The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

studiorat wrote: »

Seems like the Eternal Thread.

.....yes it is 'the Eternal Thread'......debating the eternal truth (and importance) of Creation!!!:D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....yes it is 'the Eternal Thread'......debating the eternal truth (and importance) of Creation!!!:D

This thread is endless..... and that proves that evolutionism........is true!!!!:eek::D:pac:

Galvasean

One could argue that it is evolving... over great amounts of time.

Flamed Diving

Galvasean wrote: »

One could argue that it is evolving... over great amounts of time.

Yes, but within kinds!!! :pac::pac::D:eek:

Galvasean

I will believe in evolution when this thread spontaneously turns into... an email! :cool:

J C

robindch wrote: »

There's one thing that can't be denied the tiny clique of individuals who control the modern day creationist movement. While they're as dumb as a sackful of hammers with the moral compasses of thieves, they play human politics with a finesse that would have impressed Old Nick.

…all generalisations are false!!!!!

….most Creation Scientists are committed Christians and top Conventional Scientists with ‘day jobs’ in the upper echelons of academia and the commercial world….
so I would expect that they are actually more intelligent and honourable than the average person.

…..I wouldn't claim that they are perfect….but then nobody is!!!!

…..to illustrate just how outrageous and unfair your comments above are......try substituting your favourite minority for the words ‘creationist movement’……for example, try putting ‘Roman Catholic Hierarchy’ or ‘Feminist Movement’ in there…..and see how outrageous and UNTRUE your statement is……
…..let me illustrate by substituting the words ‘Evolutionist Movement’…..

"There's one thing that can't be denied the tiny clique of individuals who control the modern day evolutionist movement. While they're as dumb as a sackful of hammers with the moral compasses of thieves, they play human politics with a finesse that would have impressed Satan!!!!!"

....see what I mean....you should be ashamed of yourself for proclaiming such unfounded vitrol!!!!:(:(


I also came across the following musings recently:-

.....it's titled "He Probably Deserved it Anyway"

...a Young Earth Creationist was sacked...and I remained silent because I wasn't a Young Earth Creationist...and he probably deserved it anyway!!!:cool:

...an Old Earth Creationist was sacked...and I remained silent, because I wasn't an Old Earth Creationist...and he probably deserved it anyway!!!:cool:

...an Intelligent Design Proponent was sacked...and I remained silent, because I wasn't an Intelligent Design Proponent...and he probably deserved it anyway!!!:cool:

...a Theistic Evolutionist was sacked...and I remained silent, because I wasn't a Theistic Evolutionist...and he probably deserved it anyway!!:cool:

...and now I am being sacked...and I am shocked that there is nobody to speak up and defend me...and I DON'T believe that I deserve it anyway!!!!!:eek:


.....pathetic really......but there is a terrible 'logic' to it all!!!!:(:(:eek:

robindch wrote: »

Phillip Johnson's hands must be raw from slow-clapping the RS this week.

....Philip Johnson isn't the only one 'slow clapping' the Royal Society this week.....many leading Materialistic Evolutionists consider the resignation of Rev Prof Michael Reiss to be a spectacular 'own goal' for the Society....by exposing just how little respect some of the Materialists actually have for Theistic Evolutionists!!!!

It is now quite clear that the only reason that Theistic Evolutionists are tolerated at all by some Materialists is because they can be used to provide a very useful access point in promoting Evolution to the children of church-going families!!!

....the 'mask has slipped' with this very public resignation.....so expect some very rapid damage limitation by Materialistic Evolutionists....who are starting to think that it was a huge TACTICAL mistake!!!!:eek::D

...it will be interesting to see if the Theistic Evolutionists have such low self esteem........that they will take this insult as a compliment from their Materialistic 'brothers'!!!!!:):D

Here is an interesting comment on the resignation of Rev Prof Michael Reiss written by a Theistic Evolutionist, George Pitcher........who now wishes to be known as a Creationist as a result of Rev Prof Reiss' resignation!!!:eek:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/09/18/do1802.xml

.....I suppose it is an ill wind that blows no good....and all that!!!!

.....and it is also a 'wake up call' for the Theistic Evolutionists who now dominate the power structures in the Mainstream Churches....that the 'Friendly Materialistic Evolutionists' with whom they socialise...may have an ulterior motive for their friendship.....namely priviledged access through them to their church members !!!!

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

…all generalisations are false!!!!!

Robin was referring to a small and select group of creationists. Not a generalisation.

J C wrote: »

….most Creation Scientists are committed Christians and top Conventional Scientists with ‘day jobs’ in the upper echelons of academia and the commercial world….
so I would expect that they are actually more intelligent and honourable than average person.

Examples please.

robindch

J C wrote: »

…all generalisations are false!!!!!

No generalization, my dear.

As AH pointed out, I'm referring to the very small number of people who control the leading creationist marketing outlets, and through them and in line with the splendidly amoral Wedge Strategy, who also control the malleable opinions of millions of people.

As above, it's a brilliantly-conceived strategy of manipulation and control, and one that Machiavelli would have been well impressed with

.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Robin was referring to a small and select group of creationists. Not a generalisation.

....he was generalsing about the leaders of the Creationist Movement....and I illustrated how his generalisation amounted to little more than unfounded vitrol!!!!:D

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
….most Creation Scientists are committed Christians and top Conventional Scientists with ‘day jobs’ in the upper echelons of academia and the commercial world….
so I would expect that they are actually more intelligent and honourable than average person.

AtomicHorror
Examples please.

....the relationship between Turkey (the bird) and Christmas (the dinner) comes to mind!!!!!:D

...and speaking of Turkeys and Christmas here is an interesting insight into what at least some Evolutionists would like to do with our children......the following ominous speech was delivered at the Oxford Amnesty Lecture in 1997
http://www.humphrey.org.uk/papers/1998WhatShallWeTell.pdf

The speaker advocated the elimnation of parental rights to pass on their moral and religious beliefs to their children....but, of course, he advocated making it MANDATORY to teach them the so-called "truths of evolution and cosmology".....and he compared it with the duty to provide children with such essentials as food and shelter!!!!!!:eek::(
....so being brainwashed with the unfounded myth of Spontaneous Evolution....is apparently just as important as having access to food and a roof over your head!!!!!

He also said that parents who teach their children the Word of God in the Bible were comparable to people who would "knock their children's teeth out or lock them in a dungeon"!!!!!!!:eek::(:(
....here is yet another example of an Evolutionist comparing the transmission of the Christian Faith to Child Abuse!!!:(:(:D


I quote the following from the speech:-

"Do we need "word laws", just as all civilised societies have gun laws, licensing who should be allowed to use them in what circumstances? Should there be Geneva protocols establishing what kinds of speech act count as crimes against humanity?
No. The answer, I'm sure, ought in general to be "No, don't even think of it." Freedom of speech is too precious a freedom to be meddled with. And however painful some of its consequences may sometimes be for some people, we should still as a matter of principle resist putting curbs on it. By all means we should try to make up for the harm that other people's
words do, but not by censoring the words as such.
And, since I am so sure of this in general, and since I'd expect most of you to be so too, I shall probably shock you when I say it is the purpose of my lecture tonight to argue in one particular area just the opposite.
To argue, in short, in favour of censorship, against freedom of expression, and to do so moreover in an area of life that has traditionally been regarded as sacrosanct.
I am talking about moral and religious education. And especially the education a child receives at home, where parents are allowed – even expected – to determine for their children what counts as truth and falsehood, right and wrong.
Children, I'll argue, have a human right not to have their minds crippled by exposure to other people's bad ideas – no matter who these other people are. Parents, correspondingly, have no god-given licence to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally choose: no right to limit the horizons of their children's knowledge, to bring them up in an
atmosphere of dogma and superstition, or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of their own faith.
In short, children have a right not to have their minds addled by nonsense. And we as a society have a duty to protect them from it. So we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible, or that the planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out or lock them in a dungeon.

That's the negative side of what I want to say. But there will be a positive side as well.
If children have a right to be protected from false ideas, they have too a right to be succoured by the truth. And we as a society have a duty to provide it. Therefore we should feel as much obliged to pass on to our children the best scientific and philosophical understanding of the natural world – to teach, for example, the truths of evolution and cosmology, or the methods of rational analysis – as we already feel obliged to feed and shelter them." (emphasis mine)

J C

robindch wrote: »

No generalization, my dear.

As AH pointed out, I'm referring to the very small number of people who control the leading creationist marketing outlets, and through them and in line with the splendidly amoral Wedge Strategy, who also control the malleable opinions of millions of people like you.

As above, it's a brilliantly-conceived strategy of manipulation and control, and one that Machiavelli would have been well impressed with

....like I said try putting the words 'Feminist Movement' or 'Evolutionist Movement'....into your statement...and see for yourself that your comment is nothing more than an unfounded jibe directed at honourable leading scientists who belong to a NUMBER of DIFFERENT groups across the spectrum from Young Earth Creationism to Theistic Evolutionism!!!!:(:eek:

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

I will believe in evolution when this thread spontaneously turns into... an email! :cool:

....and I will believe in Evolution when a single meaningful sentence is written on this thread by an ultimately non-intelligently directed source!!!!:):D

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

…all generalisations are false!!!!!

That one isn't.

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

That one isn't.

....yes, the philisophical joke is that....."all generalisations are false....including this one"!!!!:pac::):D

....now try getting your mind around the fact that when the source is identified, ALL functional information is observed to have an ultimate INTELLIGENT source!!!!!:pac::):D

robindch

J C wrote: »

your comment is nothing more than an unfounded jibe

Are you seriously saying that one of the founding documents of the modern creationist movement is not one of the founding documents of the modern creationist movement?

.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Are you seriously saying that one of the founding documents of the modern creationist movement is not one of the founding documents of the modern creationist movement?
.

...Creation Scientists don't subscribe to the Wedge Strategy...which is an ID construct.

I wasn't objecting to any criticism you may have of this Strategy...I was objecting to your pejorative description of Creationist Leaders as being "as dumb as a sackful of hammers with the moral compasses of thieves"!!!

....in the heat of debate these things may happen but I would expect an honourable person, such as you obviously are, to apologise for such intemperate words....

....whatever you choose to do....

.... as a Christian, I forgive you!!!:D

robindch

J C wrote: »

...Creation Scientists don't subscribe to the Wedge Strategy...which is an ID construct.

There are plenty of men who describe themselves as "creation scientists" -- I suspect the majority -- who subscribe to the Wedge Strategy.

This leaked, and subsequently avowed, text is a brilliant, manipulative strategy which documents how a very small number of men intend to destroy modern biology, and much intellectual progress, to replace them with obviously-made-up fairy tales. As such, I think that my comment that they're as dumb as hammers and as dishonest as thieves isn't so much "intemperate" as "really quite accurate"

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....he was generalsing about the leaders of the Creationist Movement....and I illustrated how his generalisation amounted to little more than unfounded vitrol!!!!:D

Then by all means refute his point with specifics rather than make yourself a hypocrite.

J C wrote: »

....the relationship between Turkey (the bird) and Christmas (the dinner) comes to mind!!!!!:D

...and speaking of Turkeys and Christmas here is an interesting insight into what at least some Evolutionists would like to do with our children......the following ominous speech was delivered at the Oxford Amnesty Lecture in 1997
http://www.humphrey.org.uk/papers/1998WhatShallWeTell.pdf

The speaker advocated the elimnation of parental rights to pass on their moral and religious beliefs to their children....but, of course, he advocated making it MANDATORY to teach them the so-called "truths of evolution and cosmology".....and he compared it with the duty to provide children with such essentials as food and shelter!!!!!!:eek::(
....so being brainwashed with the unfounded myths of the Big Bang and Spontaneous Evolution....is apparently just as important as having access to food and a roof over your head!!!!!

He also said that parents who teach their children the Word of God in the Bible were comparable to people who would "knock their children's teeth out or lock them in a dungeon"!!!!!!!:eek::(:(
....here is yet another example of an Evolutionist comparing the transmission of the Christian Faith to Child Abuse!!!:(:(:D


I quote the following from the speech:-

"Do we need "word laws", just as all civilised societies have gun laws, licensing who should be allowed to use them in what circumstances? Should there be Geneva protocols establishing what kinds of speech act count as crimes against humanity?
No. The answer, I'm sure, ought in general to be "No, don't even think of it." Freedom of speech is too precious a freedom to be meddled with. And however painful some of its consequences may sometimes be for some people, we should still as a matter of principle resist putting curbs on it. By all means we should try to make up for the harm that other people's
words do, but not by censoring the words as such.
And, since I am so sure of this in general, and since I'd expect most of you to be so too, I shall probably shock you when I say it is the purpose of my lecture tonight to argue in one particular area just the opposite.
To argue, in short, in favour of censorship, against freedom of expression, and to do so moreover in an area of life that has traditionally been regarded as sacrosanct.
I am talking about moral and religious education. And especially the education a child receives at home, where parents are allowed – even expected – to determine for their children what counts as truth and falsehood, right and wrong.
Children, I'll argue, have a human right not to have their minds crippled by exposure to other people's bad ideas – no matter who these other people are. Parents, correspondingly, have no god-given licence to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally choose: no right to limit the horizons of their children's knowledge, to bring them up in an
atmosphere of dogma and superstition, or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of their own faith.
In short, children have a right not to have their minds addled by nonsense. And we as a society have a duty to protect them from it. So we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible, or that the planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out or lock them in a dungeon.

That's the negative side of what I want to say. But there will be a positive side as well.
If children have a right to be protected from false ideas, they have too a right to be succoured by the truth. And we as a society have a duty to provide it. Therefore we should feel as much obliged to pass on to our children the best scientific and philosophical understanding of the natural world – to teach, for example, the truths of evolution and cosmology, or the methods of rational analysis – as we already feel obliged to feed and shelter them." (emphasis mine)

What in the hell does this have to do with the question I asked you? I asked for examples of high-ranking individuals within the creationist movement (specifically the marketing and publishing people Robin referred to) who also hold down day jobs as high flying academics and scientists. You made that assertion and I would like you to support it please.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....now try getting your mind around the fact that when the source is identified, ALL functional information is observed to have an ultimate INTELLIGENT source!!!!!:pac::):D

You have positively identified you God? You have irrefutable evidence? Something that could not equally be explained by other means? A few pages ago it was asserted by you that proof-positive of God was beyond the reach of science but that only the influence and outcome were testable. You seem almost as changeable in your views as a scientist.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I asked for examples of high-ranking individuals within the creationist movement (specifically the marketing and publishing people Robin referred to) who also hold down day jobs as high flying academics and scientists. You made that assertion and I would like you to support it please.

....you mean that you want me to give you 'their heads on a plate'!!!:eek:

.....why should I identify such people....and then leave them to the 'tender mercies' of highly emotional Evolutionists in the latter stages of denial???!!!:eek::D

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You have positively identified you God? You have irrefutable evidence? Something that could not equally be explained by other means? A few pages ago it was asserted by you that proof-positive of God was beyond the reach of science but that only the influence and outcome were testable. You seem almost as changeable in your views as a scientist.

...I don't have personal experience of a physical manifestation of God....but I do have a personal knowledge of His Spirit!!!!
...all of life provides irrefutable evidence for His ACTIONS...and it cannot be explained by other means....and God knows, the Atheists and assorted Materialists have tried!!!!:pac::):D

....and I'm NOT as changeable in my views as an Evolutionist....blowing with the breeze....and charging around in ever decreasing circles trying to prove that the IMPOSSIBLE happened!!!!:eek::D

J C

robindch wrote: »

There are plenty of men who describe themselves as "creation scientists" -- I suspect the majority -- who subscribe to the Wedge Strategy.

This leaked, and subsequently avowed, text is a brilliant, manipulative strategy which documents how a very small number of men intend to destroy modern biology, and much intellectual progress, to replace them with obviously-made-up fairy tales. As such, I think that my comment that they're as dumb as hammers and as dishonest as thieves isn't so much "intemperate" as "really quite accurate"

....ID Proponents DON'T describe themselves as Creation Scientists....

....and, as I have already said, whether you choose to apologise.....or not,
.....as a Christian, I forgive you!!!:D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror: I asked for examples of high-ranking individuals within the creationist movement (specifically the marketing and publishing people Robin referred to) who also hold down day jobs as high flying academics and scientists. You made that assertion and I would like you to support it please.

....you mean that you want me to give you 'their heads on a plate'!!!:eek:

.....why should I identify such people....and then leave them to the 'tender mercies' of highly emotional Evolutionists in the latter stages of denial???!!!:eek::D

What are you talking about? I'm not in a position to make life difficult for such people, even if I were inclined to bother. I'm asking you to back up your claim. If you can't do that then I would suggest you not hint at things that you are unwilling to discuss further.

That someone such as yourself, a random internet poster, should know such information suggests no big secret anyway. This cloak and dagger nonsense does you no favours.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...I don't have personal experience of a physical manifestation of God....but I do have a personal knowledge of His Spirit!!!!
...all of life provides irrefutable evidence for His ACTIONS...and it cannot be explained by other means....and God knows, the Atheists and assorted Materialists have tried!!!!:pac::):D

It's a minor point, but you seem to contradicting your earlier statement about needing to identify source.

J C wrote: »

....and I'm NOT as changeable in my views as an Evolutionist....blowing with the breeze....and charging around in ever decreasing circles trying to prove that the IMPOSSIBLE happened!!!!:eek::D

That you equate a willingness to accept change with weakness speaks volumes about your scientific credibility. We will change our views to fit the facts. No model is sacred.

J C

.....here is a guy who thinks that Sarah Palin is "A Dirty Creationist".....I don't know about the "Dirty" bit......

.....she certainly is a very beautiful, intelligent and articulate woman!!!!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/09/21/do2109.xml

....and what is it with all these grown men muttering on about 'fearing Sarah Palin'...and quaking in their boots at the thought of her????

.......how is it that this very competent woman....with BOTH a pen and a gun...sends (some) men into cold sweats about her???!!!!:eek::D

...I read recently that Sarah has put the "sex back in specks"....and apparently Creationism, as well!!!

....the people who made her spectacles have been inundated with orders for her rimless glasses!!!!!
....and sales of her 'Naughty Monkey' red shoes have also soared!!!
http://www.newslocale.org/world/wnews/sarah_palin's_'look'_send_shoe,_spectacles,_wigs'_sales_soaring!_200809135346.html

..and here is some more info on the views of Rev Prof Michael Reiss....who has admitted....shock/horror that "he used to be "evangelical" about evolution when he taught biology in schools."!!!:D:)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/education/2798162/Creationism-should-be-taught-in-science-classes-says-expert.html
....but now Rev Prof Reiss seems to have become 'Agnostic' about Evolution....or dare I say it.......for all we know.....even a complete non-believer in it!!!:D:)

Apparently around 10 per cent of British schoolchildren now come from families with creationist/ID beliefs, compared to 40 per cent in the US where Sarah Palin has said that ID should be taught alongside Evolution in schools.:)

....and just when Evolutionists thought that the 'Creationist Problem' was confined to Science Classes....it breaks out in Geography Classes....of all places!!!:D:eek:
http://chelmsfordanglicanmainstream.blogspot.com/2008/09/creationist-britain-would-you-adam-and.html


.....and Robin....do you intend to replace that 'pin up' photo of Ken Ham....and his 'mutton chops....that you keep going on about....with one of Sarah Palin???!!!!:D:eek:

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We will change our views to fit the facts. No model is sacred.

....except the 'Sacred' Evolution Model....or any other equally 'Sacred' replacement model that may come along!!!:pac::):D

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I usually respond by:
1. Examining the atheistic world-view. I find no meaning there. If I am mistaken about God, nothing matters anyway. Whether I live a selfish or caring life is entirely up to my preferences and carries no meaning.
The exact same is true of Christianity. It carries no more meaning that what you choose to do. You can choose not to be Christian, you can choose to be Christian. If you choose to take on the beliefs of Christianity you assign that as your lifes meaning. You can do the same with anything else.

I'm saying that as a theory atheism offers no meaning, but Christianity does. That is true regardless of which theory is right - it is a description of the theory.

You are presupposing Christianity is invented by man. Treat it as a theory that may or may not be true, and you must admit it gives meaning while atheism doesn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So I can face the reality of life, not cowering in fear, nor manufacturing my own meaning and morality as the godless do to shield them from the blackness of their world-view.
Indeed. But none of that actually makes what you believe true. You can do exactly the same even if it isn't true, look at the Scientologists.

I agree. I was only setting out how I examine my beliefs. A thing is true or it is not, no matter how anyone feels about it. The above was the conclusion I was able to come to on the basis of my own experience of God and reflection on the materialistic alternative.

So as I said before, it comes down to which reality you are prepared to consider. You clearly are not prepared to consider a reality where a pleasing comforting god as described in your Bible, which you view literally, doesn't exist, so all the evidence in the world that you are wrong is irrelevant because you are not open to the consideration that you are or could be wrong because such a reality is unconsiderable to you.

??? I had laid before you how I actually did consider the atheistic alternative. Now you say I'm not prepared to do so. Not a lot I can add to that.

Which makes any discussion of evidence or science or discovery of knowledge with you rather immaterial.

Maybe that fantasy helps you to deal with your doubts, but it is self-destructive.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

You are presupposing Christianity is invented by man. Treat it as a theory that may or may not be true, and you must admit it gives meaning while atheism doesn't.

You choose what you wish to devote your life to, what you wish your life to be meaningful for. This is true whether Christianity is true or not.

An atheist can do the exact same thing. Christianity (even true) gives a person no more meaning than anything else does.

I think what you are saying is that Christianity gives your life a meaning that is the correct meaning, ie we are supposed to devote ourselves to God. But that is simply what God thinks our meaning of life should be. Having a different view is not the same as having no meaning. It is simply a case of having a different meaning.

While you say your meaning is to be devoted to God another person could equally say that their meaning is to be devoted to their children.

To say that the second person has no meaning because they don't share what you or your god think should be the meaning of life is rather egotistical Wolfsbane.

Its like saying if someone doesn't like chocolate ice-cream they must not like ice cream at all.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I agree. I was only setting out how I examine my beliefs.

But it doesn't (shouldn't) have anything to do with how you examine your beliefs. As I said if we examined if something is true based on how pleasing it is we would end up in a whole world of nonsense.

If you don't find the materialistic alternative appealing that actually has nothing what so ever to do with whether the materialistic alternative is actually the true reflection of reality.

This is my point. You appear to be ruling out versions of reality that are not appealing to you, based simply that they aren't appealing. Which is far enough if you want to do that. But it does make presenting evidence to you for these unappealing versions of reality rather pointless.

wolfsbane wrote: »

??? I had laid before you how I actually did consider the atheistic alternative. Now you say I'm not prepared to do so. Not a lot I can add to that.

When you say you considered it what you appear to mean is that you had a good think if you would like it to be the true reality, decided you wouldn't, and then concluded that it wasn't.

That is not what I mean by considering the atheistic alternative. I mean considering the evidence that it is the true reflection of reality. But by your own admission your conclusion that it wasn't is based on it being unappealing to you, not on considering the evidence for or against it.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror:
We will change our views to fit the facts.
No model is sacred.....except the 'Sacred' Evolution Model....or any other equally 'Sacred' replacement model that may come along!!!:pac::):D

I'm confused. If we replace evolution, then it isn't sacred, is it? Evolution will almost certainly be replaced in time, or at least will find itself becoming rather like Newton's laws. An approximation within a grander theory. I'm sure the likes of you will point to that as some sort of dogma.

And again you contradict yourself. Claiming on the one hand that we scientists change our minds too often, and on the other that we are dogmatic. Make up your mind.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

The Word has been tested and found to be false.

Examples?

You claim this cannot be so because the Word is infallible.

Indeed - but I welcome any attempted proofs of the allegation.

You use the Word itself to prove that the Word is truth. Without applying your skepticism to the Word itself, all you have is circular reasoning.

I have experimental proof of the truth of the word, and an internal witness to it. But I also am happy to try to resolve any objections unbelievers might bring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So I'm glad I'm not offering my scientific skills, but those of qualified scientists. I stick to the theological truths.
But you use the word of "scientists" to push your side of the debate.

Yes.

You can't tell scientist from con man.

As I pointed out, no one individual would be given much credibility, but the creationist scientific position is supported by many scientists whose integrity I have no reason to doubt. Some are known personally to me, and many others are known to these friends of mine. That rules out con men.

And using "the Word" as a means to judge is worthless unless you are willing to view it with sceptism also.

As I said, I have experimental and internal evidence of the truth of the Word.

If we all take your approach, you can never convert those who refuse to question their various dogmas.

Indeed. That's why it takes God to do the converting. I only bring His Word to the lost soul and urge it upon him. God changes the heart and mind.

The pseudo-evangelism we see from many pulpits - the psychological manipulation - produces changes of mind, but not of heart. The deluded may talk of being born again, but their lives eventually prove otherwise. Psychological conversions are not the same as spiritual conversions.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Indeed - but I welcome any attempted proofs of the allegation.

Would would you consider the minimum "proof" of this allegation?

wolfsbane wrote: »

I have experimental proof of the truth of the word

You have no such thing wolfsbane, making statements like that just come across as silly. For a start there is no such thing as "experimental proof". Experiments do not prove things. (I recall we have been over this)

You have had experiences that you interpret as confirming your already held beliefs. That is not the same thing at all. At all.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As I pointed out, no one individual would be given much credibility, but the creationist scientific position is supported by many scientists whose integrity I have no reason to doubt.

Their integrity is irrelevant. You really have to get off the idea that the beliefs of the individual scientists are important. They aren't. Their opinion is irrelevant. Saying that you trust Creationists but not "materialistic" scientists is simply demonstrating that you aren't following this discussion at all.