The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

robindch

JC wrote:

However, as a Creation Scientist

What papers have you published, JC?

hairyheretic

J C wrote:

An objective observer of this thread wouldn't think so!!!!:D

Let me know if you manage to find one.

J C wrote:

One Creation Scientist and a handful of Christians have held the combined forces of over fifty top atheists at bay - and roundly defeated them on practically every religious and scientific argument that they made!!!!:D

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Unless you mean 'roundly defeated' in the christian science parlance, which probably means something entirely different to the normal understanding of the words.

Giblet

J C wrote:

One Creation Scientist and a handful of Christians have held the combined forces of over fifty top atheists at bay - and roundly defeated them on practically every religious and scientific argument that they made!!!!:D

Atheists are also committing suicide at the gates of heaven, they can't defeat us creationists!

Comical J C indeed.

Son Goku

J C wrote:

......and some Galaxies may indeed be much smaller than thought!!!!

No they aren't. Buy a telescope.

bonkey

J C wrote:

One Creation Scientist and a handful of Christians have held the combined forces of over fifty top atheists at bay - and roundly defeated them on practically every religious and scientific argument that they made!!!!:D

There's this bunch of guys who believe that the World Trade Center collapses on 11/09/2001 were caused by secretly-developed space-based beam-weapons.

Like you, they confuse their refusal to accept science as a defeat of same.

Like you, they confuse an ability to say "you're wrong" ad nauseum with actually having a convincing argument.

Like you, they have a penchant for smilies.

I think you'd like them.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Not quite – in fact I used the phenomenon of children growing - and changing as they do so, as an example of biological change using pre-existing, pre-programmed genetic information…..

No, you said children mutate as they grow. Let me explain this very clearly too you Children do not mutate as they grow.

Growing can I suppose be used as an example of change based on pre-existing genetic information, since the DNA of the organism doesn't change as the organism grows. But that isn't mutation, since mutation does alter the DNA of an organism.

So once again you have simply demonstrated that you have no clue what mutation is ... which does make one wonder why you discuss evolution?

Don't you ever get tired of looking silly?

J C wrote:

I have always accepted that Galaxies contain both stars and dust

Except when you are not accepting that.... :rolleyes:

I think I'm going to market a brand of flip-flops and call them the JC's ...

J C wrote:

I have always accepted that Evolutionists claim that it took about 5 billion years for the mud to turn into a Human Being………

Except, again, when you are not accepting that

J C wrote:

….however, the addition of time to dead mud is NEVER going to generate life, much less a Human Being!!!!

The only problem with that is that what you claim can never happen has been observed to happen. So you are in a bit of a pickle.

But being a "Creation Scientist" I would imagine little things like experiment, observation etc etc (you know, the back bone of science) don't concern you. Just the Bible

J C wrote:

However, many things have been scientifically proven beyond REASONABLE doubt – and the Intelligent Design of life is one such thing!!!:cool:

Once again you show complete lack of understanding of basic science. Nothing is science is proven beyond a "reasonable" doubt because it is impossible for science to judge what a "reasonable" doubt is.

You know nothing about science.

J C

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That means God cannot lie, for example.

Hairyheretic
Bit of a poor example, because he does.

Genesis, Chapter 2
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden;
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."

They ate the apple. They didn't die.

Adam and Eve DIDN’T eat an Apple – and they DID die.:eek:

........actually, the DIRECT OPPOSITE of what you claim!!

Adam and Eve DIDN’T eat an apple – they partook of the tree (i.e. structured/layered) occult knowledge of good and evil, (following their agreement to listen to Satan rather than to God).

Not only did Adam and Eve die because of their sin – but we are all suffering and dying ever since because of it as well.

Gen 2:16-17 of the KJV and it’s Hebrew footnotes reads as follows:-
“And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: {Heb. eating thou shalt eat}
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. {Heb. dying thou shalt die}

The full Hebrew meaning of “eating thou shalt eat” and “dying thou shalt die” implies that both the (physical) eating and the (physical) dying were ongoing incremental processes – and the clear implication was that Adam and Eve would START TO physically die when they shared in this occult ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil’.

The Word of God also left no doubt that Adam and Eve would SURELY die if they listened to Satan and partook in his scheming against God – and so it has happened!!!!!


Wicknight
Growing can I suppose be used as an example of change based on pre-existing genetic information, since the DNA of the organism doesn't change as the organism grows. But that isn't mutation, since mutation does alter the DNA of an organism.

I agree.
In fact, that WAS my original point.
I used the phenomenon of children growing from a foetus to an adult, and changing dramatically as they do so, as an example of radical biological change using pre-existing, pre-programmed genetic information – and not mutagenesis…..

…….. just like speciation ALSO involves radical biological change using pre-existing genetic information – and not mutagenesis!!!:D


Wicknight
Don't you ever get tired of looking silly?

Tuché, Wicknight………

………I’m not the guy claiming that muck and time can spontaneously generate Mankind!!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
I have always accepted that Galaxies contain both stars and dust

Wicknight
Except when you are not accepting that....
I think I'm going to market a brand of flip-flops and call them the JC's ...

I have ALWAYS accepted that Galaxies contain both stars and dust.

BTW Evolution isn’t a ‘Flip-flop’…………….
……….it is just a plain old ‘Flop’!!!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
I have always accepted that Evolutionists claim that it took about 5 billion years for the mud to turn into a Human Being………

Wicknight
Except, again, when you are not accepting that

I have always accepted that Evolutionists CLAIM that it took about 5 billion years for mud to turn into a Human Being………….
………….I don’t accept that it OCCURRED – and all logic and scientific observation support me in this contention!!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
….however, the addition of time to dead mud is NEVER going to generate life, much less a Human Being!!!!

Wicknight
The only problem with that is that what you claim can never happen has been observed to happen. So you are in a bit of a pickle.

But being a "Creation Scientist" I would imagine little things like experiment, observation etc etc (you know, the back bone of science) don't concern you. Just the Bible

Objective repeatable observations are what PRIMARILY CONCERNS me, as a Creation Scientist.

The Bible concerns me as a Christian – and, as I have already said, these are two separate things.

It is a mistake to believe that all Creation Scientists are orthodox Bible-believing Christians - some excellent Creation Scientists are Jews, Moslems, Agnostics as well as Christians (of all denominations).

Indeed, it is possible that an (open minded) Atheist could be a Creation Scientist – i.e. a conventionally qualified scientist who OBJECTIVELY INVESTIGATES the evidence for Direct Creation.:eek:


Wicknight
Nothing in science is proven beyond a "reasonable" doubt because it is impossible for science to judge what a "reasonable" doubt is.

Judging what is a reasonable doubt, is a vitally important aspect of science, in proving that some effect/phenomenon exists !!!!

Probability Theory and the use of statistical calculations are ROUTINELY used to ‘judge’ when the boundaries of reasonable doubt are crossed – and therefore whether a particular hypothesis is scientifically proven, or not.

For example, most scientists use a 99% probability as the point where something is said to be scientifically proven beyond reasonable doubt – in other words there is less than a 1% chance that the phenomenon measured isn’t valid.

Could I remind you that the probability that the sequence for a simple protein could occur spontaneously is 0.000000000000000000000000000001% - and as this imputes a 99.99999999999999999999999999999% probability of an intelligent input, IT IS therefore scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt that life cannot spontaneously occur – indeed it is actually mathematically proven beyond ALL doubt!!!!:eek:


Wicknight
You know nothing about science.

If the cap fits…….wear it....

……or perhaps you might even consider eating it???

robindch

JC wrote:

Objective repeatable observations are what PRIMARILY CONCERNS me, as a Creation Scientist.

What papers have you published, JC?

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

What papers have you published, JC?

Heck if he could tell us what degree he has and from where that would be nice ... :rolleyes:

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

Heck if he could tell us what degree he has and from where that would be nice ... :rolleyes:

He has a "science" degree from one of the NUIs, remember?

J C

robindch wrote:

What papers have you published, JC?

Wicknight wrote:

Heck if he could tell us what degree he has and from where that would be nice ...

OK ....... so your case for Evolution is in complete disarray ........

...........and the best you can do is 'nit pick' over whether I have published papers or what qualifications I hold!!!!

Is that denial or what??? :eek:

PS This thread must surely rank as one of the largest peer-review processes in the history of theology and science!!!!:D :eek:

hairyheretic

J C wrote:

Adam and Eve DIDN’T eat an Apple

Genesis, chapter 3
6: So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.

Now, in case you're not familiar with it, the fruit of the apple tree is the apple.

They ate the apple.

See, nice and simple.

J C wrote:

– and they DID die.:eek:

Genesis, chapter 2
16: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden;
17: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."

Emphasis mine. The claim was that on the day they ate the apple, they would die.

According to your bible, this obviously did not happen.

J C wrote:

........actually, the DIRECT OPPOSITE of what you claim!!

Not quite, but thank you for playing. You're a lovely contestant, and better luck next time.

BrianCalgary

hairyheretic wrote:

Genesis, chapter 3
6: So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.

Now, in case you're not familiar with it, the fruit of the apple tree is the apple.

They ate the apple.

See, nice and simple..

Correct the fruit on an apple tree is an apple. Nowhere in genesis does it say that the tree thay ate from wa an apple tree. It was just a fruit bearing tree.

hairyheretic wrote:

Genesis, chapter 2
16: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden;
17: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."

Emphasis mine. The claim was that on the day they ate the apple, they would die. .

Correct again. Satan made the claim that on the Day you eat of it you shall die, it didn't happen, Like all of Satan's little lies, he never does tell the truth.

God said to Adam in 2:15 , when you eat of it you will surely die.

God created man to be an eternal being. By eating of the tree everything was set in motion for the death of Adam and all of man. Adam did indeed die, it just took awhile for it to happen.

According to your bible, this obviously did not happen.

hairyheretic wrote:

Not quite, but thank you for playing. You're a lovely contestant, and better luck next time.

hairyheretic

BrianCalgary wrote:

Correct the fruit on an apple tree is an apple. Nowhere in genesis does it say that the tree thay ate from wa an apple tree. It was just a fruit bearing tree.

I stand corrected. Though it does not specifically say apple, that is the general understanding. I believe the rest of my point stands though.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Correct again. Satan made the claim that on the Day you eat of it you shall die, it didn't happen, Like all of Satan's little lies, he never does tell the truth.

Going to have to disagree with you there Brian. According to the version I googled

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=RsvGene.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=2&division=div1

It would appear to be god saying day, not the serpent.

16: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden;
17: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."

Son Goku

J C wrote:

OK ....... so your case for Evolution is in complete disarray ........

...........and the best you can do is 'nit pick' over what papers I have published or what qualifications I hold!!!!

Is that denial or what??? :eek:

Hmm,...

robindch wrote:

What papers have you published, JC?

J C

Originally Posted by J C
Adam and Eve DIDN’T eat an Apple

Hairyheretic
Genesis, chapter 3
6: So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.

Now, in case you're not familiar with it, the fruit of the apple tree is the apple.

They ate the apple.
See, nice and simple.

Unfortunately, it is NOT ‘nice and simple’!!!

The type of ‘fruit’ is not specified.

Equally the ‘tree’ is somewhat peculiarly called ‘the tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ – and in all of my visits to various garden centres, I have never come across such a botanical specimen!!!!!:D

........so a plain reading of scripture would indicate that this wasn’t a literal botanical tree – but some other type of metaphorical ‘tree’.

The ‘fruit’ of this ‘tree’ is said to make one ‘wise’ and provides ‘knowledge of good and evil’ – and this ‘fruit’ was therefore clearly some kind of occult knowledge to be acquired through some complex web or ‘tree’ structure.
Certainly the supposed 'fruit' of 'wisdom' and 'knowledge' is psycho-spiritual and intellectual in nature - and NOT physical nutrients as one would expect from a conventional fruit tree!!!
The fact that knowledge of evil is specified as part of the 'package' indicates that this was occult knowledge.

In fact, in Gen 3:5 Satan promised Eve “that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”
This is the standard promise of Occultism and Gnosticism - i.e. initiation into 'eletist' or supposedly 'God-like' secret knowledge.

Could I also point out that the word 'food' as used in the Bible can mean ordinary physical food (like the loaves and fishes) - but it can also mean the provision of spiritual knowledge e.g. Jn 21:15 “ So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs."

So why did God 'beat about the bush' on this one (pun intended) - and veiled the 'Fall of Man' in such an allegory??
I don't know - but it would seem that God wanted to protect people from even thinking about this occult knowledge, lest they also be tempted to partake of it like Adam and Eve.


Originally Posted by J C
and they DID die

Hairyheretic
Genesis, chapter 2
16: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden;
17: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."
……. The claim was that on the day they ate the apple, they would die.

I repeat:-

Gen 2:16-17 of the KJV and it’s Hebrew footnotes reads as follows:-
“And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: {Heb. eating thou shalt eat}
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. {Heb. dying thou shalt die}

The FULL Hebrew meaning of “eating thou shalt eat” and “dying thou shalt die” implies that both the (physical) 'eating' and the (physical) 'dying' were incremental processes – and the clear implication was that Adam and Eve would START TO physically die when they shared in this occult ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil’.

Equally, the Word of God leaves no doubt that Adam and Eve would SURELY die if they listened to Satan and partook in his scheming against God – and so it has proven to be the case!!!!!

……of course, their spiritual death was INSTANTANEOUS – at the moment they obeyed Satan and disobeyed God.

J C

Son Goku wrote:

Hmm,...

So ....... your case for Evolution is in complete disarray on this thread ........

...........and the best you can do is say "Hmm" !!!!

Is that denial or what???:D :eek:

J C

bonkey wrote:

There's this bunch of guys who believe that the World Trade Center collapses on 11/09/2001 were caused by secretly-developed space-based beam-weapons.

.........they confuse their refusal to accept science as a defeat of same.

......... they confuse an ability to say "you're wrong" ad nauseum with actually having a convincing argument.

They sound like a right bunch of EVOLUTIONISTS!!!!:D :eek:

BrianCalgary

hairyheretic wrote:

I stand corrected. Though it does not specifically say apple, that is the general understanding. I believe the rest of my point stands though.."

I wouldn't say it is the general understanding, but th egeneral prtrayal.

hairyheretic wrote:

Going to have to disagree with you there Brian. According to the version I googled

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=RsvGene.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=2&division=div1

It would appear to be god saying day, not the serpent.

16: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden;
17: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."

Fair enough, the NIV doesn't have the word 'day' in it. Now we are into exegesis. Do you mind if I start a new thread on the exegesis of this passage?

Thanks

hairyheretic

BrianCalgary wrote:

I wouldn't say it is the general understanding, but the general portrayal.

Yeah, that'd be a better way of putting it.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Fair enough, the NIV doesn't have the word 'day' in it. Now we are into exegesis. Do you mind if I start a new thread on the exegesis of this passage?

Thanks

Feel free. I've no idea what differences there might be in various versions. I simply did a google search, and that site was one of the first few that turned up.

PDN

hairyheretic wrote:

I stand corrected. Though it does not specifically say apple, that is the general understanding. I believe the rest of my point stands though.

OK, I have done my best to avoid posting in this thread, but I've got to get pedantic here.

It is the general misunderstanding that the fruit was an apple. This error stems (no pun intended) from when Jerome translated the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate). The Latin word for apple, malus, is similar to the word for evil, malum. Therefore the poorly educated jumped to the conclusion that the fruit was an apple. Like most urban legends it has been swallowed (again, no pun intended) by generation after generation.

bonkey

I'm trying to figure out how JC can agre with so much of these figurative interpretations, but still insist on the literal truth of the biblical account fo creation, the flood, etc.

What basis is there to believe these are literal and not figurative, given that they seem to be so much at odds with observation?

robindch

jc wrote:

robindch wrote:

What papers have you published, JC?

...and the best you can do is 'nit pick' over whether I have published papers

You call yourself a "creation scientist", so I'd like you to back up that claim by showing us what work you have done as a "creation scientist" so that we can do a little bit of amateur peer-review. We'd like to hear what you have to say in a careful professional environment, rather than around here.

I can't imagine why you'd call this "nit-picking" -- given that you repeat everything you say endlessly, your complete silence about your work as a "creation scientist" seems out-of-character to say the least.

Son Goku

J C wrote:

So ....... your case for Evolution is in complete disarray on this thread ........

...........and the best you can do is say "Hmm" !!!!

Is that denial or what???:D :eek:

Do you have papers or not? Quit dodging.

PDN

PDN wrote:

OK, I have done my best to avoid posting in this thread, but I've got to get pedantic here.

It is the general misunderstanding that the fruit was an apple. This error stems (no pun intended) from when Jerome translated the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate). The Latin word for apple, malus, is similar to the word for evil, malum. Therefore the poorly educated jumped to the conclusion that the fruit was an apple. Like most urban legends it has been swallowed (again, no pun intended) by generation after generation.

Ah I hadn't seen the post or I would have said the same. Not an apple. *nod*

BrianCalgary

bonkey wrote:

I'm trying to figure out how JC can agre with so much of these figurative interpretations, but still insist on the literal truth of the biblical account fo creation, the flood, etc.

What basis is there to believe these are literal and not figurative, given that they seem to be so much at odds with observation?

For me Bonkey, I read in the New Testament about Adam being an historical figure. There are eight references to Adam. I suppose you could take the references in Corinthians as being figurative, but the other 6 I don't think you can.

bonkey

BrianCalgary wrote:

For me Bonkey, I read in the New Testament about Adam being an historical figure. There are eight references to Adam. I suppose you could take the references in Corinthians as being figurative, but the other 6 I don't think you can.

I'm not familiar with all 6, but isn't the reference in Luke a case where Luke is quoting Genesis? If Genesis was figurative, quoting it doesn't turn it into a historical reference, but rather a reference to a figurative truth.

BrianCalgary

bonkey wrote:

I'm not familiar with all 6, but isn't the reference in Luke a case where Luke is quoting Genesis? If Genesis was figurative, quoting it doesn't turn it into a historical reference, but rather a reference to a figurative truth.

Luke 3:38 is the geneaology.

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

1 Corintians 15:45
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being" ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

1 Timothy 2:13-14
For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Jude 1:14
Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones

J C

Wicknight
This is like watching a car crash ...

No, I think that it is like watching an Evolutionist ‘Moth’ being repeatedly and inexorably drawn to the ‘flame’ of Creationist truth…………

………and now that the ‘Evolutionist Moth’ lies in a great ‘smouldering heap’ with all of it’s credibility shattered…….
…….all the Evolutionists can think of doing is to question my scientific credentials!!!!:eek:


PDN
OK, I have done my best to avoid posting in this thread.

Why so???

PDN
It is the general misunderstanding that the fruit was an apple. This error stems (no pun intended) from when Jerome translated the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate). The Latin word for apple, malus, is similar to the word for evil, malum. Therefore the poorly educated jumped to the conclusion that the fruit was an apple. Like most urban legends it has been swallowed (again, no pun intended) by generation after generation.

It is quite clear from Genesis that the ‘fruit’ wasn’t an Apple – but I didn’t know how the popular misconception originally occurred.

Your account is very interesting.


bonkey
I'm trying to figure out how JC can agree with so much of these figurative interpretations, but still insist on the literal truth of the biblical account fo creation, the flood, etc.

What basis is there to believe these are literal and not figurative, given that they seem to be so much at odds with observation?

It is often said that Creationists are “Bible Literalists” i.e. people who believe that there are no metaphors, poetry or allegories in the Bible and that EVERY word in the Bible means literally what it says.
However, I can confirm that Creationists, in general, DO accept that metaphors, poetry and allegories ARE employed in the Bible – but they also believe that there are many passages that describe LITERAL EVENTS and they believe that these accounts SHOULD be taken literally.

I think that BOTH Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists would accept that the parables of Jesus Christ were ALLEGORICAL.
Equally, within Genesis, Creationists accept that the ‘Tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ is clearly a metaphor for some deeply sinful occult system of Satan and it certainly isn’t a literal tree. The “Tree of the knowledge of good and evil” IS still around AND it brings death - but Creationists do not expect to find it growing at the bottom of their gardens!!!

I also think that both Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists would agree that the words of Jn 19:30 LITERALLY mean that Jesus said “It is finished” and equally, that He LITERALLY “bowed His head and gave up his spirit”. Similarly, all Christians believe that the scriptural accounts of Jesus Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension are LITERAL accounts of these events.

In summary, Creationists support the PLAIN reading of Scripture – interpreting it LITERALLY when the passages describe obvious literal or historical events and ALLEGORICALLY when metaphors are being clearly deployed.

The only aspect of the Bible that Theistic Evolutionists and Creationists substantially disagree about is the Genesis accounts of Creation and Noah’s Flood. Theistic Evolutionists believe that Genesis 1 is a largely ALLEGORICAL account of the Evolution of life – while Creationists believe it to be a SUBSTANTIALLY LITERAL account of Special Divine Creation and the early history of the Earth. This difference in interpretation is actually the main reason for the debate among Christians on the ‘origins issue’.
Science, in so far as it can be applied to the study of Evolution and Creation, is actually quite clear and in favour of Special Direct Creation.


Robin
You call yourself a "creation scientist", so I'd like you to back up that claim by showing us what work you have done as a "creation scientist" so that we can do a little bit of amateur peer-review.

Why this fixation with my scientific credentials????

Surely, it isn’t difficult to accept that in an Ireland populated by over one hundred thousand scientists, that I could be one of their (enormous) number!!!!

As for peer-review, this thread must surely rank as one of the largest peer-review processes in the history of either theology or science – assuming that the Evolutionists on the thread are the scientists and/or Bible Students that they have claimed to be!!!!:D

Scofflaw

JC wrote:

robindch wrote:

You call yourself a "creation scientist", so I'd like you to back up that claim by showing us what work you have done as a "creation scientist" so that we can do a little bit of amateur peer-review.

Why this fixation with my scientific credentials????

It's the constant repetition of "as a Creation Scientist" (you use it sufficiently often for it to show up in Google), or "Creation Science shows", or "as established by Creation Science". If that weren't sufficient, you are the person who most frequently says "as a scientist".

Those two repeated claims are sufficient to establish that you certainly claim to be a scientist, and a Creation Scientist to boot. However, you never offer any corroboration of this - neither your actual specialisation, your degree, nor your university.

Any of the rest of us who claim to be scientists are willing to provide that information (date of degree excepted) - and have done. Why not you?

JC wrote:

Surely, it isn’t difficult to accept that in an Ireland populated by over one hundred thousand scientists, that I could be one of their (enormous) number!!!!

It wouldn't be too difficult statistically, but there are other factors that rather militate against it....

JC wrote:

As for peer-review, this thread must surely rank as one of the largest peer-review processes in the history of either theology or science – assuming that the Evolutionists on the thread are the scientists and/or Bible Students that they have claimed to be!!!!

Three problems - first, this is not peer-review. Second, peer review rather requires a coherent thesis to review. Third, if this were peer-review, the verdict is not in your favour*.

*statement may not be applicable outside real world

cordially,
Scofflaw