Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
Scofflaw
In general, the doctor will have their certificates on display....
I must be a ‘trusting type’ then, because I assume that people are whom they claim to be unless I have objective evidence to the contrary.:D
I tend to take people at their word – and I have found that Born Again Christians always tell the truth.
Scofflaw
Can you also confirm that you are not an agricultural scientist?
Can you confirm that you are NOT a Flea Entomology Scientist ????!!!:eek:
…..or perhaps you can confirm that you have NOT studied the breeding habits of the Himalayan Yak!!!! :eek:
Can you confirm anything else you HAVEN'T done???
Scofflaw
I regret that I will not stop requesting he (J C) name his primary degree qualification, and deriding him if he will not do so.
…and I equally regret that I will NOT stop requesting that you produce your evidence for Evolution, and drawing attention to the fact that you still have not done so!!!!!!:eek:
BTW this thread ISN’T about my qualifications (or anybody else’s for that matter) – it is about the evidence for Evolution / Creation and the accuracy of Bible Prophecy.
Could I suggest that a new thread should be started where the Evolutionists can go to itemise their academic qualifications – and have their egos massaged!!!!!!:eek:
BTW did anybody see the Evolution programme on RTE yesterday evening where they proposed that the Dinosaurs disappeared because they:-
(a) Died from OLD AGE.
(b) Were ‘melted’ by a deluge of ACID RAIN with a pH approaching that of battery acid.
(c) Were wiped out by a worldwide FIRE.
(d) Froze to death in a worldwide ICE AGE.
(e) Were wiped out by a WORLDWIDE TSUNAMI.
The Evolutionists don’t seem to know how the Dinosaurs actually died out !!!!!!!!
…… but I can reveal that a ‘Worldwide Tsunami’ WAS how it happened!!!!!
irritated,
Scofflaw
I can recommend an excellent cream for that!!!!!:D
bonkey
It has been shown that a cornerstone of your arguments is the non-scientific premise of biblical truth.
Not so!!!
Objective repeatable observations are the cornerstone of Creation Science.
The premise of Biblical Truth is a cornerstone of the Christian Faith – and, as I have already said, these are two distinctly 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 scientifically qualified person who OBJECTIVELY INVESTIGATES the evidence for Direct Creation.:D
Scofflaw
I am qualified as a geologist, but I certainly have an interest in physics. It makes me neither a physicist, nor even a geophysicist.
Quite true!!!
BTW your new found interest in physics contrasts rather sharply with YOUR previous statement (and I quote):-
"Most geologists study it (Geology) in the first place to avoid physics."
.....or are you the exception to your own rule???:D
Robin
I can't help but admire how somebody can think that he'd be brave enough to kill or die for their religion (see previous thread posts), but not brave enough to tell us -- a bunch of people he does not know, after all -- what degree he has, or where it was from, or what he's working at?
NO, I have NEVER said that I would kill for my faith – indeed as a Christian, I am explicitly commanded by Jesus Christ to LOVE my enemies and DO GOOD to those who hate me!!!!:cool:
YES, as a Christian, I would be prepared to die rather than deny Jesus Christ – but I am not foolhardy enough to die for my interest in Creation Science!!!!!:D
Robin
I'm reminded too of his constant claims a while ago that there are many, many scientists who are creationists, but who are too scared to come out with it.
It is indeed a very brave act for any scientist to declare an interest in Creation Science – and your words and those of Wicknight perfectly illustrate the type of ridicule that such a declaration can generate.
Wicknight
Yes, you (J C) won't get a job.
Robin
Indeed! But thankfully, they (Creationists) are all so inanely incompetent that they're functionally unemployable as real biologists.
It is indeed ironic that the principle of academic freedom seems to be freely extemded to almost every discipline except the scientific study of our Direct Creation by God!!!!!!!:eek:0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Son Goku wrote:Incredible, it would appear some fields of science have "open problems". Probably a sign that they are fields "in crisis".
If the evolutionists cannot give a straight answer to the straight question of what happened the Dinosaurs - then they would indeed appear to be 'in crisis'!!!
The answer is quite obvious from the evidence (millions of dead Dinosaurs buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth).......
......need I say more????
0 -
-
bonkey wrote:Tolerance and academic freedom do not extend to any pseudo-science. Cranks of any type are given a tough time.
If creationists had the moral integrity and simple honesty to admit that the non-falsifiable premises central to their work preclude it from being a science, they too would be shown tolerance and the rest. While they insist on duplicity, however, they will be treated as their duplicity deserves.
An interesting definition of what "Academic Freedom" and "tolerance" means in the post-modern mind of the Evolutionist.
I think you could summmarise it as follows:-
Creation Scientists enjoy full Academic Freedom and tolerance as long as they accept Evolution - otherwise they will be labelled as 'pseudo-scientific cranks' and "given a tough time".:D 0 -
J C wrote:If the evolutionists cannot give a straight answer to the straight question of what happened the Dinosaurs - then they would indeed appear to be 'in crisis'!!!
The answer is quite obvious from the evidence (millions of dead Dinosaurs buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth).......
......need I say more????
Well, you're aware that they would have died of old age in any case by now?
This is the kind of thing that makes one wonder how you can claim to know anything about science. Science is a process of asking questions, looking for answers, testing the answers, and eventually accepting the answers (or rejecting them, in which case we go back to looking). It is, you see, quite normal for there to be a gap of time between the question and the answer: in science that is - I'm aware it doesn't apply to Creationism , and certainly not to you.
So, when science says it doesn't know something, that is because it is an honest process for finding answers. It does not claim to have all the answers in advance - and unlike some, it does not then pretend to.JC wrote:An interesting definition of what "Academic Freedom" and "tolerance" means in the post-modern mind of the Evolutionist.
I think you could summmarise it as follows:-
Creation Scientists enjoy full Academic Freedom and tolerance as long as they accept Evolution - otherwise they will be labelled as 'pseudo-scientific cranks' and "given a tough time".
Again, all this shows is your lack of understanding. Creation Science is not unscientific because of its conclusions, it is unscientific because of its methods. It is perfectly possible to challenge evolution without being labelled a 'pseudo-scientific crank' - indeed, you yourself have pointed out scientists who have openly challenged evolution, and had their objections taken perfectly seriously. The difference between those scientists and "Creation Scientists" is that they are scientists - that is, people who use the scientific method. "Creation Scientists" don't - they use polemic, rhetoric, and a million verbal displays of pyrotechnics instead. All very well, and great marketing - indeed, much better marketing than boring old science can provide - but it's not science.
I have no great hope that you will ever understand this, since it first requires you to understand what science is, which you clearly don't.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
J C wrote:Creation Scientists enjoy full Academic Freedom and tolerance as long as they accept Evolution - otherwise they will be labelled as 'pseudo-scientific cranks' and "given a tough time".:D
Creation Scientist is an oxymoron, because Creationism isn't science.
A "creation scientist" doesn't recognize this, and therefore doesn't recognize what is or is not science.
Therefore they cannot be called a scientists, since they do not understand what being a scientist means.
You either do or do not except science.
Evolution theory has very little to do with it. You can be a scientist and not accept Neo-Darwin Evolutionary theory. Though quite why someone would do this other than non-scientific grounds (such as religion) I'm not sure since it is a very well supported set of theories in science despite your unsupported claims to the contrary (putting smily faces after your comments don't actually make them true JC). But the simple fact of the matter is that not accepting evolution doesn't stop you being recongised as a scientists, and plenty of scientists have not accepted evolution and been fine.
On the other hand you cannot be a scientist and accept supernatural creation as a scientific basis for anything, since supernatural creation is completely untestable and unfalsifiable. It is not, and cannot, be science. Those who do think it is science simply betray the fact that they do not understand what science is.
Creation Science therefore is an oxymoron. It means nothing.
If someone doesn't understand science the rest of the scientific community cannot be expected to hand hold them and pretend that they are a scientist just in the name of "religious tolerance".0 -
J C wrote:......need I say more????
You could if you like give a paper on how a world wide flood actually managed to do this supported by models and testing.
But given your previous habit of telling people to feck off to Google when they ask you for scientific papers detailing your "theories" I'm not holding my breath.
You see Creationists have this advantage that they can just make answers up, they don't actually need to support them in anyway with scientific models and evidence. You might disagree with evolutionary theories, but with every single one of them you can read a ton of scientific papers explaining the in detail the models and what evidence is used to support these models. You can't with Creationists theories of a world wide Biblical flood. There isn't even anything to disagree with, it doesn't exist
So I doubt you will find any papers that detail how the Biblical flood actually happened in detail, because there is no model nor evidence that Creationsist have to explain it. They simply claim it happened, end of story.
Again, its not science0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Originally Posted by J C
The answer is quite obvious from the evidence (millions of dead Dinosaurs buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth).......
......need I say more??
Scofflaw
Well, you're aware that they would have died of old age in any case by now?
…..and what kind of a rebuttal is THAT???!!!
…….it’s like saying that if Cleopatra wasn’t bitten by an Asp, she would have died of old age by now!!!!
……the really important/interesting thing is that ‘Cleo’ DIDN’T die of natural causes – and similarly the really important/interesting thing is that millions of Dinosaurs WERE buried rapidly in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth – and these particular Dinosaurs DIDN’T die of old age – but were engulfed by a worldwide FLOOD!!!!.:D
Scofflaw
Science is a process of asking questions, looking for answers, testing the answers, and eventually accepting the answers (or rejecting them, in which case we go back to looking). It is, you see, quite normal for there to be a gap of time between the question and the answer in science
……but forensic Science DOES answer questions – such as how the Dinosaurs were wiped out ……..
……and (some) Evolutionists HAVE accepted that the scientific evidence suggest that it was by a ‘worldwide tsunami’ AKA Noah’s Flood.:eek:
Scofflaw
So, when science says it doesn't know something, that is because it is an honest process for finding answers. It does not claim to have all the answers in advance - and unlike some, it does not then pretend to.
……but the forensics ARE very clear on this one – and science KNOWS that they were drowned in massive numbers and rapidly buried under HUGE VOLUMES of water-borne sediment that RAPIDLY petrified into rock and fossilised the Dinosaurs.
…..and all of this occurred relatively recently as evidenced by the red blood cells recovered from partially fossilised Dinosaur bones.:)
Scofflaw
It is perfectly possible to challenge evolution without being labelled a 'pseudo-scientific crank' - indeed, you yourself have pointed out scientists who have openly challenged evolution, and had their objections taken perfectly seriously.
Do you have ANY example of such magnanimity in action???
Wicknight
You can be a scientist and not accept Neo-Darwin Evolutionary theory. Though quite why someone would do this other than non-scientific grounds (such as religion) I'm not sure since it is a very well supported set of theories in science
……but the belief that one is descended from base chemicals through a materialistic process IS a religious belief – and a very poorly supported one at that!!!!
Materialistic Evolution breaks every known Law of science and logic and it has never been observed – and so it is NOT a valid Scientific Theory !!!
…… unless, perhaps you have evidence to the contrary???
Wicknight
But the simple fact of the matter is that not accepting evolution doesn't stop you being recongised as a scientists, and plenty of scientists have not accepted evolution and been fine.
The simple fact of the matter is that many scientists DON’T accept Evolution as scientifically valid – but most prefer an ‘easy life’ and (quite sensibly) avoid risking the kind of vilification that I have suffered on this thread at the hands of 'emotionally charged' Evolutionists furiously promoting their (A)theistic beliefs!!!
Wicknight
On the other hand you cannot be a scientist and accept supernatural creation as a scientific basis for anything, since supernatural creation is completely untestable and unfalsifiable. It is not, and cannot, be science. Those who do think it is science simply betray the fact that they do not understand what science is.
Creation Science doesn’t explain HOW Creation occurred – just like ‘The Big Bang’ doesn’t explain HOW the Universe arose.
Creation Science does study the RESULTANT EFFECTS of Direct Creation.
Forensic science can determine whether somebody died of natural causes or was murdered, for example, by an intelligent agent.
Equally, forensic science can determine whether life arose via natural processes or was created by an intelligent agent – and Creation Science applies forensic science to do so!!!!
Wicknight
If someone doesn't understand science the rest of the scientific community cannot be expected to hand hold them and pretend that they are a scientist just in the name of "religious tolerance".
It can indeed be frustrating to see Evolutionists holding onto an invalid scientific position – but I respect their deeply held religious belief......in Materialistic Evolution!!!!!;)
Wicknight
This post was written for the universal improvement of mankind
Council for Secular Humanism
A clear admission that you are promoting a RELIGIOUS BELIEF in Secular Humanism.
BTW, I fully respect your right to hold and express your unfounded belief in Materialistic Evolution on this Christianity Forum………..
…..but I would ask that you respect my right to hold and express my well founded belief in Direct Creation on this Christian Forum as well.
Wicknight
You see Creationists have this advantage that they can just make answers up, they don't actually need to support them in anyway with scientific models and evidence.
But the EVIDENCE of billions of tonnes of sedimentary rocks containing billions of fossils all over the Earth DOES support a worldwide water-based catastrophe.
Equally, the ‘folk memory’ of many peoples all over the world recalls such a disaster.
In addition, life is observed to contain such vast quantities of Complex tightly Specified Information, that it logically can only have an effectively infinite intelligence as it’s ultimate cause.
The only people ‘making answers up' are the Evolutionists.
As new evidence disproves a previous widely believed (but invalid) theory, like the Dinosaurs being wiped out by a Meteor…….
…..the Evolutionists simply think up another alternative explanation, which in turn, can be quietly discarded when new evidence disproving it emerges!!!!
Wicknight
You might disagree with evolutionary theories, but with every single one of them you can read a ton of scientific papers explaining the in detail the models and what evidence is used to support these models.
I have yet to see a SINGLE PIECE of scientific evidence in favour of Evolution, that isn’t better explained by Direct Creation!!!
If you have any I would love to see it!!!
Robin
At some point in this thread, you explained that if you were given the choice between murdering your family or having your family murdered (can't remember which one), or saying that your religion is false, you'd pick the former. You justified this by claiming that people are responsible for their own souls only and not for the souls of other people. I trust you'll forgive me for not finding the quote, but it's in here somewhere.
I most certainly didn’t say any such thing.
However, I have always said that, as a Christian, I would not deny Jesus Christ irrespective of the consequences for me personally.
Son Goku
Okay, right look at this:
(1) There exists a point of time where we find out that there is some knowledge we don't currently posses. Let us call it Time A.
(2) There exists a point in time when we posses said knowledge. Let us call it Time B.
(3) Humans obtain things through action.
(4) Time moves forward.
From (1), (2) and (4), we may infere that there exists a duration of time when we are aware of the gap in our knowledge, but have not closed it. Let us call this duration "the uncertain period". From (3) we can infere that the knowledge is eventually possesed through some process. Obviously this process must occur in "the uncertain period". We shall call this process by which we obtain knowledge, research. It's period of existence is the "uncertain period".
…..but EVERY aspect of ‘big picture Evolution’ is currently stuck in it’s very own “uncertainty period” – and so we know NOTHING scientifically about it.
On the other hand, Creation Science research is making great strides in explaining all aspects of the Universe and life, from a Theistic perspective and most Creation Science Theories have already passed through their “uncertainty periods” – to use your phrase!!!:cool:
bonkey
I made my comments with reference to science and scientists. The latter, as well as non-scientists supporters of the former have no time for charlatans who attempt to hijack the hard-earned respectability of science for non-scientific purposes.
Charlatans, Eh!!!
I certainly wouldn’t use such intemperate language about Wicknight and his fellow Humanists ……
…….but now that you mention it, their beliefs ARE indeed unfounded and they DO claim scientific justification for them!!!!:D
bonkey
p.s. Evolution is Wrong.
Why has it taken you 5476 posts to admit this!!!!
Progress at last!!!!:)
Wicknight
Creation Science doesn't put forward a scientific argument. That is why science ignores them.
……so THAT is what you have been doing for the past 5482 posts – IGNORING me!!!!!
Wicknight
one rules out "debate" when a bunch of religious people attempt to muscle their theories into science without bothering to form scientific theories and models around these religious theories.
I WOULDN’T rule out debate with such people…..
……indeed I HAVE been debating with them (the 'religious' Atheistic Humanists) on this very thread!!!!
Scofflaw
Nothing that can operate outside the bounds of causality, or the constraints of physical laws, can be part of a scientific argument without rendering that argument unscientific
I fully agree that nothing in science can operate outside the bounds of causality, or the constraints of physical laws.......
So please tell me what was the ultimate cause of the Universe and all life – and what are the physical laws that lead to an increase in Complex Specified Information WITHOUT an input of intelligence??
Scofflaw
Science operates on the basis that there are a finite set of solutions to any given problem, and that all but the correct solution can be eliminated by showing them to be impossible.
In the case of Evolution, the fact that all of the electrons in the entire Universe would be required for an effective infinity of time to produce the sequence for just one specific 100 chain protein proves that Evolution is IMPOSSIBLE!!!!
Scofflaw
Indeed, we should expect Creationists to have many more explanations for any given problem, for the reasons outlined above.
…but Creation science research has narrowed down the scientific explanations for most phenomena to just ONE explanation – the true explanation of what happened!!!
Evolutionists are the ones with “ many more explanations for any given problem”. Just look at the GROWING number of explanations for what happened the Dinosaurs :-
(a) They died from OLD AGE.
(b) They were ‘melted’ by a deluge of ACID RAIN with a pH approaching that of battery acid.
(c) They were wiped out by a worldwide FIRE.
(d) They froze to death in a worldwide ICE AGE.
(e) They were wiped out by a WORLDWIDE TSUNAMI.
The Evolutionists don’t seem to know HOW the Dinosaurs actually died out !!!!!!!!
…… but I can reveal that Creation Science has ‘water-tight’ SCIENTIFIC evidence that a ‘Worldwide Tsunami’ WAS how it happened!!!!!
Scofflaw
Science cannot fit God within it, and so He must remain outside. He may underlie everything science studies, but unless He is bound by natural laws, God cannot be part of a scientific explanation.
IF God created the Universe then such an act SHOULD be part of the scientific explanation.
Indeed, a materialist origins explanation would be plainly WRONG if God created it all.
So, the question of whether God created the Universe and all life IS a very important question.
Forensic science CAN answer this question – and BOTH Creation Science and Intelligent Design Proponents have answered it in the affirmative!!!
Scofflaw
if we play poker, you cannot use dice. You're welcome to suggest a dice game, but it won't be poker.
……the evolutionists are the ones ‘playing dice with the Universe’ – despite Einstein’s warning that he didn’t believe that random processes were involved in it’s CREATION!!!0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement