparisons between very different systems and don’t tell us anything about how biological structures arise.
Third, complexity alone isn’t evidence of intelligent design. Biology studies the processes that generate complexity, like mutation, recombination, selection, and time. Once you look at those mechanisms, the “too complex to happen naturally” argument is much less compelling.
Posted on 3/12/26 at 6:11 pm to Mo Jeaux
The literal reading like “God uses the simple things to confound the wise”?
I sometimes think that we try to make sense of an infinite God with our finite minds.
I sometimes think that we try to make sense of an infinite God with our finite minds.
Posted on 3/12/26 at 6:15 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:
I'm not sure how reliable someone's critical thinking abilities are if they still believe complex life was birthed from a single cell organism in a primordial soup somewhere on earth 4 billion years ago.
you're not sure how smart someone is if they believe in evolution?
Posted on 3/12/26 at 6:18 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:
Not all, but most people who scoff at a Creator vs a natural process that somehow resulted in complex life is their obstinate rejection of a higher authority, particularly a higher moral authority. All humans are arrogant to varying degrees, the ones who are unable to control their arrogance are generally agnostic/atheist......that's my life's experience.
congrats on your shitty anecdotal evidence no one asked for
Posted on 3/12/26 at 6:54 pm to Flats
quote:
You think "nature" has agency?
You think an imaginary bearded man in the sky runs the universe?
Page 26 of 37
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News