The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Ekancone

Ciaran500 wrote: »

?

Do tell.

Just my hunch.

PDN

daithifleming wrote: »

Just my hunch.

A leap of faith then?

Mena

PDN wrote: »

A leap of faith then?

You couldn't wait to pop that in

PDN

Mena wrote: »

You couldn't wait to pop that in

Too tempting by half. The spirit was willing but the flesh was weak.

Ciaran500

daithifleming wrote: »

Just my hunch.

I have a feeling you're going to say BC, PDN doesn't seem like he believes in this but BC has been strangely absent from most of the discussion.

PM me with the correct answer

Ekancone

PDN wrote: »

A leap of faith then?

I might just start a religion based on it.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote:

You write off any scientifically valid evidence for creationism as speculation and conjecture, then claim there is none.

In another thread (post 119) on this board, wolfsbane made this alleagtion against evolutionists. Questions where made of this claim, but PDN said (and rightly so) that we shouldn't drag arguments from other threads into that one, so I am asking the question here. Can you please give some examples of this "scientifically valid evidence for creationism".

2Scoops

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Can you please give some examples of this "scientifically valid evidence for creationism".

For someone so curiously skeptical of mainstream science, I find it interesting that wolfsbane isn't even slightly perturbed at his and J C's collectively inability to provide even one example of creation science or an active creation scientist or evidence that it is being vetoed at the journal level. [Might I suggest it is because no creation science exists because none is being performed?]

This debate cannot progress further along the 'science' theme until wolfsbane or J C realize and accept this glaring discrepancy.

robindch

2Scoops wrote: »

I suggest it is because no creation science exists because none is being performed?

That's about it. As a social movement, creationism really isn't much more than a marketing strategy, and that's where all the investment goes. It doesn't need to do any research because it's expensive, difficult, time-consuming and ultimately unnecessary. Creationists aren't going to bother reading up on real science and risk puncturing their illusions, when instead, they can read a book that pampers them.

AtomicHorror

Ciaran500 wrote: »

I have a feeling you're going to say BC, PDN doesn't seem like he believes in this but BC has been strangely absent from most of the discussion.

PM me with the correct answer

Who is BC?

J C

wrote:

sdep
If the platypus did have DNA sequence features that had arisen within birds, reptiles and eutherian mammals subsequent to the divergence of all of these groups.....that would indeed be a problem......FOR EVOLUTIONISTS!!!

Galvasean
Excellent post sdep.
I was actually a bit taken aback by the claim that the platypus had avian DNA and had trouble sourcing it.

.....phew...... WELL DONE sdep........
.....manure now safely back in (Evolutionist) horse!!!!:D:)

......that was a 'close shave' for Evolution alright!!!:eek::)

J C

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Any scientist would cause "big trouble" for someone who proved the young earth, it goes against everything we accept now and would require extraordinary proof.

...sounds a tad biased to me!!!!

......and it is actually proof of the serious risk to (professional) life and limb which all of the brave Creation Scientists out there are running!!!!!

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Don't have to be an atheist to believe in evolution or the earth is billions of years old. Will I try dig up a list to show that?

True.
There are many Theists who are Evolutionists........BUT Evolution is an ESSENTIAL tenet of belief for the Atheist........as it provides a semblance of support for their mistaken belief that there is no God.......see the next post by Ciaran which neatly makes my point........that Old Earth Evolutionism is ESSENTIAL to the religion of Atheism.

Ciaran500 wrote: »

By that logic proving the earth is 6000 years old proves god exists, proving its much older (as we can now) prove god doesn't exist?

......yes indeed, proving that Creation occurred (as we now can) proves that God exists, proving that life spontaneously evolved would prove that God doesn't need to exist.......but unfortunately for the Atheists, the chance of life spontaneously evolving can be mathematically proven to be impossible!!!:pac::):D

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

......and it is actually proof of the serious risk to (professional) life and limb which all of the brave Creation Scientists out there are running!!!!!

All none of them...

J C wrote: »

......yes indeed, proving that Creation occurred (as we now can) proves that God exists

Science plz. :pac:

J C

iUseVi wrote: »

Hey, theres all types of creationism. From wikipedia (and this is only the Christian types):

* 4.1 Young Earth creationism
o 4.1.1 Modern geocentrism
o 4.1.2 Omphalos hypothesis
o 4.1.3 Creation science
* 4.2 Old Earth creationism
o 4.2.1 Gap creationism
o 4.2.2 Day-age creationism
o 4.2.3 Progressive creationism
* 4.3 Neo-Creationism
o 4.3.1 Intelligent design
* 4.4 Theistic evolution

Creationism is the belief that the universe was actively created. The time frame doesn't really matter.

