The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

MrPudding

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Good call. How do you that?

Edit: nm, got it.

See. We can tell he has posted, but we do not have to suffer the utter tripe and rubbish.

MrP

J C

Jimkel wrote: »

.......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.....

.....HOW THEN is the unfounded RELIGIOUS BELIEF that People evolved from Pondslime regarded as a 'Scientific Theory'?????

.......you argument is 'all over the shop'!!!!!!

MBEEP........MBEEP.........MBEEP!!!:D

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

See. We can tell he has posted, but we do not have to suffer the utter tripe and rubbish.

MrP

......does this make me like God to you......you KNOW I exist......but you don't read my words!!!!!:D:eek::):p

MBEEP...........MBEEP!!!:D

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

……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”??????

It's simple really: if you cannot show me any qualifications or experience in creation science, then that is insufficient for me, or anyone, to consider you a bona fide creation scientist. You may be one, but there is a complete absence of evidence to that effect. Something that so-called creation scientists seem to be quite comfortable with. :pac: Should we consider all people on the internet creation scientists until proven otherwise?! Don't be ridiculous.

J C wrote: »

…..I linked to many peer reviewed papers which these scientists produced on the scientific evaluation of the evidence for Creation AKA Creation Science……

You did no such thing. You linked to mere ESSAYS and speculation. No scientific investigations. No hypotheses tested. No SCIENCE. None, which is exactly my point. There is none! Unless you can show me some? Show me some creation science, J C. Your spectacular failure to do so in the last 3 YEARS is hilarious!

J C wrote: »

…..you are doing enormous damage to your credibility by being needlessly pedantic on this issue

You're the one being pedantic and furiously scurrying around, desperately trying to avoid the issue - where is the science J C???????? :pac::D

J C wrote: »

…..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………

So, can you show me a scientist that engages in creation science? Should be no problem to you... if any exist! Your spectacular failure to do so in the last 3 YEARS is hilarious!

Mark Hamill

J C wrote: »

.....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:)

Yes and? So what? No-one was saying they didn't live together, there was only dispute over dinosaurs evolving into mammals.
(Btw, an article that tells of something fully mammilian eating something fully dinosaur surely goes somewhat to proving dinosaurs didn't evolve into mammals, seeing as they where around at the same time; something unlikely if one evolved into the other).

J C wrote: »

......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

Em...no, the fossils where found in China (so I don't know where you are getting Isrealites from), and both articles date the fossils at 130million years old. For some reason you get away with ignoring half of the posts in this thread directed at you, but you are not going to get away with ignoring info from your own links.

J C wrote: »

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

I think from now on I will read J Cs beeps as his own censored cursing at his own completely useless posts .

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

It's simple really: if you cannot show me any qualifications or experience in creation science, then that is insufficient for me, or anyone, to consider you a bona fide creation scientist. You may be one, but there is a complete absence of evidence to that effect. Something that so-called creation scientists seem to be quite comfortable with. :pac: Should we consider all people on the internet creation scientists until proven otherwise?! Don't be ridiculous.

.......it is a fair point to say that I haven't shown you my qualifications (just LIKE everybody ELSE on the thread) and therefore you cannot know WHETHER myself (or anybody else) is a Scientist or not......and so what, anyway?????

.....IF I am not Scientist.....and 'beating the scientific pants' off Evolution......that is even MORE devastating for the Theory.....or are YOU trying hide under 'authority'......like some Midieval Monk!!!!


.........ANYWAY, you said the following ...

Quote 2Scoops
"Your qualifications and research history are unknown so, no, you are not 'good enough' to be considered a creation scientist."........

......if you DON'T KNOW my qualifications or research history HOW can you conclude ANYTHING about my scientific prowesss??

.......your statement I am not 'good enough' to be considered a creation scientist........contains some truth......because of the VERY HIGH standards set by Creation Scientists........sometimes I too ask myself how somebody like me can count myself amongst such an amazing body of talented eminent people!!!!!:D

wrote:

2Scoops
You linked to mere ESSAYS and speculation. No scientific investigations. No hypotheses tested. No SCIENCE. None, which is exactly my point. There is none! Unless you can show me some?

......the linked papers ARE peer reviewed referenced scientific papers:-

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_papers/

.....WHICH of the above papers ISN'T a peer reviewed referenced scientific paper?
......look at them and tell me.

.......and stop embarassing yourself and your fellow evolutionists by making unfounded claims about things which ANYBODY can check....like the above peer reviewed and fully referenced Creation Science papers


.....and while we are at it could YOU show me just ONE Scientific Paper which indicates that Pondslime could EVER evolve into Mankind!!!!

MBEEP..................MBEEP............MBEEP!!!!:D

wolfsbane

J C wrote: »

......does this make me like God to you......you KNOW I exist......but you don't read my words!!!!!:D:eek::):p

MBEEP...........MBEEP!!!:D

:D:D

J C

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes and? So what? No-one was saying they didn't live together, there was only dispute over dinosaurs evolving into mammals.
(Btw, an article that tells of something fully mammilian eating something fully dinosaur surely goes somewhat to proving dinosaurs didn't evolve into mammals, seeing as they where around at the same time; something unlikely if one evolved into the other).

......the point surely is that the supposed 'evolution' from Pondslime up through increasingly sophisticated creatures like Dinosaurs to EVENTUALLY produce Large Mammals and Humans is patently FALSE......and Dinosaurs WERE living alongside Mammals (including Humans).....just like Creation Science predicts......and Evolution DOESN'T predict!!!!!

....the presence of BOTH Human and Dinosuar FOOTPRINTS....in the same sediments beds is ALSO in accordance with the predictions of Creation Science .....and in contravention of Evolutionist predictions......what Evolutionists euphimistically call 'problematica'!!!!!!!!!
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/utp-upper-taylor-platform-mcfall-trail.htm
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/ryals-track.htm
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/burdick-track.htm
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/new-mexico-problematica-track.htm
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/cat-track.htm
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/turnage-patton-trail.htm

....and this is what leading evolutionists have said about evidence that Dinosaurs and Humans lived contemporaneously:-
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dino-human-coexistence-implications.htm
Ernst Mayr, Harvard has said, "Creationists have stated that humans and dinosaurs were contemporaries in time...Were this momentous statement true the names of its discoverers would thunder down the corridors of time as individuals who made one of the most outstanding discoveries of the twentieth century." (Gish-Mayr Debate, Evansville, Indiana.)
.....Where do I put my name down as the discoverer of this momentuous fact??!!!!:D
....and will I get a Nobel Prize for it????:D:eek:

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Em...no, the fossils where found in China (so I don't know where you are getting Isrealites from), and both articles date the fossils at 130million years old. For some reason you get away with ignoring half of the posts in this thread directed at you, but you are not going to get away with ignoring info from your own links.

.....HOW was it confirmed that these fossils are 130 million years old......other than in the IMAGINATIONS of the Evolutionists who found them ???

......I used the term 'Israelite' in my reply to Marco Polo's 'tongue in cheek' comment that he was:-"but one fossilized Israelite in the belly of a T-Rex away from eternal salvation".

Technically, the Ante-Diluvian people who lived alongside the Dinosaurs WEREN'T Israelites.....they were Adamites......and they populated the WHOLE World........including the area that is modern day China!!!!!

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I think from now on I will read J Cs beeps as his own censored cursing at his own completely useless posts .

....to avoid any ambiguity.....I have stopped BEEPING.....and I have started MBEEPING!!!!:D

MBEEP............MBEEP...............MBEEP!!!!:D

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

.....IF I wasn't a Scientist.....and still 'beating the scientific pants' off Evolution......that is even MORE devastating for the Theory.....or are YOU trying hide under 'authority'......like some Midieval Monk!!!!

I don't care what your qualifications may or may not be - they do not influence the credibility of your argument in either direction, because is is woefully and hilariously unsupported by any scientific data. Scientific data I have repeatedly asked you for and which you haven't provided in the last 3 YEARS! :pac:

J C wrote: »

.........ANYWAY, you said the following ...

Quote 2Scoops
"Your qualifications and research history are unknown so, no, you are not 'good enough' to be considered a creation scientist."........

......which merely shows that your bias is clouding your judgement!!!!!

How is that biased? If we don't know your qualifications and research history, how can anyone consider you a creation scientist?? Even if you are one, without evidence it's impossible to tell! What part of this position do you feel is biased? Seriously.

J C wrote: »

......the linked papers ARE peer reviewed referenced scientific papers:-

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_papers/

.....WHICH of the above papers ISN'T a peer reviewed referenced scientific paper?

They are all either non-scientific essays or unrelated to creation. You tell me which you think are good examples of creation science, and I will tell you why you're wrong. :pac:

In the meantime, I await a SINGLE EXAMPLE of either a creation scientist or creation science from you. It's been 3 years, surely you can find just one, single example?? It would be rather pathetic if you can't! :pac:

Perhaps you could start with a scientific investigation debunking evolution, even though this would not support the biblical creation story (only not directly contradict it, as you are well aware)? Can you find one? Just one will do. :pac: It's been 3 YEARS, after all.

wolfsbane

J C wrote: »

.......it is a fair point to say that I haven't shown you my qualifications (JUST LIKE everybody ELSE on the thread) and therefore you cannot know WHETHER myself (or anybody else) is a Scientist or not......and so what, actually?????

.....IF I wasn't a Scientist.....and still 'beating the scientific pants' off Evolution......that is even MORE devastating for the Theory.....or are YOU trying hide under 'authority'......like some Midieval Monk!!!!


.........ANYWAY, you said the following ...

Quote 2Scoops
"Your qualifications and research history are unknown so, no, you are not 'good enough' to be considered a creation scientist."........

......which merely shows that your bias is clouding your judgement!!!!!



......the linked papers ARE peer reviewed referenced scientific papers:-

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_papers/

.....WHICH of the above papers ISN'T a peer reviewed referenced scientific paper?
......look at them and tell me.

.......and stop embarassing yourself and your fellow evolutionists by making unfounded claims about things which ANYBODY can check....like the above peer reviewed and fully referenced Creation Science papers


.....and while we are at it could YOU show me just ONE Scientific Paper which indicates that Pondslime could EVER evolve into Mankind!!!!

MBEEP..................MBEEP............MBEEP!!!!:D

2Scoops has had me puzzled for some time with his claims that there is no creationist research, despite the links that display it. I don't know if he is just time-wasting or if he really believes his claims. If the later, I assume he can do so on the premise that creationism cannot be science, so any research article by definition must be non-science. Mental blindness caused by spiritual depravity.

But we were once just as lost as he is, and God opened our eyes:
2 Corinthians 4:6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

So your path to light and salvation, following the creationist witness to your evolutionist heart, may well be repeated for many here. May if be so.:)

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

2Scoops has had me puzzled for some time with his claims that there is no creationist research, despite the links that display it. I don't know if he is just time-wasting or if he really believes his claims. If the later, I assume he can do so on the premise that creationism cannot be science, so any research article by definition must be non-science.

Nope. Creationism can very easily be science if it involves a hypothesis, an investigation to determine the viability of that hypothesis, complete with results to support that determination. Oh, and it has to be about creationism too! If you can show one example of that to me I'll shut up forever.

Essays, my friend, are not science. They are just speculation, unsupported arguments and no data. Respectfully, I submit that you wouldn't know what science is if it slapped you in the face, even after many attempts by fellow boardsies to explain it to you. And I accept you do not claim to well-versed in science, and that's fine, which may explain why you are happy to accept a speculative, unsubstantiated essay as science. But it isn't really.

Find me ONE EXAMPLE of creation science or a creation scientist and I will shut up forever - I promise! Since it's been 3 years, I can only assume you are unable to produce this example and that there is no such thing. :pac:

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

Nope. Creationism can very easily be science if it involves a hypothesis, an investigation to determine the viability of that hypothesis, complete with results to support that determination. Oh, and it has to be about creationism too! If you can show one example of that to me I'll shut up forever.

......these linked papers are ALL peer reviewed referenced scientific papers:-

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_papers/

.......and stop embarassing yourself and your fellow evolutionists by making unfounded claims about things which ANYBODY can check....like the above peer reviewed and fully referenced Creation Science papers


.....and while we are at it you STILL HAVEN'T shown me even ONE Scientific Paper which indicates that Pondslime could EVER evolve into Mankind!!!!

MBEEP..................MBEEP............MBEEP!

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

.....these linked papers are ALL peer reviewed referenced scientific papers:-

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_papers/

.......and stop embarassing yourself and your fellow evolutionists by making unfounded claims about things which ANYBODY can check....like the above peer reviewed and fully referenced Creation Science papers

Just because they have been peer-reviewed, does not make them SCIENCE.
Just because they have references in them, does not make them SCIENCE.

Where are the scientific investigations? I'm not interested in speculative essays. Where is the science, J C? Please show one example. You still can't do it! LOL. It's been 3 years and you can't even find one! You're the one that is embarrassing him/herself. :pac::D

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

Nope. Creationism can very easily be science if it involves a hypothesis, an investigation to determine the viability of that hypothesis, complete with results to support that determination. Oh, and it has to be about creationism too! If you can show one example of that to me I'll shut up forever.

Essays, my friend, are not science. They are just speculation, unsupported arguments and no data. Respectfully, I submit that you wouldn't know what science is if it slapped you in the face, even after many attempts by fellow boardsies to explain it to you. And I accept you do not claim to well-versed in science, and that's fine, which may explain why you are happy to accept a speculative, unsubstantiated essay as science. But it isn't really.

Find me ONE EXAMPLE of creation science or a creation scientist and I will shut up forever - I promise! Since it's been 3 years, I can only assume you are unable to produce this example and that there is no such thing. :pac:

This quote and the whole paper listed below seems to me to be directly dealing with creationism, and to be doing so scientifically. That would make it creation science, and the scientists involved creation scientists:
Measurable 14C in pre-Flood organic materials fossilized in Flood strata therefore appears to represent a powerful and testable confirmation of the young earth Creation-Flood model. It was on this basis that Snelling [37-41] analyzed the 14C content of fossilized wood conventionally regarded as 14C ‘dead’ because it was derived from Tertiary, Mesozoic, and upper Paleozoic strata having conventional radioisotope ages of 40 to 250 million years. All samples were analyzed using AMS technology by a reputable commercial laboratory with some duplicate samples also tested by a specialist laboratory in a major research institute. Measurable 14C was obtained in all cases. Values ranged from 7.58+1.11 pmc for a lower Jurassic sample to 0.38+0.04 pmc for a middle Tertiary sample (corresponding to 14C ‘ages’ of 20,700+1200 to 44,700+950 years BP, respectively). The δ13C values for the samples clustered around –25‰, as expected for organic carbon in plants and wood. The 14C measured in these fossilized wood samples does not conform to a simple pattern, however, such as constant or decreasing with increasing depth in the geologic record (increasing conventional age). On the contrary, the middle Tertiary sample yielded the least 14C, while the Mesozoic and upper Paleozoic samples did not contain similar 14C levels as might be expected if these represent pre-Flood trees. The issue then of how uniformly the 14C may have been distributed in the pre-Flood world we concluded would likely be an important one. Therefore, our RATE team decided to undertake further 14C analyses on a new set of samples to address this issue as well as to confirm the remarkable 14C levels reported in the radiocarbon literature for Phanerozoic material.
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf

Just to make sure I am giving you a creation scientist, I'll pick just one of the authors of the report (I know how pedantic you guys can be):
John Baumgardner, Ph.D.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3527

The Mad Hatter

2Scoops wrote: »

Nope. Creationism can very easily be science if it involves a hypothesis, an investigation to determine the viability of that hypothesis, complete with results to support that determination. Oh, and it has to be about creationism too! If you can show one example of that to me I'll shut up forever.

Essays, my friend, are not science. They are just speculation, unsupported arguments and no data. Respectfully, I submit that you wouldn't know what science is if it slapped you in the face, even after many attempts by fellow boardsies to explain it to you. And I accept you do not claim to well-versed in science, and that's fine, which may explain why you are happy to accept a speculative, unsubstantiated essay as science. But it isn't really.

Find me ONE EXAMPLE of creation science or a creation scientist and I will shut up forever - I promise! Since it's been 3 years, I can only assume you are unable to produce this example and that there is no such thing. :pac:

By way of demonstration, here's a link to some science done on astrological claims.

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

This quote and the whole paper listed below seems to me to be directly dealing with creationism, and to be doing so scientifically. That would make it creation science, and the scientists involved creation scientists:
Measurable 14C in pre-Flood organic materials fossilized in Flood strata therefore appears to represent a powerful and testable confirmation of the young earth Creation-Flood model. It was on this basis that Snelling [37-41] analyzed the 14C content of fossilized wood conventionally regarded as 14C ‘dead’ because it was derived from Tertiary, Mesozoic, and upper Paleozoic strata having conventional radioisotope ages of 40 to 250 million years. All samples were analyzed using AMS technology by a reputable commercial laboratory with some duplicate samples also tested by a specialist laboratory in a major research institute. Measurable 14C was obtained in all cases. Values ranged from 7.58+1.11 pmc for a lower Jurassic sample to 0.38+0.04 pmc for a middle Tertiary sample (corresponding to 14C ‘ages’ of 20,700+1200 to 44,700+950 years BP, respectively). The δ13C values for the samples clustered around –25‰, as expected for organic carbon in plants and wood. The 14C measured in these fossilized wood samples does not conform to a simple pattern, however, such as constant or decreasing with increasing depth in the geologic record (increasing conventional age). On the contrary, the middle Tertiary sample yielded the least 14C, while the Mesozoic and upper Paleozoic samples did not contain similar 14C levels as might be expected if these represent pre-Flood trees. The issue then of how uniformly the 14C may have been distributed in the pre-Flood world we concluded would likely be an important one. Therefore, our RATE team decided to undertake further 14C analyses on a new set of samples to address this issue as well as to confirm the remarkable 14C levels reported in the radiocarbon literature for Phanerozoic material.
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf

Just to make sure I am giving you a creation scientist, I'll pick just one of the authors of the report (I know how pedantic you guys can be):
John Baumgardner, Ph.D.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3527

This is why it is not science:

"Upon realizing that Noah's Flood involved a planetary-scale tectonic catastrophe, he left Campus Crusade to begin a Ph.D. program in geophysics at UCLA in order to obtain the expertise and credentials to address the problem of the mechanism of the Genesis Flood at a professional scientific level."

Drawing your conclusions before you have even studied the subject is so far away from science it is laughable.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

This quote and the whole paper listed below seems to me to be directly dealing with creationism, and to be doing so scientifically. That would make it creation science, and the scientists involved creation scientists:
Measurable 14C in pre-Flood organic materials fossilized in Flood strata therefore appears to represent a powerful and testable confirmation of the young earth Creation-Flood model. It was on this basis that Snelling [37-41] analyzed the 14C content of fossilized wood conventionally regarded as 14C ‘dead’ because it was derived from Tertiary, Mesozoic, and upper Paleozoic strata having conventional radioisotope ages of 40 to 250 million years. All samples were analyzed using AMS technology by a reputable commercial laboratory with some duplicate samples also tested by a specialist laboratory in a major research institute. Measurable 14C was obtained in all cases. Values ranged from 7.58+1.11 pmc for a lower Jurassic sample to 0.38+0.04 pmc for a middle Tertiary sample (corresponding to 14C ‘ages’ of 20,700+1200 to 44,700+950 years BP, respectively). The δ13C values for the samples clustered around –25‰, as expected for organic carbon in plants and wood. The 14C measured in these fossilized wood samples does not conform to a simple pattern, however, such as constant or decreasing with increasing depth in the geologic record (increasing conventional age). On the contrary, the middle Tertiary sample yielded the least 14C, while the Mesozoic and upper Paleozoic samples did not contain similar 14C levels as might be expected if these represent pre-Flood trees. The issue then of how uniformly the 14C may have been distributed in the pre-Flood world we concluded would likely be an important one. Therefore, our RATE team decided to undertake further 14C analyses on a new set of samples to address this issue as well as to confirm the remarkable 14C levels reported in the radiocarbon literature for Phanerozoic material.
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf

The limitations of 14C are widely known and this investigation has nothing to do with Creation. So, while I accept that this science of sorts (measured 14c in samples), it says nothing about the age of the Earth or Biblical creationism.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Just to make sure I am giving you a creation scientist, I'll pick just one of the authors of the report (I know how pedantic you guys can be):
John Baumgardner, Ph.D.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3527

A scientist, perhaps (albeit a bad one, given his unsupported conclusions from the 14C data); a creation journalist, certainly; a creation scientist, no.

Is that the best you can do? I want creation science, a creation scientist, or at the very least an investigation debunking evolution. Can you do it? :pac:

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

Just because they have been peer-reviewed, does not make them SCIENCE.
Just because they have references in them, does not make them SCIENCE.

....so you believe that unless they contain the magic words "muck turned into Man".....they don't 'qualify' as Science!!!!:D

.......I am even becoming embarassed for YOU....at this stage!!!:D

....I have linked to over FORTY Creation Science papers....and you STILL HAVEN'T shown me even ONE Scientific Paper which indicates that Pondslime could EVER evolve into Mankind!!!!:eek::D

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

....so you believe that unless they contain the magic words "muck turned into Man".....they don't 'qualify' as Science!!!!:D

Sorry to repeat myself, but here is what I wrote just a few posts back:

Nope. Creationism can very easily be science if it involves a hypothesis, an investigation to determine the viability of that hypothesis, complete with results to support that determination. Oh, and it has to be about creationism too! If you can show one example of that to me I'll shut up forever.

And I am embarrassed for you, my friend, given your devastating failure to find even a single example of creation science or a creation scientist EVEN AFTER 3 YEARS! For shame!

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

....so you believe that unless they contain the magic words "muck turned into Man".....they don't 'qualify' as Science!!!!:D

.......I am even becoming embarassed for YOU....at this stage!!!:D

What science is has been defined for you already (strange considering you claim to be a scientist)

Science is the testing and refining of falsifiable models.

Creationism does not have this nor do they seem particularly interested in having it. The biggest problem is that supernatural magic cannot be modeled

You have attempted to get around this before by stating that that isn't actually what science is, to you science is apparently looking at stuff and drawing conclusions as to what happened based on guestimates.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

....so you believe that unless they contain the magic words "muck turned into Man".....they don't 'qualify' as Science!!!!:D

.......I am even becoming embarassed for YOU....at this stage!!!:D

Er...according to Google, you're pretty much the only person who's ever used those words. Except someone saying that only creationists claim that that's what happened. Sounds pretty much right...

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

....I have linked to over FORTY Creation Science papers....

You've done no such thing! But perhaps you think you have, given that your definition of science involves only 1) peer-review and 2) references. :rolleyes:

By that rationale, a peer-reviewed, fully-referenced comic book would be science. How embarrassing for you! :rolleyes:

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

You've done no such thing! But perhaps you think you have, given that your definition of science involves only 1) peer-review and 2) references.

.........I have linked to over FORTY Creation Science papers....go and read them......
.......and you STILL HAVEN'T shown me even ONE Scientific Paper which indicates that Pondslime could EVER evolve into Mankind!!!!

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

.........I have linked to over FORTY Creation Science papers.... go and read them

No. You have linked to exactly NONE! Even though you've had 3 YEARS to find one! I read them - they're not creation science.

J C wrote: »

and you STILL HAVEN'T shown me even ONE Scientific Paper which indicates that Pondslime could EVER evolve into Mankind!!!!

I'm only interested in whether or not creation science exists. In the last 3 YEARS your inability to produce a single example can only be described as an abject failure. :pac:

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

Just to make sure I am giving you a creation scientist, I'll pick just one of the authors of the report (I know how pedantic you guys can be):
John Baumgardner, Ph.D.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3527

Also this is a thread where he gets owned when he comes out to play with a real scientist. It is clear why you lot have to make up your own journals.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=103916

MrPudding

2Scoops wrote: »

Sorry to repeat myself, but here is what I wrote just a few posts back:

Nope. Creationism can very easily be science if it involves a hypothesis, an investigation to determine the viability of that hypothesis, complete with results to support that determination. Oh, and it has to be about creationism too! If you can show one example of that to me I'll shut up forever.

And I am embarrassed for you, my friend, given your devastating failure to find even a single example of creation science or a creation scientist EVEN AFTER 3 YEARS! For shame!

Do you think he is a WUM? Surely it is not possible for a person to be so devastatingly stupid to believe this crap? Is it possible that over a period of three years a person can be shown the same simple concepts over and over and over and over again, and just not yet them? For example what science is.

Is it possible that they can have statements they make corrected over and over and over again showing that assertions they make are simply not true and they are using terms or concepts that are simply not correct?

Is it possible that they can be asked the same questions or be asked for the same information over and over and over again, but simply ignore them or use stupid sexual or otherwise unfunny comment to try to deflect from the fact they simply don't have the answers?

Why do they insist on having partial quotes in their signatures even after being told over and over and over again that if they simply added the next couple of lines it is clear that the point of the quote is exactly the opposite of the point they are trying to make?

Why are they allowed, over a period of years, to continue to use misleading terminology having been repeatedly told it is misleading and is effectively intellectual dishonesty? Why are they allowed, again over a period of years, to continually make assertions and claims and then repeatedly fail to provide to provide evidence when asked.

Either they are WUMs of the highest order and deserve an award of some sort in recognition of the amazing wind up job or there is something odd going on. Some kind of christian mod plot / conspiracy where they are allowed to get away with this kind of thing. Either that or they are retarded and the mods know this and give they a lot of leeway.

MrP

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

.........I have linked to over FORTY Creation Science papers....go and read them......
.......and you STILL HAVEN'T shown me even ONE Scientific Paper which indicates that Pondslime could EVER evolve into Mankind!!!!

Haven't finished that one just yet we are still working on it, do bear in mind that it has to cover approximately 1,642,499,999,994 more days than your version so I hope you can forgive the delay.

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

This is why it is not science:

"Upon realizing that Noah's Flood involved a planetary-scale tectonic catastrophe, he left Campus Crusade to begin a Ph.D. program in geophysics at UCLA in order to obtain the expertise and credentials to address the problem of the mechanism of the Genesis Flood at a professional scientific level."

.....and what is wrong with that......it is a lot less bizzarre than somebody who thought that they were a 'monkeys cousin' going off to study the supposed spontaneity of Pondslime.......and not coming up with even ONE scientific paper in support of their belief!!!!!:D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
.........I have linked to over FORTY Creation Science papers....go and read them......
.......and you STILL HAVEN'T shown me even ONE Scientific Paper which indicates that Pondslime could EVER evolve into Mankind!!!!

marco_polo
Haven't finished that one just yet we are still working on it, do bear in mind that it has to cover approximately 1,642,499,999,994 more days than your version so I hope you can forgive the delay.

......so you admit that there ISN'T a shred of scientific evidence that 'evolution' EVER happened.....

.....progress at last!!!!

its the Evolutionists who are the WUMs!!!!:D:eek:

2Scoops

MrPudding wrote: »

Do you think he is a WUM?

I have come to believe that J C is completely sincere in his beliefs. The mental gymnastics he has to perform to reconcile them with the evidence is something I can also understand, as fantastical as they become sometimes.

I think I would be very disappointed to find out that J C is nothing more than WUM. And, as we all know, if it is more appealing and comforting, then it must be true! :pac: