Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rosenritter

New member
Someone? Please explain why you think "someone" must interfere.

You also seem to not understand physics, or at the least have never swung a ball on a string then let go. It doesn't continue to spin, it goes off in a straight line as physics predicts.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Are you being purposely dense?

----------------------------------------------------------

In case you weren't doing it on purpose, Hunter, here's some homework: please pay note to question 3.

Chapter 11 Torque and Angular Momentum

... a bola is "a swung ball on a string that is then let go" and a very prime example of the conservation of angular momentum in action.
 
Last edited:

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
By what measure are you making such a bold claim? As we've been over many times before, universities don't teach young-earth creationism nor do they require incoming students to be versed in it, no scientific organization endorses it (and every scientific organization that's gone on record has expressly rejected young-earth creationism and endorsed evolutionary biology), private scientific firms don't utilize young-earth creationism, every court case on this has ruled against creationism and declared it to be a religious belief and not science, some of the organizations you like to cite (AiG, ICR) declare up front that they operate under a framework that you agreed is anti-scientific....

So on what basis are you claiming "science confirms God's word"?
Nothing in your diatribe has anything to do with the scientific validity of an idea, which means you have no respect for the scientific method, making your question laughable.
 

Jose Fly

New member
Given that everything in your diatribe has nothing to do with the scientific validity of an idea, you show no respect for the scientific method, which makes your demand laughable.

Then on what basis can anyone claim "science supports God's word"? How are you determining what science does and doesn't support?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Another dodge by Stripe. Thanks for your time.
:darwinsm:

You roll off an anti-science diatribe and refuse to describe the scientific method properly and you accuse me of dodging?

:mock: Evolutionists.
 
Last edited:

6days

New member
JoseFly said:
on what basis are you claiming "science confirms God's word"?
This has been often answered....in many posts . Example:

Dr Luke (Gospel of Luke) was perhaps the world's greatest historian. The research Luke did is reflected in the accuracy of his account.
The Gospel of Luke besides numerous mentions of things with historical and archaeological significance also mentions;
32 countries
54 cities
9 islands.

Because of the numerous mention to countries and cities, Sir William Ramsay thought that this book would be the easiest one to disprove. He along with his archaeological team set out to Asia Minor to prove the Bible wrong. But... a funny thing happened. "Ramsay became so overwhelmed with the evidence he eventually converted to Christianity"
Ramsey wrote:
I began with a mind unfavorable to it...but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth

Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians.
http://www.bibleevidences.com/archeology.htm

Interesting how so many people say the Bible is filled with errors. Yet for many who are willing to study it with an open mind, such as Sir William Ramsay, it is inerrant
 

Jose Fly

New member
So the measure upon which you base your declaration of "science supports the Bible" is that it describes real geographic places?

Thus by the same measure one can declare "science supports the Koran".
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
So the measure upon which you base your declaration of "science supports the Bible" is that it describes real geographic places?

It's called falsifiability. If people are making stuff up, it gets exposed pretty quickly by people determined to follow the truth. When the work stands up to scrutiny, we are justified in placing it above other sources.

Thus by the same measure one can declare "science supports the Koran".
Wow. A logical fallacy that exposes your ignorance. You've outdone yourself. :chuckle:

Much of the Koran is the same as the Bible and the historicity of the Bible is not diminished because another book might also be.

Nothing you say is of any value. What you need to do is go have a nice long lie down and think through what you're trying to achieve here, 'cos none of it is advancing anything good.
 

DavisBJ

New member
Due to a confluence of factors I am going to terminate most of my participation at TOL. I need to thank Lon for inadvertently helping me come to that decision. The recent discussion with Lon dealing with Einstein prompted me to (once again) do a moderately in-depth review of Einstein’s life. Einstein realized the regime he was under in Germany was actively moving towards stifling an academic environment which it felt threatened by. When it became clear that he was powerless to halt the impending purge of both “undesirables” and academics, he opted to simply move to a new culture that was more receptive to an unfettered exchange of ideas.

I am not in any degree an Einstein, nor do I think TOL is moving towards a purge of all those who do not conform to its preferred beliefs. Nevertheless, I have spent a significant amount of my limited time at TOL, sometimes to the detriment of other studies that I should have been pursuing. And the moderators at TOL, using their quaint way of talking, have indicated they dislike me being too “disruptive.” My departure from TOL will allow me to do some seriously overdue reprioritizing, and will stop my "disruptive" participation in the TOL regime. I leave only a small legacy behind at TOL, but my 15+ years here have been quite fruitful in helping me gain a much clearer (though sad) understanding of the Creationist mindset.

Thanks to all, whether our interactions have been pleasant or not so much. Michael, thanks for the amazingly long and varied thread, and allowing me to own the thread these last few months since you passed it on to patrick jane and he passed it on to me last year. I now formally relinquish it back into your (and your many disembodied friends’) hands.
 

Jose Fly

New member
A few things...

1) I wouldn't get very wrapped up in this, or any other internet forum especially when it comes to discussions and debates about science. Nothing posted here will ever amount to anything nor will it change anything. At some point everything here will be deleted forever and never thought of again. Treat your time here accordingly.

2) Don't take seriously Lon's recent obsession with Einstein. It's just his way of compensating for a fact I pointed out to him earlier, i.e., that atheists tend to be more intelligent than theists. He struggled to respond to that and now it seems he's latched on to Einstein's views on atheists as some sort of counter.

3) If you still decide to go, I wish you all the best.
 

6days

New member
It is an exciting time to be a Christian

It is an exciting time to be a Christian

JoseFly said:
So the measure upon which you base your declaration of "science supports the Bible" is that it describes real geographic places?
You don't read well Jose.
I listed that as an EXAMPLE of how science helps confirm the truth of God's Word. I did use the word 'EXAMPLE'.

It is an exciting time for Christians as science continues to prove God's Word. Would you like more examples? As Stripe said "It's called falsifiability. If people are making stuff up, it gets exposed pretty quickly by people determined to follow the truth. When the work stands up to scrutiny, we are justified in placing it above other sources."
 

Jose Fly

New member
I listed that as an EXAMPLE of how science helps confirm the truth of God's Word. I did use the word 'EXAMPLE'.

And by the same metric "science supports the Koran".

It is an exciting time for Christians as science continues to prove God's Word.

Again, exactly how are you establishing what science has and hasn't proven?
 

6days

New member
DavisBJ said:
Due to a confluence of factors I am going to terminate most of my participation at TOL.
I'm sad... honestly. I will miss you. You and Alwight were the best at challenging others....and often politely.
DavisBJ said:
My departure from TOL will allow me to do some seriously overdue reprioritizing, and will stop my "disruptive" participation in the TOL regime. I leave only a small legacy behind at TOL, but my 15+ years here have been quite fruitful in helping me gain a much clearer (though sad) understanding of the Creationist mindset.
I hope you do pop in from time to time Davis. And.... sincere wishing you the best in all your endeavors. And....of course hoping that some day you realize the evidence does lead to our Creator and Savior.
DavisBJ said:
...allowing me to own the thread these last few months since .... I now formally relinquish it back into your ....hands.
haha :)
 

6days

New member
JoseFly said:
6days said:
I listed that as an EXAMPLE of how science helps confirm the truth of God's Word. I did use the word 'EXAMPLE'.
And by the same metric "science supports the Koran".
We could discuss if science supports the Qu'ran or not.... but that is your attempt at moving the goalposts (Its a logic fallacy). Your question was on what basis are you claiming "science confirms God's word"? Unable to argue against the example provided, you attempt to move the goalposts.

And.... you avoided the question - Would you like other examples of science helping to confirm the truth of God's Word.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top