......so all of the above are 'Creationists'.........

and the Atheists are Spontaneous Evolutionists .......who believe that muck 'miraculously' turned into man!!!!!:D

......it is indeed ironic that some of the Theistic Evolutionists on this thread, started out by supporting the Atheists in their condemnation of Theistic Evolutionist ID advocates!!!!!!!!!!!

......personally I reject the theology of most ID advocates .....but I greatly respect and admire their scientific prowess and their breakthrough ideas in identifying the unmistakable 'hallmarks' of intelligence in action!!!

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

and the Atheists are Spontaneous Evolutionists .......who believe that muck 'miraculously' turned into man!!!!!:D

Unlike sensible creationists who believe that dogs and wolves devolved from a common Dog Kind within a few hundred years of leaving Noah's Ark? And plenty of science to back up as well, I assume...? :pac:

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

Some people have.

But many are driven by their atheism to admit no possibility of any other than a naturalistic explanation:
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.
—Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401(6752):423, Sept.

If God created the Universe and everything in it........what say the Atheists?

...as I have said before, science is capable of examining the physical evidence for the actions of God.............even Darwin accepted that this is POSSIBLE.....he vassilated between accepting / not accepting that the evidence pointed towards God .....but his acceptance that it was POSSIBLE to detect the activity of God never wavered!!!!

Atheists and their 'fellow travellers' REFUSE to accept that the existence of God can be determined by objective scientific means means.......
......by hiding behind a self-serving definition of 'science' which excludes the most likely hypothesis (that there was an intelligent designer of life) from scientific consideration!!!!:D:)

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

If God created the Universe and everything in it........what say the Atheists?

...as I have said before, science is capable of examining the physical evidence for the actions of God.............even Darwin accepted that this is POSSIBLE.....he vassilated between accepting / not accepting that the evidence pointed towards God .....but his acceptance that it was POSSIBLE to detect the activity of God never wavered!!!!

Atheists and their 'fellow travellers' REFUSE to accept that the existence of god can be determined by objective scientific means means.......
......by hiding behind a self-serving definition of 'science' which excludes the most likely hypothesis (that there was an intelligent designer of life) from scientific consideration!!!!:D:)

Care to provide us with some science supporting creation while you're here?

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

I reckon most of them are creationists who are afraid to come out of the closet.

I reckon you are correct.........and about 80% of conventional scientists are 'creationists' of some 'stripe' (but firmly in the closet) and less than 1% are 'out of the closet'......as fully fledged Creation Scientists !!!!!:eek::)

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

I reckon you are correct.........and about 80% of conventional scientists are Creationists (but firmly in the closet) and less than 1% are 'out of the closet'......as fully fledged Creation Scientists !!!!!:eek::)

Impressive, albeit fictional, stats, J C! :eek: Maybe creation scientists should unite and persecute atheistic scientists? We could do a pseudo-documentary style film about it and call it 'Expelled.'

Got science?

Mena

J C wrote: »

I reckon you are correct.........and about 80% of conventional scientists are Creationists (but firmly in the closet) and less than 1% are 'out of the closet'......as fully fledged Creation Scientists !!!!!:eek::)

Can you quote a source for these stats or are they simply made up like all creationist propoganda?

marco_polo

2Scoops wrote: »

Impressive, albeit fictional, stats, J C! :eek: Maybe creation scientists should unite and persecute atheistic scientists? We could do a pseudo-documentary style film about it and call it 'Expelled.'

Got science?

This is henious scientific apartheid. We are morally obliged to boycott all scientific goods (and the Science Olympics as well )

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

......yes indeed, proving that Creation occurred (as we now can) proves that God exists, proving that life spontaneously evolved would prove that God doesn't need to exist.......but unfortunately for the Atheists, the chance of life spontaneously evolving can be mathematically proven to be impossible!!!:pac::):D

Nobody here believes in spontaneous evolution as you have defined it. If you want to mathematically prove it to be impossible, by all means go for it. Take a shot at mathematically disproving Darwinian Evolution (the theory actually under debate) while you're at it. You'll need to do two calculations; one for a 6000 year old Earth, the other for a 4,500,000,000 year old Earth.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

and the Atheists are Spontaneous Evolutionists .......who believe that muck 'miraculously' turned into man!!!!!:D

Even assuming that a sizable number of Atheists were aware of your existence, why would any of them believe in a "theory" that you, a creationist, invented and discredited in the same thread?

Can we talk about Darwinian Evolution now? It involve muck or spontaneity.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

I reckon you are correct.........and about 80% of conventional scientists are Creationists (but firmly in the closet) and less than 1% are 'out of the closet'......as fully fledged Creation Scientists !!!!!:eek::)

Strange then, that they don't take control from the 19% who must presumably control affairs from a shadowy back room somewhere... except that this 19% would be spread evenly throughout the social strata of the community, leaving an even smaller proportion to maintain the vast Atheist Conspiracy...

It's one or the other J_C, you contradict yourself. Again.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

Atheists and their 'fellow travellers' REFUSE to accept that the existence of God can be determined by objective scientific means means.......
......by hiding behind a self-serving definition of 'science' which excludes the most likely hypothesis (that there was an intelligent designer of life) from scientific consideration!!!!:D:)

No, it's just scientists in general who say that while we might well be able to measure the influence of a greater intelligence, perhaps even a creator of life on Earth, and to identify it and observe it directly, it would not be possible to scientifically identify such an entity as the God of the abrahamic religions. That would require us to measure traits which the bible describes as transcendent of the observable universe.

Essentially, following the hypothetical positive identification of a creator intelligence it would be a matter of faith as to whether one accepted this being as God.

As a Christian, you're meant to already have faith enough to believe that God exists without science being a threat to you. Your faith is weak, J_C.

robindch

J C wrote: »

about 80% of conventional scientists are Creationists (but firmly in the closet) and less than 1% are 'out of the closet' as fully fledged Creation Scientists!

HAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA! ROFL :D:D:D:D:D

Let me get this straight -- you think that even though 80% of scientists are creationists, the remaining ~19% still manage to run the kind of apartheid system that Ben Stein's tanked agitprop piece imagined?

Clearly, you have finally realized that creationists are not only a bunch of scardey-cats who are too frightened to stand up for what they believe in, but that their Darwinian brethren are more than four times stronger too. Magnificent!

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

about 80% of conventional scientists are Creationists (but firmly in the closet) and less than 1% are 'out of the closet'......as fully fledged Creation Scientists !!!!!:eek::)

Where'd you get those statistics? Did God come down and personally tell you or more than likely, did you pluck them out of your behind?

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

Where'd you get those statistics? Did God come down and personally tell you or more than likely, did you pluck them out of your behind?

Wild speculation is as innate to J_C as wild punctuation.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

I reckon you are correct.........and about 80% of conventional scientists are Creationists (but firmly in the closet) and less than 1% are 'out of the closet'......as fully fledged Creation Scientists !!!!!:eek::)

If they are in the "closet" how do you know they are Creationists?

What is with you guys and these types of arguments? Do you guys consider what you write before you write it all?

"It is impossible to judge God bad because we lack understanding of him. I know this because I understand God and have judged him good" (I paraphrase of course)

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

If God created the Universe and everything in it........what say the Atheists?

The "atheists" have explained already that neither of you understand what science is. Wolfsbane has an excuse for this, you proclaiming to be a professional scientists, don't.

Science deals ONLY with what can be modeled. If you cannot form a testable, falsifiable, prediction capable, model of something then it has nothing to do with science.

J C wrote: »

...as I have said before, science is capable of examining the physical evidence for the actions of God

Really?

Please do tell how science can model the actions of God. :rolleyes:

J C wrote: »

Atheists and their 'fellow travellers' REFUSE to accept that the existence of God can be determined by objective scientific means means.......

If one could do that I would imagine Creationists would have already done that. But by all means JC if you can do it go ahead. I would love to see a falsifiable model of God (or this "intelligent designer")

J C wrote: »

......by hiding behind a self-serving definition of 'science' which excludes the most likely hypothesis (that there was an intelligent designer of life) from scientific consideration!!!!:D:)

As soon as you explain how one can form a testable falisible model of this intelligent designer of yours I will happily embrace it with open arms. And test it, rigorously

I await with baited breath for your model JC ... :rolleyes: