Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
-
-
-
Very interesting ... it neatly summarises the whole Evolution issue ... and why `moleules to man` evolution could never happen ... even in a billion billion years!!:)
I particularly enjoyed the comparison of Materialistic Evolution to a dog with a hammer attached to his wagging tail being expected to construct a dog house ... it's a good illustration of capacity being required ... but not present ... in both the case of evolution and the dog!!!!:)
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
On the issue of the persecution of evolution dissenters I came across this interesting book by Dr John C Lennox, a professor of mathematics and a fellow in the philosophy of science at Oxford University.
He has selelected the following epitaph for his professional grave should the worst come about as a result of his going public in his dissent from Darwinism and his debunking of the unfounded idea that pondslime can spontaneously grow legs and walk ... if given enough time
:-
Here lies the body of John Lennox.
You ask me why he’s in this box?
He died of something worse than pox, On Darwinism – heterodox.:)
... and you can read this review of his book 'God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?'
http://creation.com/review-lennox-gods-undertaker
... it's not just Creationists who risk professional 'life and limb' by going public with their reservations about the Darwinist belief system!!!!:eek:
... it also applies to evolutionists who 'waver' in their undying love for the idea that they are 'advanced pondkind' ... with (billions of) added mistakes!!!:eek:0 -
On the issue of the persecution of evolution dissenters I came across this interesting book by Dr John C Lennox, a professor of mathematics and a fellow in the philosophy of science at Oxford University.
He has selelected the following epitaph for his professional grave should the worst come about as a result of his going public in his dissent from Darwinism and his debunking of the unfounded idea that pondslime can spontaneously grow legs and walk ... if given enough time:-
Here lies the body of John Lennox.
You ask me why he’s in this box?
He died of something worse than pox, On Darwinism – heterodox.:)
... and you can read this review of his book 'God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?'
http://creation.com/review-lennox-gods-undertaker
... it's not just Creationists who risk professional 'life and limb' by going public with their reservations about the Darwinist belief system!!!!:eek:
... it also applies to evolutionists who 'waver' in their undying love for the idea that they are 'advanced pondkind' ... with (billions of) added mistakes!!!:eek:
I've read his book. Very good, and very well written. I really like John Lennox, he doesn't mince his words. In his book he goes into all the so called scientific theories that supposedly have buried God and shows that the idea that they have buried God is a myth itself, if anything it is more rational to believe in God today simply because of the findings of science than ever before. Plus he shows in the early days of modern science how the world view mindset of Christianity actually played a pivotal role in how we do science today. In fact we would not have the scientific method without Christianity. Christianity assumes that there is a Creator and by assuming that science can proceed to try and understand the universe because the assumption is that it was created with a purpose. That is how we proceed in science because if the universe is just an accident of cosmic proportions then there is no sense in trying to find a theory of everything, which is what scientists are desperately trying to come up with today, except for some by finding a theory of everything they think that they can completely do away with the idea of God, but they fail to see that without a Creator creating the universe with a purpose there is no way that they will ever find a theory of everything.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »I've read his book. Very good, and very well written. I really like John Lennox, he doesn't mince his words. In his book he goes into all the so called scientific theories that supposedly have buried God and shows that the idea that they have buried God is a myth itself, if anything it is more rational to believe in God today simply because of the findings of science than ever before. Plus he shows in the early days of modern science how the world view mindset of Christianity actually played a pivotal role in how we do science today. In fact we would not have the scientific method without Christianity. Christianity assumes that there is a Creator and by assuming that science can proceed to try and understand the universe because the assumption is that it was created with a purpose. That is how we proceed in science because if the universe is just an accident of cosmic proportions then there is no sense in trying to find a theory of everything, which is what scientists are desperately trying to come up with today, except for some by finding a theory of everything they think that they can completely do away with the idea of God, but they fail to see that without a Creator creating the universe with a purpose there is no way that they will ever find a theory of everything.
Just a thought ... the Evolutionist so-called 'tree of life' ... is actually a 'tree of dead things' ... and is so full of gaps that it should be called the 'tree of the gaps' !!!
:pac: 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Soul Winner wrote: »And that proves/shows/is evidence for natural selection acting on random mutations to produce a human being how???
Scientist can use any given mutation or protein to map out a tree of life. Darwinian evolution (i.e. Evolution through the accumulated natural selection of random mutations) predicts a single tree of life. Scientists have tested this hypothesis, and found that, no matter what gene we use for comparison, the same tree of life is mapped out in all cases. If creationism is true, and God directly designed a set of kinds, then the fact that the same tree of life happens to emerge, independently of the genes used for comparison is a massive, massive coincidence. What's more, it is the same tree of life as the one that emerges from the both the fossil records, and the distribution of species across the globe. We have a strict prediction of natural selection, confirmed by massive amounts of data. We can be as sure of Darwinism as we can of Einstein's theory of gravity.
Here is the Hillis plot showing a significant portion of the tree of life.
http://www.zo.utexas.edu/faculty/antisense/tree.pdfOK now you're back tracking the common decent quote above. So if this doesn't even support common decent then how do you think that it shows natural selection acting on random mutations to produce a human being? Plus the cambrian explosion simply blows the tree of life idea completely out of the water. Trees start off as seeds and seeds grows in various stages to become well 'trees'. They don't go from seed to tree in one jump.
Again the tree of life argument has been totally refuted by the Cambrian explosion, you can't escape that.
Firstly, the Cambrian "explosion" is an emergence of many species over several million years. It is only an "explosion" in the geological sense.
Secondly, there are Precambrian fossils.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion#How_real_was_the_explosion.3F
"The presence of Precambrian animals somewhat dampens the "bang" of the explosion: not only was the appearance of animals gradual, but their evolutionary radiation ("diversification") may also not have been as rapid as once thought. Indeed, statistical analysis shows that the Cambrian explosion was no faster than any of the other radiations in animals' history."
Our knowledge of the fossil record has grown a great deal since the 80s, when creationists were complaining about the "explosion". It is interesting in terms of animal lineage, but is certainly not blowing anything "out of the water".Snorsville at this stage... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....
This is a childish response. If natural selection of random mutations is not true, then why would we expect to see species to be distributed throughout the globe as if it were true? Why don't we, for example, see a radial distribution from a single geographic region, where an arc containing all kinds of animals would have landed ?In very rare cases maybe but its not like its like one of the laws pf physics or one of the constants of nature. Natural Selection acting on random mutations doesn't know that its going to produce a human being. If and when it does work in nature is anyone's guess. You cannot measure when it might work or when it does work never mind when it did work which is what all of Darwinism is based upon.
Actually, mutation rates can be quite easily measured. And yes, the evolution of humans certainly wasn't inevitable (if the dinosaurs hadn't been wiped out, we wouldn't have evolved at all.) The rarity of beneficial mutations is why it took over 3 billion years for our complex brains to emerge.You look at the so called tree of life and see natural selection because that's what you've been conditioned to see. And all your attempts to make me see what you want me to see does not fly with me. I'm not seeing it, sorry. And because I'm not seeing what you see, you attack me, and accuse me of being stupid, insane or wicked (well not you specifically but others).
It is not that we see an arbitrary tree inferred from similarities in animals (which is what we would expect to see if a designer used themes or similar ideas to design life). It is that, regardless of what gene we analyse, we see the same hierarchy as we do in the fossil record, and the geographical distribution. There is no reason for this specific hierarchy to be reflected in all cases unless these modifications are inherited and preserved through natural selection.Ask Professor Richard Dawkins, is it about doing away with God or not and see what he tells you.
Listen to what he says @ 5:04 to 5:07
"I think there is something more absolute about truth than that , and I care about truth."
Something more absolute about truth? What is truth? How do we define truth?
How is this relevant to what we are discussing? We are not tendering the idea that evolution disproves God. We are explaining why evolution, regardless of your opinion of atheism, is true.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Wicknight said:
Sure. 'Expelled' gave several examples.
Expelled has been exposed as one big pile of lies and propaganda.
And I know how much you hate lies and propaganda.
The list of those featured in Expelled who are supposed to have been persecuted due to their Creationist beliefs
Richard Sternberg
Claim in Expelled: After publishing a pro-ID paper by Stephen C. Meyer Sternberg's life was ruined and he was forced to stand down as editor of the journal that published the paper and was fired from his job at the Smithsonian.
Reality: People were certainly not happy that the paper was published, but Sternberg had previously given notice that he was stepping down and did so when he was supposed to. There is zero evidence that he faced any threats of physical violence as Expelled states or that he had is professional career ruined. This is despite the fact that he had peer reviewed the paper himself, which is a clear ethical issue as he was also the editor. Sternberg claims he was fired from the Smithsonian, but it later emerged he was never a paid employee in the first place and was never dismissed, in fact he was offered a position of research council.
Guillermo Gonzalez
Claims in Expelled: Gonzalez was refused tenure at Iowa State because he had mentioned Intelligent Design. The tenure process is simply and he should have been a shoe in.
Reality: The tenure process is not simple, in the time he worked there out of the 12 professors who applied for tenure 4 were turned down, some of how had produced more research papers than Gonzaelz, who produced very little while at Iowa. Gonzaelz consistently under performed at Iowa, he raised very little funding for the college and his post-graduate students had issues with him and the completion of their studies. He was simply a Professor who peaked early and then, for what ever reason, never lived up to the potential he had shown. There is no surprise he did not get tenure.
Caroline Crocker
Claims in Expelled: By simply mentioning ID in a science class room Crocker was fired from his position
Reality
Crocker was never fired. Despite numerous complaints from her students that she had stopped teaching the normal course work and instead was teaching Intelligent Design and dismissing evolution as nonsense (ie she did not simply mention ID, but decided to devote her class to it) she completed her contract with George Mason university. Her contract was simply not renewed, though the evidence is that this was due to staffing constraints, not the numerous complaints made against her by her students. Despite Expelled claiming she was "blacklisted" she actually walked straight into another job at Northern Virginia Community College where she continued to teach ID and continued to get complains from her students.
So, tell us how you pick Creationist because they lie to you less
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that not a single thing I just said to you about Expelled being one big Creationist lie will in anyway stop you from continuing to claim that Creationists are being persecuted. That is after all a narrative you seem to particularly like, so I'm guessing reality won't stop you from hanging on to it.By Stalinism I did not mean you sent any creationist to the gulag, nor shot them in Lubyanka prison. No imprisonment nor neck-shots. Just cutting off their income, black-balling them from their career.
Yes, because that is what most people think of when someone says "Stalinism", people not having contracts renewed :rolleyes:
Face it, you were being overly hysterical for effect to try and put forward this rather ridiculous idea that Creationists are suffering systematic persecuted. This is a narrative that Creationist have grabbed on to to deflect from the question of why the scientific community ignores them. It couldn't possibly be because they are doing bad science, must be a grand conspiracy of persecution! Lets see if we can get any people who are annoyed at their employers to lie on camera!
Which makes your claim that you pick Creationism over science because they are more honest rather ridiculous. You pick Creationism over science because it agrees with your theology, and you don't care if they lie about it.They are so upset because evolution sheltered them from facing up to the fact they have an immortal soul, one that is going to hell for eternity if they do not change their ways.
Yeah they don't seem all that upset though, do they.
The ones who seem upset are the Creationists, making up false claims of persecution and spending millions of dollars on movies and websites complaining about this.0 -
I'm just putting myself in the place of the unbeliever. I know how it is, for I once was one. What credible alternative suggests itself to the mind of a thinking man if evolution is ruled out?
A "thinking" man... umm, well not Creationism obviously ... how about Larmarickism? Or perhaps Curiver catastrophism? Or panspermia? Don't forget since you have thrown out most of science we can't say any of those things don't happen, since you use the science you reject to say they don't happen.
Any of those perhaps? No? Has to be Biblical Creationism?That is, if purely natural causes are ruled out.
How have you ruled out purely natural causes again?Intelligent Creation is the only thing I can think of.
That dear Wolfsbane is something of which I've absolutely no doubt what so ever. 0 -
Certainly, someone is lying. I'm close to my monthly limit on broadband, so I can't do further checks on the individual cases you raised until next month begins - but I appreciate the specific details and will check what I can.Expelled has been exposed as one big pile of lies and propaganda.
And I know how much you hate lies and propaganda.
The list of those featured in Expelled who are supposed to have been persecuted due to their Creationist beliefs
Richard Sternberg
Claim in Expelled: After publishing a pro-ID paper by Stephen C. Meyer Sternberg's life was ruined and he was forced to stand down as editor of the journal that published the paper and was fired from his job at the Smithsonian.
Reality: People were certainly not happy that the paper was published, but Sternberg had previously given notice that he was stepping down and did so when he was supposed to. There is zero evidence that he faced any threats of physical violence as Expelled states or that he had is professional career ruined. This is despite the fact that he had peer reviewed the paper himself, which is a clear ethical issue as he was also the editor. Sternberg claims he was fired from the Smithsonian, but it later emerged he was never a paid employee in the first place and was never dismissed, in fact he was offered a position of research council.
Guillermo Gonzalez
Claims in Expelled: Gonzalez was refused tenure at Iowa State because he had mentioned Intelligent Design. The tenure process is simply and he should have been a shoe in.
Reality: The tenure process is not simple, in the time he worked there out of the 12 professors who applied for tenure 4 were turned down, some of how had produced more research papers than Gonzaelz, who produced very little while at Iowa. Gonzaelz consistently under performed at Iowa, he raised very little funding for the college and his post-graduate students had issues with him and the completion of their studies. He was simply a Professor who peaked early and then, for what ever reason, never lived up to the potential he had shown. There is no surprise he did not get tenure.
Caroline Crocker
Claims in Expelled: By simply mentioning ID in a science class room Crocker was fired from his position
Reality
Crocker was never fired. Despite numerous complaints from her students that she had stopped teaching the normal course work and instead was teaching Intelligent Design and dismissing evolution as nonsense (ie she did not simply mention ID, but decided to devote her class to it) she completed her contract with George Mason university. Her contract was simply not renewed, though the evidence is that this was due to staffing constraints, not the numerous complaints made against her by her students. Despite Expelled claiming she was "blacklisted" she actually walked straight into another job at Northern Virginia Community College where she continued to teach ID and continued to get complains from her students.
So, tell us how you pick Creationist because they lie to you less
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that not a single thing I just said to you about Expelled being one big Creationist lie will in anyway stop you from continuing to claim that Creationists are being persecuted. That is after all a narrative you seem to particularly like, so I'm guessing reality won't stop you from hanging on to it.
Yes, because that is what most people think of when someone says "Stalinism", people not having contracts renewed :rolleyes:
Face it, you were being overly hysterical for effect to try and put forward this rather ridiculous idea that Creationists are suffering systematic persecuted. This is a narrative that Creationist have grabbed on to to deflect from the question of why the scientific community ignores them. It couldn't possibly be because they are doing bad science, must be a grand conspiracy of persecution! Lets see if we can get any people who are annoyed at their employers to lie on camera!
Which makes your claim that you pick Creationism over science because they are more honest rather ridiculous. You pick Creationism over science because it agrees with your theology, and you don't care if they lie about it.
Yeah they don't seem all that upset though, do they.
The ones who seem upset are the Creationists, making up false claims of persecution and spending millions of dollars on movies and websites complaining about this.
If the 'Expelled' stuff is false, that would remove a big part of the 'persecution' case for creationists. Reiss would be a different matter. As would any demands by scientists that creationists be removed from office because of their views. I'll check that out too, DV.
****************************************************************************
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,0 -
I'm sorry if I failed to join the dots. I used 'evolution' to cover all non-supernatural explanations. Cuvier (I assume you meant) seems to be naturalist in origins, as does Lamarck.A "thinking" man... umm, well not Creationism obviously ... how about Larmarickism? Or perhaps Curiver catastrophism? Or panspermia? Don't forget since you have thrown out most of science we can't say any of those things don't happen, since you use the science you reject to say they don't happen.
Any of those perhaps? No? Has to be Biblical Creationism?
How have you ruled out purely natural causes again?
That dear Wolfsbane is something of which I've absolutely no doubt what so ever.
My point is that atheists would be happy with ANY non-supernatural explanation being proved true. But seeing they regard Cuvier and Lamarck as debunked, if all forms of evolution are discredited, that opens the door to some form of creationism. And THAT causes the nightmare of personal accountability to the Creator. (Panspermia would only remove the cause of origin back one step - the choice would still be creation or naturalistic evolution).
**********************************************************
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
0 -
I'm sorry if I failed to join the dots. I used 'evolution' to cover all non-supernatural explanations.
Why exactly?
If you use "evolution" to mean any explanation other than the Christian notion of direct creation by God, then obviously the only alternative to "evolution" is Creationism. But that with be a rather ridiculous notion of "evolution".
It is like saying the only alternative to General Relativity is God moving things around because you are defining "General Relativity" to mean any theory in physics that doesn't mention God physically moving things around.My point is that atheists would be happy with ANY non-supernatural explanation being proved true.
Well since a supernatural explanation is untestable and thus unknowable, if anyone wants to have a model to work with that allows them to do useful things it requires a non-supernatural model.
It is very difficult to do something like medicine or build a space ship with a scientific model that requires everyone once and a while a miracle takes place in order for the model to be accurate, since those are some what difficult to predictBut seeing they regard Cuvier and Lamarck as debunked, if all forms of evolution are discredited, that opens the door to some form of creationism.
Since in your theoretical proposal modern science has been thrown out the window, so too has the debunking of Cuvier and Lamarck, and any other theory that was doing the rounds in Darwins time.
They were debunked with the same science that supports Darwinian evolution. Since you do not accept this science you also cannot accept the debunking of these theories.
So rather than the rejection of evolution narrowing down to just Creationism, it does in fact open up a wealth of alternative theories. Though quite how you are going to sort them without modern science I'm not sure.
According to your religion personal accountability to the Creator is based on sin, not on accepting or rejecting evolutionary biology, as the wealth of Christians, Muslims and Jews who accept evolutionary biology demonstrate.And THAT causes the nightmare of personal accountability to the Creator.
If Christianity is true an atheist will be no less accountable to the creator because he has accepted evolution than you will be for not.
You rejecting evolution will do nothing more to guarantee your position in heaven. You are a sinner along with everyone else, and you are bound for hell unless you accept Jesus' offer of salvation. Whether you accept evolution or not is irrelevant to any of that.
You are contradicting standard Christian doctrine if you think otherwise.(Panspermia would only remove the cause of origin back one step - the choice would still be creation or naturalistic evolution).
Darwinian evolution (or any evolution) is not the only possible natural explanation for life, thus disproving evolution will not remove natural explanations.
Disproving all natural explanations possible on Earth will not remove all natural explanations if panspermia is possible, given that we do not know what conditions are like in the rest of the universe and thus cannot compile a set of all natural explanations.
I'm afraid you are a long way away from Creationism winning by default, if that was your goal.0 -
Wicknight said:
No, I was accepting the fact that science - the science agreed by both creationist and evolutionist - has overthrown the competing naturalist theories, so if it falls, supernaturalism must be the alternative even in the mind of the atheist.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm sorry if I failed to join the dots. I used 'evolution' to cover all non-supernatural explanations.
Why exactly?
If you use "evolution" to mean any explanation other than the Christian notion of direct creation by God, then obviously the only alternative to "evolution" is Creationism. But that with be a rather ridiculous notion of "evolution".
It is like saying the only alternative to General Relativity is God moving things around because you are defining "General Relativity" to mean any theory in physics that doesn't mention God physically moving things around.
We are talking about ORIGINS, Wickie, not OPERATIONS. Creationism and Evolutionism both hold to natural operations.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
My point is that atheists would be happy with ANY non-supernatural explanation being proved true.
Well since a supernatural explanation is untestable and thus unknowable, if anyone wants to have a model to work with that allows them to do useful things it requires a non-supernatural model.
It is very difficult to do something like medicine or build a space ship with a scientific model that requires everyone once and a while a miracle takes place in order for the model to be accurate, since those are some what difficult to predict
Certainly, having evolution debunked would warrant a brief re-examination of previous debunked theories - but with the same result. Creationists do accept modern science - just not some of the speculation and interpretation that has emerged from it - evolution being the major example.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But seeing they regard Cuvier and Lamarck as debunked, if all forms of evolution are discredited, that opens the door to some form of creationism.
Since in your theoretical proposal modern science has been thrown out the window, so too has the debunking of Cuvier and Lamarck, and any other theory that was doing the rounds in Darwins time.
They were debunked with the same science that supports Darwinian evolution. Since you do not accept this science you also cannot accept the debunking of these theories.
So rather than the rejection of evolution narrowing down to just Creationism, it does in fact open up a wealth of alternative theories. Though quite how you are going to sort them without modern science I'm not sure.
True. But that is not my point. It is not the actuality of the atheist's accountability, but their recognition of that accountability - that is where the nightmare begins!Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
And THAT causes the nightmare of personal accountability to the Creator.
According to your religion personal accountability to the Creator is based on sin, not on accepting or rejecting evolutionary biology, as the wealth of Christians, Muslims and Jews who accept evolutionary biology demonstrate.
If Christianity is true an atheist will be no less accountable to the creator because he has accepted evolution than you will be for not.
That indeed is my position. Always good to hear you teach gospel truth, my friend.You rejecting evolution will do nothing more to guarantee your position in heaven. You are a sinner along with everyone else, and you are bound for hell unless you accept Jesus' offer of salvation. Whether you accept evolution or not is irrelevant to any of that.
You are contradicting standard Christian doctrine if you think otherwise.
Well, I try to keep to imaginable probabilities. If this 'apparently fine-tuned' earth is incapable of forming life naturally, it would be a very desperate hope the atheist would have in appealing to an unimaginable better scenario elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
(Panspermia would only remove the cause of origin back one step - the choice would still be creation or naturalistic evolution).
Darwinian evolution (or any evolution) is not the only possible natural explanation for life, thus disproving evolution will not remove natural explanations.
Disproving all natural explanations possible on Earth will not remove all natural explanations if panspermia is possible, given that we do not know what conditions are like in the rest of the universe and thus cannot compile a set of all natural explanations.
I'm afraid you are a long way away from Creationism winning by default, if that was your goal.
*******************************************************************
Genesis 6:13 And God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.0 -
Wicknight said:
No, I was accepting the fact that science - the science agreed by both creationist and evolutionist - has overthrown the competing naturalist theories, so if it falls, supernaturalism must be the alternative even in the mind of the atheist.
Science has over thrown all naturalistic explanations? ALL OF THEM? Even the ones we haven't thought of yet?
Can you explain how that works?We are talking about ORIGINS, Wickie, not OPERATIONS. Creationism and Evolutionism both hold to natural operations.
If we are talking science we are talking operations. Science is methodology for modelling processes and testing to see if these models are accurate.
For science to model the origin of anything it has to model the operation that cause that thing to be.
You stated that atheists would be happy with any non-supernatural explanation of the operation that causes the origin of life. That is correct, though for reasons you seem not to understand.
It is correct because the alternative is that the operation cannot be known and thus cannot be understood. And since atheists tend to like understanding things, we prefer it the thing is knowable. It may not be, which would be a same, but by definition we will never know this either.Certainly, having evolution debunked would warrant a brief re-examination of previous debunked theories - but with the same result.
You see pretty confident of that? Can I ask what do you base this confidence on? Biblical revelation perhaps?Creationists do accept modern science - just not some of the speculation and interpretation that has emerged from it - evolution being the major example.
Along with astrophysics, atomic theory, radioactive decay theory, general relativity, big bang theory, expanding universe theory. Basically anything within the last 150 years that contradicts their particular interpretation of the Bible. Which is most things. Hence they reject most science.
One therefore cannot use these rejected theories to justify rejecting other theories without being hypocritical.
Which makes me wonder why you stated that after a "brief" period we could reject all other naturalistic theories of the origin of life. Using what, exactly?True. But that is not my point. It is not the actuality of the atheist's accountability, but their recognition of that accountability - that is where the nightmare begins!
If Christianity is right they are sinners. They will face hell for that sin. Again recognising or rejecting evolutionary theory won't change that. God has never said all those who are saved are those who reject Darwinian theory of evolution. That would have certainly made an interesting 11th Commandment though.
The only way, according to Christianity, to save oneself is through accepting the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. You will be no more saved by doing this and rejecting evolutionary biology.
I don't know where you have been getting your theology from Wolfsbane, but if it is from Creationist website stating that rejection of evolution is necessary to save oneself from accountability for sins, that would be a rather un-Christian message.Well, I try to keep to imaginable probabilities.
Do you think 100 years ago they could imagine quantum mechanics (I know you reject quantum theory, but assume for a minute you don't). Limiting what you think can happen to what you can only imagine limits reality to what you can imagine. And it shouldn't have to be pointed out to you that reality has no requirement to be limited by your imagination.If this 'apparently fine-tuned' earth is incapable of forming life naturally, it would be a very desperate hope the atheist would have in appealing to an unimaginable better scenario elsewhere.
That is some what of an irrelevant proposition since we have no idea where the Earth falls in terms of places that could produce life externally to Earth. The only science so far that does actually do this, you reject because it contradicts the Bible. So you can't use that to say anything about the properties of Earth in relation to the rest of the universe.
You claimed that if we ruled out life arriving naturally on Earth we could rule out all naturalistic explanations.
You seem to be just assuming the answer you want. Which is odd because you complain about others doing that. 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMqTEfeqvmM
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement