The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

.....here is a partial list of some of the 'Critters':-

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html

.....and here is another list:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/

Today, thousands of creation scientists repudiate any form of molecules-to-man evolution in their analysis and use of scientific data. They can now be found in literally every discipline of science, and their numbers are rising rapidly. Evolutionists are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the fiction that evolution is "science" and creation science is "religion." Such statements today merely reveal the speaker's own liberal social philosophies — not his or her awareness of scientific facts.

Here is the ICR Scientists & Faculty
http://www.icr.org/research/scientists_faculty/

Here is the ICR Technical Advisory Board
http://www.icr.org/research/tech_adv_board/

Here are some peer reviewed Research Papers:-
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_papers/

BEEP.....BEEP!!!!:eek::D

I asked for creation scientists, not 'scientists who are also creationists' or 'creation journalists.' I find it most amusing that I have stumped you with one very simple, straight-forward request! Please show me ONE creation scientist, J C, just one! :eek::pac::eek:

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

......NO conspiracy......just OTHER PEOPLE'S property rights!!!!:D

If they were so interested in proving the 'truth' you'd think they might go about showing off their discoveries for all to see.
They don't. I wonder why.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
......NO conspiracy......just OTHER PEOPLE'S property rights!!!!


Galvasean
If they were so interested in proving the 'truth' you'd think they might go about showing off their discoveries for all to see.
They don't. I wonder why.

.......we publicise what is relevant .....at the appropriate time!!!!!:)

BEEP!!!!.......BEEP!!!:eek:

MrPudding

2Scoops wrote: »

I asked for creation scientists, not 'scientists who are also creationists' or 'creation journalists.' I find it most amusing that I have stumped you with one very simple, straight-forward request! Please show me ONE creation scientist, J C, just one! :eek::pac::eek:

Well, JC is a real creation scientist himself. Is that not good enough?

MrP

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

Well, JC is a real creation scientist himself. Is that not good enough?

MrP

......apparently it is not good enough for 2Scoops......nor are the CVs of the other Creation Scientists that I linked to!!!!!

........as I have already said .....there is none so blind as he who refuses to see!!!!!:D:)

2Scoops prefers to play word games and I quote:-
"I asked for creation scientists, not 'scientists who are also creationists'"

.......and 2Scoops then expects people to take him seriously when he makes pronouncements about Evolution!!!!!:D

......BEEP.....Beep!!!!:D

J C

wrote:

Mr. Pudding
Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"

......God hates evil......
He could abolish evil.....if He wanted to..........but He would have to extinguish the freedom of Man to be evil (or good) in order to do so.

......so even though God is omnipotent......He restrains His omnipotence in order to allow Mankind free will........and Mankind uses their freedom in acts of great goodness.....as well as some acts of great evil.

God has decided that He wants to be freely loved by Man.....and the price He is willing to pay.....is to allow evil men to freely hate Him!!!!

J C

......now that we seem to have settled the Creation/Evolution issue .....in favour of Creation........we can move on to the Prophecy Segment......and just in time ......by the looks of it!!!!!:eek::pac::):D

Re 13:1 ¶ Then I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name.
2 Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. The dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority.
3 And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast.
4 So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?"
5 And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months.
6 Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven.
7 It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation.
8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
9 If anyone has an ear, let him hear.
10 He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity; he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
11 ¶ Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb and spoke like a dragon.
12 And he exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence, and causes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
13 He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.
14 And he deceives those who dwell on the earth by those signs which he was granted to do in the sight of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who was wounded by the sword and lived.
15 He was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed.
16 He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads,
17 and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18 Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is six hundred and sixty-six.
(NKJV)

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

......God hates evil......
He could abolish evil.....if He wanted to..........but He would have to extinguish the freedom of Man to be evil (or good) in order to do so.

we have been over this before, that isn't true.

god does not have to allow evil to allow us free will, any more than he has to allow us the ability to breath under water to all us free will

god could (easily being god) create a world where there is no evil, and we would still have free will.

the conclusion from that is either god is some how limited in his ability, or he does not in fact hate evil.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

.......we publicise what is relevant .....at the appropriate time!!!!!:)

So what you are saying is all the scientific data the creation scientists have is not relevant, ergo creation science is not relevant?

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

we have been over this before, that isn't true.

god does not have to allow evil to allow us free will, any more than he has to allow us the ability to breath under water to all us free will

god could (easily being god) create a world where there is no evil, and we would still have free will.

the conclusion from that is either god is some how limited in his ability, or he does not in fact hate evil.

........you are confusing our physical freedom (such as our ability to breathe).....which is constrained by our limited bodies.......with intellectual and spiritual freedom which is unlimited........and which can overcome many of our physical limitations (including our innate physical inability to breathe under water).
.......IF we have the freedom to love God .....we must ALSO have the freedom to hate Him.......otherwise we DON'T have freedom AT ALL!!!!:D

.......God lays before us the freedom to choose life or death......love or hate....good or evil.....and He asks us to FREELY CHOOSE life, love and goodness....over death, hatred and evil!!!!:D


God DID create a World without evil.......but Satan and Man DECIDED to introduce evil into it......and we are living with the consequences ever since!!!!:D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
.......we publicise what is relevant .....at the appropriate time!!!!!

Galvasean

So what you are saying is all the scientific data the creation scientists have is not relevant, ergo creation science is not relevant?

....as I have said we publish what is relevant.......ergo everything published on Creation Science is relevant.......and therefore Creation Science is relevant!!!!:D

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

....as I have said we publish what is relevant.......ergo everything published on Creation Science is relevant.......and therefore Creation Science is relevant!!!!:D

And yet I recently asked you to show me some information which would be relevant to your argument but you refused as it is not to be published.

marco_polo

Galvasean wrote: »

And yet I recently asked you to show me some information which would be relevant to your argument but you refused as it is not to be published.

........Seems JC is putting commercial gain ahead

.........of the scientific advancement of his beloved Creationism.

Meep! Meep! :pac::D;):p:):rolleyes::eek::P

Galvasean

marco_polo wrote: »

........Seems JC is putting commercial gain ahead

.........of the scientific advancement of his beloved Creationism.

Not to mention ahead of saving the souls of countless non-believers.

marco_polo

Galvasean wrote: »

Not to mention ahead of saving the souls of countless non-believers.

It must be frustrating to be so close and yet so far, after all, we all but one fossilized Israelite in the belly of a T-Rex away from eternal salvation.

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

......apparently it is not good enough for 2Scoops......nor are the CVs of the other Creation Scientists that I linked to!!!!!

J C, your qualifications and research history are unknown so, no, you are not 'good enough' to be considered a creation scientist. The others you have pointed to may be scientists, but they are not creation scientists. I'm not playing word games. If they are not actively engaged in creation research they can't possibly be called creation scientists. Equally, I can't call a biologist a physicist! Or a chemical engineer an immunologist! Perhaps you disagree with this? But, if so, why??

I submit that it is YOU that is playing word games. :pac: Perhaps you can explain why you think it is unfair that I call a scientist one who engages in scientific investigation, and creation science as science about Biblical creation??

It's a rhetorical question, of course - I already know the answer. It's because if you applied an accurate labeling system for creation scientists, you would quickly discover that there are NONE! Not one! Unless you can show me one? Can you show me a single creation scientist, J C? A rather simple request, no? Your roadrunner analogy is sound - you're running round in circles very quickly indeed.

J C wrote: »

.......and 2Scoops then expects people to take him seriously when he makes pronouncements about Evolution!!!!!:D

What pronouncements about evil-illusion have I made? You must be having delusions. All I've ever said on this thread is that there are no existing creation scientists or creation science, for that matter. It's been 3 years and you haven't come up with a single example yet! Not one single example! Don't you find that odd?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by marco_polo
........Seems JC is putting commercial gain ahead

.........of the scientific advancement of his beloved Creationism.

Galvasean
Not to mention ahead of saving the souls of countless non-believers.

.....they ALL go 'hand in hand' with each other.......

.........and I have already told you ALL how you can be Saved!!!!:D:)

.......read my signature and go and be Saved!!!!

......then go and become a Creation Scientist......and help with the advancement of science!!!!:D

.......and you can even gain commercially from it......because, as the Bible says.....the worker DESERVES his wages!!!!

.......with abiding love ....J C

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

It must be frustrating to be so close and yet so far, after all, we all but one fossilized Israelite in the belly of a T-Rex away from eternal salvation.

.....I could do even BETTER.....and provide fossil evidence for the possibilty of a T-Rex in the belly of an Israelite!!!!!
.....but for the fact that the Israelites considered reptiles to be 'unclean'.....and therefore avoided them for lunch!!!!

....and while the Israelites may not have dined on T-Rex 'Fillets'.....their dogs almost certainly did!!!!:D

http://media.www.thetriangle.org/media/storage/paper689/news/2005/01/21/SciTech/Dinosaur.Fossil.Found.Inside.Mammalian.Stomach-837268.shtml

http://jurassicpark.org/mammal-that-ate-dinosaurs-for-lunch

BEEP!!!........BEEP!!!!:D:eek:

Mark Hamill

J C wrote: »

....and while the Israelites may not have dined on T-Rex 'Fillets'.....their dogs almost certainly did!!!!:D

http://media.www.thetriangle.org/media/storage/paper689/news/2005/01/21/SciTech/Dinosaur.Fossil.Found.Inside.Mammalian.Stomach-837268.shtml

http://jurassicpark.org/mammal-that-ate-dinosaurs-for-lunch

BEEP!!!........BEEP!!!!:D:eek:

You really should read the links you paste:

Chinese scientists came across 130 million year old fossils of a dog-like mammal. The stomach contents contained the fossils of a five-inch long dinosaur.

An astonishing fossil unearthed in China has overturned the accepted view about the relationship between dinosaurs and early mammals.

The specimen belongs to a primitive mammal about 130 million years old and its stomach contents show that it ate young dinosaurs called psittacosaurs.

I'm not sure how 130 million year old dog-like mammal fossils from China are supposed to bother most evolutionists. Surely 130 million year old dog-like mammal fossils from China are more of a problem for Creationists, what with being 130 million years old and all

(And by the way, road runner says MeepMeep!)

getz

can any of you tell me why the christian church-tells all of us about the virgin Mary-when in the original words in hebrew there is no such word as virgin - the meaning of the hebrew word is unmarried -the church did not introduce virgin untill the second century --also where dose the cross come from?--no mention of a cross in the bible-and the Romans crucified people on a upright pole.--the early christian symblol was fishes--i have no intension to insult anyone who is religious -but not being a religious fanatic i have a open mind

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

.......read my signature and go and be Saved!!!!

Read it. Said it. Still an atheist.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

(And by the way, road runner says MeepMeep!)

I pointed that out to her already. She accused me of pedantry and ignored my pointing out that the alteration is a good example of the evolution of language.

MrPudding

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Read it. Said it. Still an atheist.



I pointed that out to her already. She accused me of pedantry and ignored my pointing out that the alteration is a good example of the evolution of language.

You want to try puting JC on ignore. It is the in thing. You still get the intelligent responses to his mildly retarded posts, but only catch small parts of his posts in quotes.

MrP

The Mad Hatter

MrPudding wrote: »

You want to try puting JC on ignore. It is the in thing. You still get the intelligent responses to his mildly retarded posts, but only catch small parts of his posts in quotes.

MrP

Yeah, I'm considering it since she started this road-runner nonsense. But then who would I target my sarcasm at?

MrPudding

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Yeah, I'm considering it since she started this road-runner nonsense. But then who would I target my sarcasm at?

You can still make comments directed at him, you simply don't have to see the responses. Win - Win if you ask me.

MrP

The Mad Hatter

MrPudding wrote: »

You can still make comments directed at him, you simply don't have to see the responses. Win - Win if you ask me.

MrP

Good call. How do you that?

Edit: nm, got it.

Jimkel

There is no such thing as a creation scientist, because science holds creationism to be untrue. Moreover there is no such thing as religious science as it is a condradiction in terms. for something to be accepted as scientific it must be empirical, provable and measurable, religious theory's are not.. I have no doubt there are creationist philosophers, some of which I see are posting here, I have another name for them, timewasters, we all have our opinions, but I like the logical ones more I am not however an atheist or agnostic, I am quite certain of my own beliefs, and you creationists worry too much

(before anyone jumps the gun or takes offence, this is directed at the fundamentalists out there who jump the gun anyway, forget to forgive and tend to be judgemental so let this be a disclaimer to the moderates and to the extreme believers, don't bother picking holes in my post, for you aint gonna save me

J C

wrote:

2Scoops
J C, your qualifications and research history are unknown so, no, you are not 'good enough' to be considered a creation scientist.

……when you DON’T know my qualifications or research history…..how can you conclude that I am “not 'good enough' to be considered a creation scientist”??????

……could I suggest that you are letting your bias cloud your judgment!!!!!

wrote:

2Scoops
The others you have pointed to may be scientists, but they are not creation scientists. I'm not playing word games. If they are not actively engaged in creation research they can't possibly be called creation scientists.

…..I linked to many peer reviewed papers which these scientists produced on the scientific evaluation of the evidence for Creation AKA Creation Science……so they are conventional scientists actively engaged in creation research……and they are therefore CREATION SCIENTISTS……of the highest possible academic caliber and integrity…..I might also add!!!:D

wrote:

2Scoops
I submit that it is YOU that is playing word games.

…..you are doing enormous damage to your credibility by being needlessly pedantic on this issue……but let me not stand in the way of an Evolutionist wishing to eliminate whatever little bit of respect there may be left for his invalid theory!!!!!

wrote:

2Scoops
Perhaps you can explain why you think it is unfair that I call a scientist one who engages in scientific investigation, and creation science as science about Biblical creation?

…..I DON’T think that it is unfair to define a scientist as one who engages in scientific investigation, and Creation Science as the scientific investigation of Biblical Creation………
……the point that I would make, however, is that ALL of the scientists on the lists that I linked to engage in BOTH conventional scientific investigation as well as scientifically evaluating the physical evidence for creation ……..so they are validly called Creation Scientists……and their investigations are validly known as Creation Science.:eek::D

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
.......and 2Scoops then expects people to take him seriously when he makes pronouncements about Evolution!!!!

2Scoops
What pronouncements about evil-illusion have I made? You must be having delusions. All I've ever said on this thread is that there are no existing creation scientists or creation science,

……so you have NOTHING to say in defense of Evolution then…….I wouldn’t blame you……because there is NOTHING that can be said in it’s defense!!!!

……and your refusal to believe that Creation Science and Scientists EXIST……are classical examples of DENIAL…….see my responses above!!!:D

.....and BTW was your reference to 'evil-illusion'....a Freudian Slip....on your part???:eek::)

J C

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm not sure how 130 million year old dog-like mammal fossils from China are supposed to bother most evolutionists. Surely 130 million year old dog-like mammal fossils from China are more of a problem for Creationists, what with being 130 million years old and all

(And by the way, road runner says MeepMeep!)

.....the ONLY thing certain about the Chinese discovery is that a 'dog-like' MAMMAL had a small Dinosaur in it's stomach.....thereby proving that LARGE MAMMALS and Dinosaurs co-existed.....in the most intimate way!!!!!:pac::D:)

......the age of the fossil is unknown.......but it DOES indicate that while the Israelites may not have dined on T-Rex 'Fillets'.....their dogs almost certainly did!!!!!!!!!:D

Mbeep.....Mbeep......................................BEEP!!!!:D

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

You want to try puting JC on ignore. It is the in thing. You still get the intelligent responses to his mildly retarded posts, but only catch small parts of his posts in quotes.

MrP

......go into total DENIAL if you wish!!!!

.......so can we take it that you are NOW 'throwing in the towel' on Evolution????

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
.......read my signature and go and be Saved!!!!

The Mad Hatter
Read it. Said it. Still an atheist.

.......you DIDN'T BELIEVE it, when you said it ....so you are correct......you are still an Atheist!!!!