Creation vs. Evolution

[Stuu]

:doh: "...from the viewpoint..." it ever amazes me that people read without comprehension

You claimed Einstein 'repudiated any atheistic label'. But that quote disproves your claim.

Stuart

 

[Lon]

You claimed Einstein 'repudiated any atheistic label'. But that quote disproves your claim.

Stuart

:doh: ... it ever amazes me that people read without comprehension

:doh:"...there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.” -Albert Einstein

 

[Stuu]

... it ever amazes me that people read without comprehension

It was pretty simple. What was there for you not to comprehend? You made an absolutely exclusive claim about Einstein rejecting atheist labels, and here he was associating himself with the word.

I think you are called on your hypocrisy here. Of course, in adopting the word atheism for the purpose of illustration, Einstein has made a mockery of your claim that there is something subtle or challenging about understanding his religious views. As you should know, if you don't, the word 'religion' to Einstein did not mean what it means to you. It was admiration for the comprehensibility and order in the universe, or something close to that. so, understand if you can that 'science without religion is lame' doesn't mean 'science without god belief is lame'.

To you, Einstein would say he is an atheist and your views are childish. To me he would say he is agnostic, just in case he though I would be tempted to cite him as a fellow atheist with a firm conviction in the absence of any gods. To another scientist he would recommend Buddhism as the most compatible belief system, if you needed one off the peg.

For someone obsessed with the religious beliefs of the intelligent, why didn't you just make life easier for yourself by banging on about the fantasy beliefs of Newton?

You know Einstein could be wrong. The whole comprehensible universe might not be best modeled by a superior spirit or whatever.

Stuart

 

[DavisBJ]

Yes. You have the right of it that he was very much against the professional atheist and the fanatic. "Oh, then Einstein didn't mean atheists in general..."

In the entirety of your response the thing I don’t see is a single direct quote from Einstein in which he addresses his feelings about atheism sans the “professional” and “fanatic” qualifiers. You expound your spin on what Einstein’s views on theism were, but even in that what you present is 100% devoid of independent sources.

Every crusading atheist on TOL is a fanatical and 'professional' atheist (because there was and is no such thing other than a die-hard drone).

Which is both false, and irrelevant. Whatever concerns Einstein had about atheism obviously had no dependence with the relatively few posters on this creationist website – TOL is a website that didn’t come into existence until decades after his death. And my personal experience is that most atheists make little effort to convince theists they are wrong. Which stands as apriori proof that your claim that there “is no such thing other than a die-hard drone” is patent silliness.

If you understand that Einstein was a pantheist, you will ever understand that he was very much against atheism.

What palpable nonsense. That makes no more sense than saying a Catholic has to be very much against Protestants, and Baptists have to be very much against 7th-day Adventists. Probably most people who have selected a faith realize that others of equal sincerity and intelligence have selected different beliefs. That does not mean they have to be “very much against” each other. Are you “very much against” everyone who holds a different view on God than you hold?

I am an atheist. But, like several other atheists on TOL have said, that is not a declaration that I refuse to be in subjection to a God. It is simply a statement that I have seen nothing that I considered sufficient to convince me that any of the various Gods that I have been told about is real. Why don’t I then identify as agnostic? A couple reasons – first being that, as I recall, when I signed up at TOL, agnostic was not one of the menu choices. Another reason is that it is a trivial point for the majority of the Christians at TOL – it would make little difference to their theological differences with me if I became a believer in some obscure non-Christian sect. And finally, after numerous failed attempts to show me their God is the correct one, I have low confidence that the next zealot will have some dramatic evidence that has been lacking in all of the arguments l have previously been given.

Let’s compare three people. First is you – who (I think) is aligned with most of the standard creationist views – recent creation, the reality of the Old Testament accounts, and the divinity and atonement of Christ. Implicitly this includes the Christian God as the explanation for what Einstein spoke of as the mysterious aspects of the universe that transcended man’s limited reasoning. The second person is me – with a scoresheet used to evaluate the Gods that I have been presented with, and its total score of zero real Gods. The third person is Einstein himself.

I turn to Einstein, and tell him I want to discuss religious belief. I show him my list, with the reasons I opted against each proposed God. He simply says he differed little from me in why he didn’t buy into any of them. Then I bring up pantheism. I simply tell him that I have not found our current limitations and ignorance to be a very reliable indication that the elusive answers about the mysteries of the universe will not come to be understood as our understanding expands. He may not agree with me, but I don’t think for a second that he would condemn me as an atheist needing to be chastised.

In contrast, Einstein has already been highly critical of the very volume that you revere above all others. Do you really want to tell him that you agree with him that there is an explanation for the order in the universe, and it is the author of that volume that he said was full of primitive and childish legends?

When you understand his pantheism too, you'll realize that he was particularly harsh with godless science (atheism).

I am also confident that corrupting science to make it conform to religious beliefs would be far more offensive to Einstein than simple disbelief. An avowed atheist could work side by side with Einstein on scientific concepts, and Einstein would have no fear that the atheist would feel an obligation to conform to whatever theological teachings were in the realm of science. If you asked to work with Einstein on science, and made it known to him that your God is the explanation for the incomprehensibility of the universe, and your God had already declared that the universe was young, and the Bible was His word to us – do you think he would be more inclined to be harsh to the atheist than to you?

 

[Stripe]

Why not?

This has been explained to you numerous times. Energy is not necessarily heat.

Try and keep up.

As I explained in THIS POST, the rock is the source of much of the heat (due to marine lithosphere going from molten to current state, cooling of batholiths, and decreasing viscosity of the mantle).

If you retract your mistake, this conversation could continue.

 

[Silent Hunter]

This has been explained to you numerous times. Energy is not necessarily heat.

Right, and no one is saying that, has said that, or will say that.

Try and keep up.

... said the guy still about 153 posts behind everyone else.

If you retract your mistake, this conversation could continue.

Do you mean this one?

There's yet another layer here that we haven't even touched. Baumgardner's estimates are based on all this continental movement and cooling taking place over thousands of years, which is way more generous than what other creationists have proposed (e.g., most of the events taking place in about a year).

In the "The Thermal Problem" section of his paper, he identifies three main sources of heat. First he notes that identifying the start of the flood as including all Cambrian and later-aged strata means that the current ocean lithosphere had to have gone from a near molten state to its current temperature in "only a few thousand years". Given what we know about the thermal conductivity of those strata, their size, and the temperature difference between being near-molten and their temperature today, even over a "few thousand years" the rock would have only cooled a "negligible" amount. From that he concludes "some additional mechanism is required for cooling the oceanic lithosphere to its present thickness on a brief timescale."

Next he points out that cooling large magmatic batholiths presents basically the same problem. He specifically notes that the Sierra Nevada range is one such large formation, and based on what we know of its thermal conductivity he concludes "Again thermal conduction alone simply cannot cool a body so vast in the span of a few thousand years." And again he concludes that "Some other mechanism seems to be needed".

Finally he notes how the present day viscosity of the mantle makes moving it large distances in short periods of time impossible. In order to lower the viscosity to make such movement possible, you'd have to have the entire mantle be significantly warmer followed by rapid cooling, again by some unknown mechanism.

From all that he concludes...

"These observations all point to the need to remove large amounts of heat from extensive bodies of rock in the earth in order to account for the geological change proposed for the Flood. It is the author’s conclusion that this cannot happen within the framework of time-invariant physics. Therefore, an important clue as to the nature of the change that occurred seems to be that it involved a decrease in thermal energy throughout the planet."​

IOW, this simply does not work without several miracles. And that's over thousands of years. Imagine what we're dealing with if we're talking within a single year!

There's no polite way to put this....this whole young-earth flood thing is just plain absurd, pretty much on the same scale as flat-earth geocentrism.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Jose Fly]

Energy is not necessarily heat.

As previously explained, in this flood scenario much of it is due to the factors I previously outlined.

Now, where did all that heat go?

 

[Stripe]

As previously explained, in this flood scenario much of it is due to the factors I previously outlined.Now, where did all that heat go?

So you're going to adjust your wording from the posts where you equivocated over heat and energy, right?

 

[Jose Fly]

Answer the question Stripe....where did all that heat go?

 

[Rosenritter]

Try and keep up. As I explained in THIS POST, the rock is the source of much of the heat (due to marine lithosphere going from molten to current state, cooling of batholiths, and decreasing viscosity of the mantle).

Jose, the irony of the absolute absurdity of your position calling anything else absurd is rather amusing, that's all.

 

[Jose Fly]

Jose, the irony of the absolute absurdity of your position calling anything else absurd is rather amusing, that's all.

Gee, now there's a thoughtful, thorough, well-supported reply.

You're one step away from becoming Stripe and doing little more than calling everyone poopyheads.

 

[Tyrathca]

So you're going to adjust your wording from the posts where you equivocated over heat and energy, right?

Try reading next time, you'll learn something.

Creationists will do anything to avoid talking about the evidence.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[DavisBJ]

When I inferred in a post how scientifically nonsensical some of the Old Testament stories are, Lon responded:

Over-thinking, over complicating. Me? I ask "what did it mean? What does it me for me?"…

lain: What is the truth conveyed or are you happy to be stuck in details and miss all kinds of points?

I, like many Christians, see messages rather than an accurate literal historical account in the OT passages I alluded to. Maybe I misjudged where you stand relative to belief in the Bible. I have been berated by several TOL stalwarts for daring to suggest parts of “God’s Word” are not to be taken at literal face value. As some have asked, where does that slippery slope end? If the lady turning into a pillar of salt is not a real event, how about a 6 literal day creation, or the order in which Genesis says the life forms were placed on the earth, and was Noah’s flood just a story, or perhaps just the telling of a local event?

… you necessarily are going to have to leave this all behind lest you remain what is my estimation of pithy, shallow, and sad.

Of the things I feel I should heed, your estimation of me is one of the least important. Sorry about that.

 

[DavisBJ]

You asked for specifics on sea creatures big enough to hold Jonah?

Yup, specifics are often the means by which fanciful tales can be differentiated from unusual real events.

Sperm whale, whale shark, and white shark. I hear that these have all been found carrying whole creatures big or bigger than a man.

Sorry, but what you “hear” is a far cry from meaningful data. What creatures were found in them, how big were they, and in what condition, how long had they likely been inside?

Additionally, other creatures could qualify as well that may not be as common today (dinosaurs) and these creatures may also come in larger than normal sizes.

“Other creatures could” is getting pretty nebulous. And if you are desperate enough to suggest it might have been a dinosaur, then at least I know that you are making no pretense that you concur in the old-earth dates that modern science uses.

How could he breathe? A whale's stomach contains some air

Specifics means “how much”, not just a nebulous “some”.

… and there are multiple possible answers. One of which you already acknowledged, that of having the fish come to the surface a few times.

Actually I only said the fish might have to stay near the surface (because of the problems with substantial time at depths that all divers need to heed). I am not aware that whales come to the surface to gulp air into their stomachs. I am certain the stomach is not where the air taken in at the blowhole goes to.

… Considering that he's already steering the fish, it's not that hard for God to do it for him.

At which point, since you have opted to move from proposing a scientific rationale to invoking a divine supermagican, maybe Jonah was fed divinely supplied filet mignon on silver serving trays during his sojourn in that incredible biological submarine.

Regardless, by this point you already granted that "God prepared a great fish" for the purpose of swallowing Jonah.

Maybe you did not pick up on the fact that I do not grant any semblance of scientific credibility to the reality of the story, and if you have to once again turn to God as your trump card, then you clearly are unable to defend it as scientifically credible.

Jonah and the whale is one of those examples for which it doesn't require much imagination for feasibility.

As you have amply shown, all it requires is tossing divine magic in every time the going gets hard.

You might as well protest the storm that preceded the whole encounter, and claim that "it's not scientific that God could create a storm!"

I don’t need God to create a storm. Maybe you aren’t aware that storms actually occur without divine supervention.

Let's put this in perspective. You protest that an intelligent being able to create life from non-life, man from rock, is unscientific. I protest that an unintelligent accident creating life from non-life, man from rock, is unscientific. Only one of these has been observed to have happened. I think my scenario has a significant head start on yours.

And herewith we see that the last vestiges of pretense that the story of Jonah is scientifically credible are jettisoned. Rose’s explanation, laid bare, is no more than “Goddditit”.

Next time, please spare us the agony, if at the end you are going to simply forfeit.

Should we include supernatural under science of study? It depends what you mean by that. Spirits are known for being unpredictable, and I don't recommend trying to summon them or dabbling with the occult. So as a general answer, no. However, that is a far stretch from being so blind as to deny that supernatural does exist.

I fully believe that there are there are aspects of nature that are well beyond my limited understanding, and so in that sense, might be called supernatural. That admission is not an open door to every crackpot and snake-oil salesman who claims to have discovered something beyond our current comprehension. A couple years ago I spent a while talking with James Randi, and like him, I am willing to entertain any claims about the supernatural, but only on the condition that we have the opportunity to subject the claim to rigorous controlled testing. Of the several hundred such tests of supernatural claims that I am aware of, so far the score for the claimants is a perfect zero.

 

[Lon]

When I inferred in a post how scientifically nonsensical some of the Old Testament stories are, Lon responded:

I, like many Christians, see messages rather than an accurate literal historical account in the OT passages I alluded to. Maybe I misjudged where you stand relative to belief in the Bible. I have been berated by several TOL stalwarts for daring to suggest parts of “God’s Word” are not to be taken at literal face value. As some have asked, where does that slippery slope end? If the lady turning into a pillar of salt is not a real event, how about a 6 literal day creation, or the order in which Genesis says the life forms were placed on the earth, and was Noah’s flood just a story, or perhaps just the telling of a local event?

Good, Davis. Glad to hear it. I think a person can be a devout Christian if they apply the truth of scriptures, whether thy take the OT stories as true or rather take the spiritual truth seriously, I think both take God seriously in their lives. Do I think Bible correcting a good idea? No, but I too wrestle with ideas in scripture. I find if I wrestle long enough, I can reconcile truth. Example: I've no idea what a pillar of salt is nor is it a hanging issue for me. I don't believe your faith is hinged upon whether you think a literal salt post or something else.

Of the things I feel I should heed, your estimation of me is one of the least important. Sorry about that.

Not true. Any fair assessment should be entertained regarding a well-intentioned purpose. That you won't? Neither here nor there. Truth is true whether we accept it or not. That's the nature of it. It is sad if one is shallow and pithy, especially as it relates to atheism. Nobody ever asked me why I know beyond doubt there is a God. Maybe one day you'll PM me and ask. My assessments are given to challenge what is wrong because I love truth, and I care about people. Thanks for your reply. -Lon

 

[DavisBJ]

… You leaped onto the Baumgardner train to get the discussion as far away from the Darwinist's failing as possible.

If you refuse to admit that I actually was interested in knowing if you had technical reasons for your choice between Baumgardner and Brown, fine. I have strong suspicions you did not make that choice for technical reasons, and that is why you desperately avoid exposing that ignorance.

Feel free to put me on ignore and stick to it.

I didn’t say anything about putting you on ignore, I simply acknowledged that you are going to forever plead the 5th when it comes to questions about why you do not support Baumgardner’s idea. Putting you on ignore would be kinda like putting the Keystone Cops on ignore.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Putting you on ignore would be kinda like putting the Keystone Cops on ignore.

The Keystone Cops: Rosenritter, Stripe, 6days, & Cadry.

:chuckle:

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Lon]

In the entirety of your response the thing I don’t see is a single direct quote from Einstein in which he addresses his feelings about atheism sans the “professional” and “fanatic” qualifiers. You expound your spin on what Einstein’s views on theism were, but even in that what you present is 100% devoid of independent sources.

Really? Shallow. Did you read any of the other quotes given in response to Stuu and others? :think:

Which is both false, and irrelevant. Whatever concerns Einstein had about atheism obviously had no dependence with the relatively few posters on this creationist website – TOL is a website that didn’t come into existence until decades after his death. And my personal experience is that most atheists make little effort to convince theists they are wrong. Which stands as apriori proof that your claim that there “is no such thing other than a die-hard drone” is patent silliness.

Of course it isn't. Every Atheist on TOL is here to radically argue the point. He was talking about you. Who cares what Joe atheist that is neither radical nor professional and is keeping quiet about it, thinks?

What palpable nonsense. That makes no more sense than saying a Catholic has to be very much against Protestants, and Baptists have to be very much against 7th-day Adventists. Probably most people who have selected a faith realize that others of equal sincerity and intelligence have selected different beliefs. That does not mean they have to be “very much against” each other. Are you “very much against” everyone who holds a different view on God than you hold?

Uhm, which ALL make sense :doh: You are in denial. Glad you are so offended that Einstein was very much against you. It might make you wake up.

I am an atheist. But, like several other atheists on TOL have said, that is not a declaration that I refuse to be in subjection to a God.

To me? Not true. You'd not be chasing down Christians by finding forums like TOL if this were true. It makes no sense that your atheism is merely a suspension of belief. It is an active and conscious purposeful act. From my side of the table, defiantly so.

It is simply a statement that I have seen nothing that I considered sufficient to convince me that any of the various Gods that I have been told about is real.

:nono: it is not a passive belief. You have to deal rightly with yourself before you will ever be a seeker of what is actual and true. Be a scientist in word and deed: Seek.

Why don’t I then identify as agnostic? A couple reasons – first being that, as I recall, when I signed up at TOL, agnostic was not one of the menu choices. Another reason is that it is a trivial point for the majority of the Christians at TOL – it would make little difference to their theological differences with me if I became a believer in some obscure non-Christian sect. And finally, after numerous failed attempts to show me their God is the correct one, I have low confidence that the next zealot will have some dramatic evidence that has been lacking in all of the arguments l have previously been given.

Well, being a deist is completely different than being an atheist. Such would at least believe in some form of God and agree with Einstein and me that God is necessarily existent. Some form of God has to exist. Let me try and drive this home: Intelligence cannot exist in the universe unless something in or out of the universe can give it/make it. It reflexively requires that intelligence made us or it couldn't exist. That's how Spinoza started explaining the necessity and why both he and Einstein were pantheist, and then, why he was against atheism (again see other quotes given last night in thread by him).

Let’s compare three people. First is you – who (I think) is aligned with most of the standard creationist views – recent creation, the reality of the Old Testament accounts, and the divinity and atonement of Christ. Implicitly this includes the Christian God as the explanation for what Einstein spoke of as the mysterious aspects of the universe that transcended man’s limited reasoning. The second person is me – with a scoresheet used to evaluate the Gods that I have been presented with, and its total score of zero real Gods. The third person is Einstein himself.

I turn to Einstein, and tell him I want to discuss religious belief. I show him my list, with the reasons I opted against each proposed God. He simply says he differed little from me in why he didn’t buy into any of them. Then I bring up pantheism. I simply tell him that I have not found our current limitations and ignorance to be a very reliable indication that the elusive answers about the mysteries of the universe will not come to be understood as our understanding expands. He may not agree with me, but I don’t think for a second that he would condemn me as an atheist needing to be chastised.

He already did and repeatedly whenever he said 'Spinoza.' He said science must necessarily include religion and by that he meant pantheism. He said he was angry that atheists would use him to support their unbelief. Did you read that too? You really need to know him better. You have a fantasy version of Einstein of your own making. I have no illusion that Einstein was Judeo/Christian. None. I know exactly what he said. Do you realize he was in chapel every day at Princeton when Jews were being killed in Germany? You really need to understand his pantheist position. Read more on Spinoza and you'll understand why it necessitated God in the universe. It is reflexive truth: you cannot deny intelligent design if there is intelligence in the universe. It requires that intelligence was part in the process of your existence.

In contrast, Einstein has already been highly critical of the very volume that you revere above all others. Do you really want to tell him that you agree with him that there is an explanation for the order in the universe, and it is the author of that volume that he said was full of primitive and childish legends?

Imho, you really don't understand pantheism or the necessity of God creating the universe. Einstein was logically against atheism and a personal God because he was a pantheist. I honestly believe once anybody 1) gets this point then 2) understands it, then Einstein becomes a LOT more consistent with his every religious statement. It all is very much in keeping and stems from, and is in sync with a pantheist worldview, consistently. His pantheism was 1) that God necessarily created, whoever that being was that he left in mystery (thus against atheism) and 2) that this God, if He interfered, would necessarily have to disrupt His own perfection. In doing so, Einstein rejected sin's effect in the universe. Einstein, being a pantheist scientist would not be interested in that: He was filled with wonder at the beauty and complexities of all he was observing.

I am also confident that corrupting science to make it conform to religious beliefs would be far more offensive to Einstein than simple disbelief. An avowed atheist could work side by side with Einstein on scientific concepts, and Einstein would have no fear that the atheist would feel an obligation to conform to whatever theological teachings were in the realm of science. If you asked to work with Einstein on science, and made it known to him that your God is the explanation for the incomprehensibility of the universe, and your God had already declared that the universe was young, and the Bible was His word to us – do you think he would be more inclined to be harsh to the atheist than to you?

More offensive? No. Take out 'more' and I'd agree. Einstein never said he was 'mad' about theologians trying to adopt him. He reserved that for the atheist (again see the quotes from yesterday). I would never say Einstein believed in Judeo/Christianity or supported the Bible, though he admired the Lord Jesus Christ and believed, he said, that He was a reliable historical figure. -Lon

 

[Lon]

It was pretty simple. What was there for you not to comprehend? You made an absolutely exclusive claim about Einstein rejecting atheist labels, and here he was associating himself with the word.

I think you are called on your hypocrisy here.

:nono: I had read that quote long before you'd ever posted it. He was simply saying he wasn't a Jesuit and that he didn't believe in a personal God. He never meant that he didn't believe in any God. Thus, unless you are shallow and miss 'from the perspective a Jesuit priest.' Such is a false perception and completely wrong. You've seen the quotes and should know better.
"Oh Lon, you are right." "Thanks Stuu."

Of course, in adopting the word atheism for the purpose of illustration, Einstein has made a mockery of your claim that there is something subtle or challenging about understanding his religious views. As you should know, if you don't, the word 'religion' to Einstein did not mean what it means to you. It was admiration for the comprehensibility and order in the universe, or something close to that. so, understand if you can that 'science without religion is lame' doesn't mean 'science without god belief is lame'.

Yes it is. He repeatedly said "Spinoza's God." He was ever a pantheist.

To you, Einstein would say he is an atheist and your views are childish. To me he would say he is agnostic, just in case he though I would be tempted to cite him as a fellow atheist with a firm conviction in the absence of any gods. To another scientist he would recommend Buddhism as the most compatible belief system, if you needed one off the peg.

He was inclusive but he was 'mad' that atheists tried to use him for their godless universe. So, no, he wasn't just saying science without religion was lame. He was saying anyone without acknowledging God was lame. For him thinking and science were the same thing.
As a pantheist, inclusion was his aim. Anything 'exclusive' like atheism and a personal God, was out. Pantheism agrees that God causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust.

For someone obsessed with the religious beliefs of the intelligent, why didn't you just make life easier for yourself by banging on about the fantasy beliefs of Newton?

I could have. That it bothers you I didn't? Noted.

You know Einstein could be wrong.

:nono: Spinoza's God cannot be intelligently denied. He exists and has to. I could discuss with them why God must necessarily be able to be personal too, but neither of them are alive. I'll wait until I cross that bridge with a pantheist.

The whole comprehensible universe might not be best modeled by a superior spirit or whatever.

Stuart

Has to be, rather. Unless whatever created you 'can give' intelligence, then you cannot have intelligence (and/or meaning, or purpose etc.) Necessarily, whatever you have from the universe, is a property of or outside of it. Has to be. It is a reflexive truth.

 

[Rosenritter]

Yup, specifics are often the means by which fanciful tales can be differentiated from unusual real events.

Sorry, but what you “hear” is a far cry from meaningful data. What creatures were found in them, how big were they, and in what condition, how long had they likely been inside?

“Other creatures could” is getting pretty nebulous. And if you are desperate enough to suggest it might have been a dinosaur, then at least I know that you are making no pretense that you concur in the old-earth dates that modern science uses.

Specifics means “how much”, not just a nebulous “some”.

Actually I only said the fish might have to stay near the surface (because of the problems with substantial time at depths that all divers need to heed). I am not aware that whales come to the surface to gulp air into their stomachs. I am certain the stomach is not where the air taken in at the blowhole goes to.

At which point, since you have opted to move from proposing a scientific rationale to invoking a divine supermagican, maybe Jonah was fed divinely supplied filet mignon on silver serving trays during his sojourn in that incredible biological submarine.

Maybe you did not pick up on the fact that I do not grant any semblance of scientific credibility to the reality of the story, and if you have to once again turn to God as your trump card, then you clearly are unable to defend it as scientifically credible.

As you have amply shown, all it requires is tossing divine magic in every time the going gets hard.

I don’t need God to create a storm. Maybe you aren’t aware that storms actually occur without divine supervention.

And herewith we see that the last vestiges of pretense that the story of Jonah is scientifically credible are jettisoned. Rose’s explanation, laid bare, is no more than “Goddditit”.

Next time, please spare us the agony, if at the end you are going to simply forfeit.

I fully believe that there are there are aspects of nature that are well beyond my limited understanding, and so in that sense, might be called supernatural. That admission is not an open door to every crackpot and snake-oil salesman who claims to have discovered something beyond our current comprehension. A couple years ago I spent a while talking with James Randi, and like him, I am willing to entertain any claims about the supernatural, but only on the condition that we have the opportunity to subject the claim to rigorous controlled testing. Of the several hundred such tests of supernatural claims that I am aware of, so far the score for the claimants is a perfect zero.

Let me speak plainly. You are confused. Specifically, you are confusing the terms "atheist" and "scientific." There is no *atheist* explanation for how a storm plus a whale would conspire against a disobedient prophet to bring him to a major metropolis, but that is not what you challenged. What you do demonstrate is a raging bias that prevents you from evaluating claims sensibly.

I'll pretend for a moment that you're capable of appreciating logic. When proceeding with a proof, there are certain assumptions which are required to be accepted as true. Is there anyone here that has taken college level mathematics? Perhaps they might know what I am talking about? The assumptions are stated plainly and past that you take logical steps based on those assumptions. You are not allowed to keep calling foul because you dislike the assumptions. If the steps show there is inherent contradiction in spite of the assumptions, then you have disproved said assumption.

Am I moving too fast for you? Please forgive any apparent disdain, but you seem to not grasp this concept. You are free to state ahead of time that you disagree with the assumption, but not to call the proof invalid while you accept said assumption.

I will not translate that into English for you. The required assumption in the book of Jonah is "God." You whale and howl that the story is "unscientific" but the parts you protest are not "God" but rather minute details like "fish." Then you cry out because the assumption you already accepted for sake of argument, "God", preempts your objection completely. There is nothing "unscientific" about the story. Absolutely non-atheistic, most certainly, but not against scientific principles. When you can understand and admit that difference I will take you seriously.

Just in case you don't get it, intelligent causes for events are not "unscientific." You constantly invoke circular reasoning when you insist that bible events must have unintelligent random causes before they can be believed. Or in other words, you pretty much insist that all the events described as caused by God must have been able to happen without God.

I'll spell this out again. You have the right to believe "there is no God" but to accept the premise of "The God that can create life from nothing exists and took action" and then dispute details such as "God couldn't create a fish that big" or "God couldn't have put Jonah in a near coma to reduce air usage" is just STUPID. You are arguing all the wrong points.

Not that I am taking you seriously now, but just something to sit in your stomach:

Guillaume Rondelet (1554) recorded finding a giant shark with a whole man in its belly. The man was still wearing a full suit of armor. Rondelet was a professor of medicine at the University of Montpellier. The man was dead, but the suit of armor indicates that it was swallowed whole. You can Google for more details rather than accusing me of making it up.

P.S. If I were God, and were preparing a great fish to swallow a man, I think I might create the large version of the fish I had in mind, rather than the small version. If DavisBJ were God, he would be like "Oh man, what do I do? No matter how many minnows I create they are all too small. Maybe I will try a salmon next. I'll start with a small salmon."