Creation vs. Evolution

[6days]

Probing for signs of intelligence in the universe is a very valid application of science.

That Intelligence has made Himself known to us. The search for aliens is in vain.

The purported evidence of God .... is ignored, and for good reason. It is nonsense.

The evidence is ignored by many such as yourself.

For example, as was pointed out some time ago, both the Geological Society of America, and a subchapter formed by the Christian Geologists, have authored specific position statements distancing themselves from the geological babble that those of 6day’s ilk propound.

And, as was pointed out some time ago, science is about knowlege and truth.... not popular opinion. Every major university teaches evolutionism, yet it is estimated that there are tens of thousands of PhD scientists who reject common ancestry beliefs...in spite of all the indoctrination they received

…Many of the great scientists of the past were attempting, as you say, to explain real evidence. (Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, Mendel, Galileo, Kepler, Mendel, Edwards, Boyle, Pascal, Kirby, Barton, Cuvier, Stenno and many more). But, those scientists explained evidence within the framework of the Biblical creator.

Newton didn’t buy into a creation week of 6 24-hour days. Lord Kelvin didn’t buy into a young earth. Were they good Christians, and are they considered to be fathers of modern science?

Your point is missing the point. Someone was trying to justify Lamarks false beliefs by saying that least he was attempting to explain real evidence. My statement above was in response to that. My statement is correct as it stands. Modern science is the result of people who believed in the biblical Creator, not people who are secularists or deists.

…
Science, to many atheists is a game where you exclude any hypothesis that points to the Creator even when all the data seems to point that way.

But in my long dealing with numerous scientists (some atheists), I have never met any that fit that sordid description you just gave.

I think even you have defended the quote from Richard Leowontin where he says evolutionists should accept patent absurdity rather than allow a devine foot in the door?

Many evolutionists have admitted their 'sordid descriptions' of science. For example evolutionary biologist Richard Dickerson said " Science is fundamentally a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule: Rule #1: let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material Universe in terms of purely physical and material causes without invoking the supernatural". Sadly, thats how many now try define science... its a game not in search of truth; but instead a game trying to explain away evidence pointing to our Creator.

We start by testing His Word.
*Is there evidence of divine inspiration? Yes.

Nope

We are not surprised when you reject the evidences.

Old Testament – slaughter the kids...
New Testament – “Bring the little ones unto me, for of such …”

uh.... You fail as a theolgian. But, your attempt at finding inconsistency is noted...and is expected. (If you are interested in a good answer from a theologian to your point, I will provide links)

*Is there supporting external evidence? Yes.

There’s lots of disconfirming external evidence.
As to testing your Nomadic creation fable (aka – God’s Word) – why don’t you ask:
* Do rivers turn to blood (outside of your fable)?

No...rivers don't turn to blood.....virgins do not give birth...dead men dont rise from the tomb etc. But, is there supporting external evidences for the truth of God's Word? Absolutely!

 

[alwight]

Jose... your prediction and guarantee failed. And you aren't scoring points with your 'theology'. God is omnipotent. He can do anything within His nature. God can not tell lies. Your argument that He 'could do the exact opposite' is incorrect and not scriptural.

Seems to me 6days that you put rather more faith in an ancient and arguably entirely man-made scripture than in any divine being.

 

[Jose Fly]

Jose... your prediction and guarantee failed.

You have a very naive and ignorant understanding of how science works.

See, when you posit a means to test a hypothesis, the process doesn't end there and everyone just unquestioningly accepts your test. The first thing every scientist is going to check is to see if what you've offered really is a test of the hypothesis. If it turns out that it doesn't test the hypothesis, then you haven't answered.

From what I see, it looks like you're merely trying to score debate points by "checking the box". IOW, you're thinking that if you give any answer to the question at all, you've won and my guarantee is wrong, regardless of whether your answer is useful or meaningful. It's like if I asked "Is it raining outside" and you answered "peanut butter and jelly". Have you answered my question? Well....yeah in a very technical sense, but not in any sort of meaningful or useful way.

Similarly with this question of scientifically testing God, yes you've technically answered the question, but have you actually provided a valid way to scientifically test God, or have you merely given a "peanut butter and jelly" sort of "answer"?

Given how you're entirely focused on "your prediction and guarantee failed", plus your refusal to engage in any follow-up discussion, it seems like the latter. So be honest here. Are you really giving serious thought to providing a means to scientifically test God, or are you just hoping to check the box and score meaningless debate points?

God is omnipotent. He can do anything within His nature. God can not tell lies.

You've just contradicted yourself. The definition of "omnipotent" is "having unlimited power; able to do anything", but then you say "God cannot....".

So which is it? Is God omnipotent, or is God limited in what God can do?

Your argument that He 'could do the exact opposite' is incorrect and not scriptural.

Then God cannot be omnipotent.

 

[Jose Fly]

it is estimated that there are tens of thousands of PhD scientists who reject common ancestry beliefs.

Citation, link, or source for this estimate?

 

[Greg Jennings]

I did correct you, but you didn't accept the correction.
The whole scientific community has never believed in literal Genesis as you said.
Even in the New Testament, there were people arguing against Genesis, since it is the foundation to the gospel. Darwinism is not a new religion.... more like a new denomination of a very old religion.

The fact that you keep denying plain facts like "early geology and biology was dominated by YEC ideology," just displays your complete lack of knowledge on the subjects you pretend to be knowledgable about.

The fact that you think science is a religious cult shows that you are a conspiracy nut

 

[Greg Jennings]

The fact that you keep denying plain facts like "early geology and biology was dominated by YEC ideology," just displays your complete lack of knowledge on the subjects you pretend to be knowledgable about. And since you've admitted to never actually studying the information at any level past high school (if even then), why do you still pretend to know what you are talking about?

The fact that you think science is a religious cult shows that you are a conspiracy nut

 

[Greg Jennings]

No edits anymore I suppose

 

[Greg Jennings]

How do you investigate any belief....look for evidence and " test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good." 1 Thess. 5:21

The Bible is literally telling you to follow the evidence wherever it may lead. Put your preferences aside and look at the real world objectively, as the Bible tells you

 

[Greg Jennings]

Nose Fly thinks everything just happened this way by years of methodical changes and evolution. Fly thinks everything came from nothing.

Damn it, man. EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGIN OF LIFE

The fact that you guys keep saying that it does gives away your lack of familiarity with the topic

 

[Greg Jennings]

Citation, link, or source for this estimate?

Don't get your hopes up.


6, you want to take this?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Reminisce

Reminisce

Dear All,

Thought I'd get the old Creation Thread opened again. Will be closing the newest Creation vs. Evolution II thread in a bit. Thanks tons!!

Michael

 

[patrick jane]

Dear All,

Thought I'd get the old Creation Thread opened again. Will be closing the newest Creation vs. Evolution II thread in a bit. Thanks tons!!

Michael

No Mike, don't do it. It's over

 

[ok doser]

it's never over! :banana:

 

[DavisBJ]

No Mike, don't do it. It's over

This is my thread anyway. Remember, Michael gave it to you, and you to me. I declare it open.

 

[patrick jane]

This is my thread anyway. Remember, Michael gave it to you, and you to me. I declare it open.

That's right, it is your thread :chuckle:

 

[MichaelCadry]

That's right, it is your thread :chuckle:

The THREAD Belongs to Me!! Ask Knight or Sherman!!

You like to make trouble, don't you patrick jane?!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

The THREAD Belongs to Me!! Ask Knight or Sherman!!

You like to make trouble, don't you patrick jane?!

Michael

Not just patrick jane, but also OK Doser, and especially DavisBJ!!

Michael

 

[Sherman]

​I am not Grandma Lucy, but let me know of anyone is real problematic in this thread. I have another weapon in my arsenal--thread ban, where I can remove troublemakers from the thread.

 

[patrick jane]

​I am not Grandma Lucy, but let me know of anyone is real problematic in this thread. I have another weapon in my arsenal--thread ban, where I can remove troublemakers from the thread.

I guess Mike couldn't tell I was kidding, of course it's Michael's thread, nothing can change that. I was just funnin' Michael, don't take it so serious. If you want me banned from your threads just tell sherman, I have no trouble with that

 

[Sherman]

​I am usually noticed via PM if there is serious troll in the thread. I haven't gotten that PM.