Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2019 10:34:36 GMT -5
As shown plenty of times on this board the practice of calling the kettle black that is performed routinely by 2x2s throughout 2x2 history plays out once again in the instance of some on here pointing up creation as the pseudoscience when evolution fits the definition of “pseudoscience” to a “T.” The accusation made against creation is AT BEST drawing a distinction where there is no difference, another illogical practice of 2x2ism historically. Here is Dr. Lisle's reply – by all means, if creation is pseudoscience to you and you want to remain wilfully ignorant on that point, don't read it. Science vs. Pseudoscience by Dr. Lisle | Jun 7, 2019 | Apologetics, Origins | biblicalscienceinstitute.com/apologetics/science-vs-pseudoscience/
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 2, 2019 10:42:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 2, 2019 16:37:15 GMT -5
As shown plenty of times on this board the practice of calling the kettle black that is performed routinely by 2x2s throughout 2x2 history plays out once again in the instance of some on here pointing up creation as the pseudoscience when evolution fits the definition of “pseudoscience” to a “T.” The accusation made against creation is AT BEST drawing a distinction where there is no difference, another illogical practice of 2x2ism historically. Here is Dr. Lisle's reply – by all means, if creation is pseudoscience to you and you want to remain wilfully ignorant on that point, don't read it. Science vs. Pseudoscience by Dr. Lisle | Jun 7, 2019 | Apologetics, Origins | biblicalscienceinstitute.com/apologetics/science-vs-pseudoscience/Once again we see the deception in Lisle's presentation. It starts well enough with a definition of science. I am a huge supporter of defining terms before the discussion. Defining key terms is always helpful in any rational discussion. The Merriam-Webster dictionary lists a number of definitions of science, but the one most relevant to our discussion involves science as a discipline: “knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.” The scientific method involves observation and experimentation. Similarly, dictionary.com defines science as “systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.” And then the train comes off the track:h First, knowledge is a belief – a positive mental attitude toward a proposition. You believe something when you accept it as true. When a friend states something that you believe to be true, you may find yourself nodding “yes” or saying to yourself, “that’s right.” Obviously, to know something you must also believe it. It would make no sense to say, “I know that the moon is round, but I do not believe it.” Clearly, when you know something, you believe it to be true. And why didn't Lisle define knowledge? Because he intends to give it a special meaning. knowledge: Facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. One relies on facts, information, skills, etc. The other is simply accepting something to be true. By distorting terms being used Lisle continues toward his conclusion that: What then are we to make of the term ‘creation science?’ Doesn’t the term imply that creation is a scientific conclusion? Not at all. Rather, ‘creation science’ refers to the application of the scientific method to the modern world in light of the fact that biblical creation is true.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 2, 2019 17:22:40 GMT -5
I don't think it's bad science to begin with a premise God created. It's likely the premise would lead to more truth than 'the world just happened'.
What if extraterrestrial human beings (imagine that) were to make contact with us and admitted they were as perplexed over origins as we are? Let's say they were politically and technologically more settled than we are. I say settled as opposed to advanced, because all that's called advancement isn't necessarily progress.
What would we conclude about ourselves if our destiny dropped in on us, literally a visit from PITS. Would a random theory of the universe or a planned one most explain the coincidence of a developing world (ours) and an established one, one that came into it's own, if there is such a thing.
When I look at the beautiful city at night, I dream.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2019 19:20:01 GMT -5
It starts out before defining its terms, “Evolutionists sometimes call biblical creation a pseudoscience. Is such a claim defensible? Could it be that evolution is in fact pseudoscience while creation makes science possible? “
And it is no surprise that an Evolutionist who has made the charge against creation would ignore that starting point. And of course, such an Evolutionist would find it EASIEST to pick on the grayest area plausible in the whole article, while doing diddly to refute any of the article whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 2, 2019 22:19:13 GMT -5
It starts out before defining its terms, “Evolutionists sometimes call biblical creation a pseudoscience. Is such a claim defensible? Could it be that evolution is in fact pseudoscience while creation makes science possible? “ And it is no surprise that an Evolutionist who has made the charge against creation would ignore that starting point. And of course, such an Evolutionist would find it EASIEST to pick on the grayest area plausible in the whole article, while doing diddly to refute any of the article whatsoever. When the starting definitions are misused there is little point in riding the train any longer than neccessary. Lisle is wrong from the start and he knows it. If he thought his ASC explanation was at all valid he would submit it for peer review in the type of journals in which he published his early works or would have done the research he claimed wouyld prove his point a decade ago. He is not stupid and knows the reception his theory would get if closely examined.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2019 23:19:00 GMT -5
I didn't see anyone get on your train let alone ride it -- and Lisle didn't present any "train" for anyone to ride. So your 2x2 type wit has a flat tire - which is really something for a "train."And you have yet to point out anything that Lisle was "wrong" about save perhaps that you have lots of knowwledge that you apparently don't believe. And so far as I can see Lisle does a first rate ABC explanation that is not only valid, but all logical. So far you haven't approached either - all you have done is call the kettle black, as usual.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2019 23:54:14 GMT -5
I didn't see anyone get on your train let alone ride it -- and Lisle didn't present any "train" for anyone to ride. So your 2x2 type wit has a flat tire - which is really something for a "train."And you have yet to point out anything that Lisle was "wrong" about save perhaps that you have lots of knowwledge that you apparently don't believe. And so far as I can see Lisle does a first rate ABC explanation that is not only valid, but all logical. So far you haven't approached either - all you have done is call the kettle black, as usual. rational is about as much a 2x2 as you are....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2019 0:53:11 GMT -5
I didn't see anyone get on your train let alone ride it -- and Lisle didn't present any "train" for anyone to ride. So your 2x2 type wit has a flat tire - which is really something for a "train."And you have yet to point out anything that Lisle was "wrong" about save perhaps that you have lots of knowwledge that you apparently don't believe. And so far as I can see Lisle does a first rate ABC explanation that is not only valid, but all logical. So far you haven't approached either - all you have done is call the kettle black, as usual. rational is about as much a 2x2 as you are.... If it waddles, swims in marshes and quacks, there is a good chance it's a duck.
|
|
|
Post by Dennis J on Sept 3, 2019 1:22:11 GMT -5
Well then, no waddling, no quacks from me, not swimming in any water, hardly look like a duck... so... not a duck. Nor a 2&2er, either despite years of indoctrination, and many fine deceptions. A counterfeit is always a counterfeit, no matter how close it resembles that which is genuine. I was sadly deceived, but not left there.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Sept 3, 2019 1:38:14 GMT -5
As shown plenty of times on this board the practice of calling the kettle black that is performed routinely by 2x2s throughout 2x2 history plays out once again in the instance of some on here pointing up creation as the pseudoscience when evolution fits the definition of “pseudoscience” to a “T.” The accusation made against creation is AT BEST drawing a distinction where there is no difference, another illogical practice of 2x2ism historically. Here is Dr. Lisle's reply – by all means, if creation is pseudoscience to you and you want to remain wilfully ignorant on that point, don't read it. Science vs. Pseudoscience by Dr. Lisle | Jun 7, 2019 | Apologetics, Origins | biblicalscienceinstitute.com/apologetics/science-vs-pseudoscience/Here's a cracker piece of pseudoscience. Notice how there was light and then later on the sun and the moon were formed. Genesis 1 New King James Version (NKJV) The History of Creation 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 Then God said, “Let there be a [c]firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great [d]lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2019 2:33:44 GMT -5
As shown plenty of times on this board the practice of calling the kettle black that is performed routinely by 2x2s throughout 2x2 history plays out once again in the instance of some on here pointing up creation as the pseudoscience when evolution fits the definition of “pseudoscience” to a “T.” The accusation made against creation is AT BEST drawing a distinction where there is no difference, another illogical practice of 2x2ism historically. Here is Dr. Lisle's reply – by all means, if creation is pseudoscience to you and you want to remain wilfully ignorant on that point, don't read it. Science vs. Pseudoscience by Dr. Lisle | Jun 7, 2019 | Apologetics, Origins | biblicalscienceinstitute.com/apologetics/science-vs-pseudoscience/Here's a cracker piece of pseudoscience. Notice how there was light and then later on the sun and the moon were formed. Genesis 1 New King James Version (NKJV) The History of Creation 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 Then God said, “Let there be a [c]firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great [d]lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.Here's yet another "cracker piece of pseudoscience" of the very same type - i.e., Abcient HISTORY, is not "science" - nor is it "pseudoscience" - its recorded HISTORY whether YOU understand it or not: 8 Oldest Recorded History in the World www.oldest.org/culture/recorded-history/3. Narmer Palette Year Recorded: c.3200 – 3000 BCE Location: Temple of Horus, Nekhen (modern-day Aswan Governate), Egypt Writing System/Language: Egyptian Hieroglyphs photo source: Wikimedia Commons The Narmer Palette is widely believed to be one of the most valuable Egyptian artifacts, but has been hard to interpret since its discovery. The palette is exquisitely crafted and still completely intact despite dating back to around 3200 – 3000 BCE. First discovered in 1898 by James Quibell and Frederick Green, the Narmer Palette was found among other ceremonial objects in the Temple of Horus in Nekhen (also called Hierakonpolis). There have been many interpretations of what the hieroglyphs on the Narmer Palette represent and there is not a single agreed upon interpretation. Archaeologists do know that the palette makes reference to Narmer, a First Dynasty king of Ancient Egypt.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Sept 3, 2019 5:13:33 GMT -5
creation? Are you all really serious about trying to sort out creation? If you can't even get agreement on when the church started and who and what Jesus was just a mere 2000 years ago how in the world are you going to sort out creation?
If one is to believe in a man named Jesus that died in 33 CE from which arose Christianity then they must be willing to examine the facts. Where does one begin? Perhaps with the early Christians? Okay but which early Christians should we examine first? The early Christians of faith or the early Christians of fact?
Peer reviewed historians of today accept that Jesus came from the north in galilee (not from Nazareth which did not even exist in the time of Jesus’s life.). But what do the Gospels claim? Do the Gospels get the facts correct?
The Gospels places his birth in Bethlehem so it matches the birthplace of King David whose descendant is supposed to occupy the throne. So what is going on here?
Let's look deeper.
The Gospels go to extraordinary length to get Jesus born in Bethlehem. The Gospel of Luke with it’s no room at the inn scenario where Luke drags Jesus’s family back to Bethlehem when they are living in Nazareth where there is no room in the inn but that is total contradicted in the Gospel of Matthew because in Matthew Jesus's family isn’t living in Nazareth because they are still living in Bethlehem.
Confused? I am, I have no idea why I even started this. Oh ya I know what this is all about, Give me a few seconds to focus.
This is because Matthew wants to bring in the fact that King Herod was still alive and how he killed the innocent. There, see, at last some clarity. So seems pretty clear Matthew sets this up so Jesus‘s family can flee to Bethlehem.
The Gospels of both Matthew and Luke places the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. Although Matthew does not explicitly state Joseph's place of origin or where he lived prior to the birth of Jesus, the account implies that the family lived in Bethlehem, and explains that they later settled in Nazareth. However, Luke 1:26–27 clearly states that Mary lived in Nazareth before the birth of Jesus, at the time of the Annunciation.
The Gospel of Luke states that Mary gave birth to Jesus and placed him in a manger “because there was no place for them in the inn", but does not say exactly where Jesus was born. The Greek word kataluma may be translated as either “inn” or “guest room”, and some scholars have speculated that Joseph and Mary may have sought to stay with relatives, rather than at an inn, only to find the house full, whereupon they resorted to the shelter of a room with a manger. This could be a place to keep the sheep within the Bethlehem area, called "Migdal Eder" ("tower of flock") as prophesied by the prophet Micah in Micah 4:8.
In the 2nd century, Justin Martyr stated that Jesus had been born in a cave outside the town, while the Proto evangelism of James described a legendary birth in a cave nearby. The Church of the Nativity inside the town, built by St. Helena, contains the cave-manger site traditionally venerated as the birthplace of Jesus, which may have originally been a site of the cult of the god Tammuz. In Contra Celsum 1.51, Origen, who from around 215 travelled throughout Palestine, wrote of the "manger of Jesus".
The Quranic birth of Jesus, like the Gospels, places the virgin birth of Jesus in Bethlehem.
So, brothers and sisters, if we can’t even sort out fact from fiction during a two hundred year period ranging back two thousand years ago, how in the world can we know what happened at the beginning of creation?
If the Gospels are unreliable where else can we look to know anything at all about this man Jesus who the majority claim is of some importance to them?
Before I go there I must take a side step into an area where many of you will feel uncertain and alienated. Namely, the collection of writings called The Dead Sea Scrolls. I ask you all to remember three things: the humble; the meek; and the poor. Have you ever seen these before anywhere? One place where you will find them is in the community scrolls. Can you think of another place where they can be found? Hint: the scrolls uses the same words to describe the community of The Righteous Teacher as the New Testament uses to describe the community of James the brother of the Lord.
Are these then the early Christian. No, not from the scriptures as we have them. However, this is the early Palestinians Christians but I very much doubt they would have called themselves Christians. The New Testament barely mentions James and his church but we should note the New Testament didn’t see them as a different church either. The only difference between them was in the hope that one day Jesus would return as the Messiah. Otherwise, James and his church were strict and pious Jews exactly as the writers of the scrolls.
In the portion of the scrolls that deal with the community that were the caretakers of the library one can find three main figures mentions: The Righteous Teacher, the Wicked Priest, and the Liar (a person who was once a member but had been kicked out.) Anyone want to names these three? Hint: The Righteous Teacher is James the Just. So if a group of Jews leave Jerusalem to go into the desert to live a pious, clean life and strictly follow the law then which priest is in Jerusalem running the temple? See not so hard: The Wicked Priest. Joseph ben Caiaphas (c. 14 BCE – c. 46 CE) in the New Testament, was the Jewish high priest who, according to the gospels, organized a plot to kill Jesus. So okay, that leaves The Liar, anyone want to take a guess who the Liar was?
On one hand we have James in Jerusalem teaching that to reclaim their county and cleanse the temple of corruption Jews must follow the law and live a righteous life and in the west you have Paul teaching what?
Okay I have to leave before you all start throwing rotten vegetables at me.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 3, 2019 8:53:34 GMT -5
creation? Are you all really serious about trying to sort out creation? If you can't even get agreement on when the church started and who and what Jesus was just a mere 2000 years ago how in the world are you going to sort out creation? <SNIP> Okay I have to leave before you all start throwing rotten vegetables at me. Oh, there you go with your facts and big words. And so many words... at an 8th grade level. 61 sentences 61 1087 words, 98 of which were complex words. Who can understand this gibberish?? Of course, the Flesch Kincaid reading ease of 69.2 does mean that most 13 to 14 year olds sound find it easy going!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2019 9:39:25 GMT -5
“So, brothers and sisters, if we can’t even sort out fact from fiction during a two hundred year period ranging back two thousand years ago, how in the world can we know what happened at the beginning of creation? “
That's very easy to sort out these days – all we need is a “peer-reviewed” “Big Bang.,” no matter where that peer-reviewed “cosmic egg” or “singularity” came from. You know – that nothing that was really nothing and gave rise to all of the nothing we see today just prior to becoming nothing again ourselves – oh, ya, as long as it all gets peer-reviewed. Now THAT is certainly not confusing in the least – it's as clear as a crystal ball, I'd say.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Sept 3, 2019 9:48:27 GMT -5
“So, brothers and sisters, if we can’t even sort out fact from fiction during a two hundred year period ranging back two thousand years ago, how in the world can we know what happened at the beginning of creation? “ That's very easy to sort out these days – all we need is a “peer-reviewed” “Big Bang.,” no matter where that peer-reviewed “cosmic egg” or “singularity” came from. You know – that nothing that was really nothing and gave rise to all of the nothing we see today just prior to becoming nothing again ourselves – oh, ya, as long as it all gets peer-reviewed. Now THAT is certainly not confusing in the least – it's as clear as a crystal ball, I'd say. Nope, I think the main thing is to set aside facts like "red shift" and "blue shift" which peer review will continue to accept as fact until disproven and in their place adopt feel good belief's that help us get through our insecurities. Sounds good ya?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2019 9:56:09 GMT -5
“So, brothers and sisters, if we can’t even sort out fact from fiction during a two hundred year period ranging back two thousand years ago, how in the world can we know what happened at the beginning of creation? “ That's very easy to sort out these days – all we need is a “peer-reviewed” “Big Bang.,” no matter where that peer-reviewed “cosmic egg” or “singularity” came from. You know – that nothing that was really nothing and gave rise to all of the nothing we see today just prior to becoming nothing again ourselves – oh, ya, as long as it all gets peer-reviewed. Now THAT is certainly not confusing in the least – it's as clear as a crystal ball, I'd say. Nope, I think the main thing is to set aside facts like "red shift" and "blue shift" which peer review will continue to accept as fact until disproven and in their place adopt feel good belief's that help us get through our insecurities. Sounds good ya? Sounds good ya - long as it's peer-reviewed ya?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 3, 2019 10:08:23 GMT -5
Nope, I think the main thing is to set aside facts like "red shift" and "blue shift" which peer review will continue to accept as fact until disproven and in their place adopt feel good belief's that help us get through our insecurities. Sounds good ya? Sounds good ya - long as it's peer-reviewed ya? Why do you think Lisle refuses to have his paper on ASC reviewed by other scientists? Why do you think Lisle self-published under the Answers in Genesis banner?
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Sept 3, 2019 10:08:35 GMT -5
“So, brothers and sisters, if we can’t even sort out fact from fiction during a two hundred year period ranging back two thousand years ago, how in the world can we know what happened at the beginning of creation? “ That's very easy to sort out these days – all we need is a “peer-reviewed” “Big Bang.,” no matter where that peer-reviewed “cosmic egg” or “singularity” came from. You know – that nothing that was really nothing and gave rise to all of the nothing we see today just prior to becoming nothing again ourselves – oh, ya, as long as it all gets peer-reviewed. Now THAT is certainly not confusing in the least – it's as clear as a crystal ball, I'd say. "that nothing that was really nothing and gave rise to all of the nothing" What "qualified scientist ever claimed something came from nothing? "Nothingness" is a philosophical term that denotes the general state of nonexistence, sometimes reified as a domain or dimension into which things pass when they cease to exist or out of which they may come to exist, e.g., God is understood to have created the universe ex nihilo, "out of nothing." However, what we accept as fact is that things never really disappears but instead they can change form. Just like energy never disappears it merely changes form. Thus, God is the one creating from nothing but cosmologist rather test the idea that the cosmos came from something. And will continue to support that peer reviewed theory until proven wrong.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 3, 2019 10:16:18 GMT -5
“So, brothers and sisters, if we can’t even sort out fact from fiction during a two hundred year period ranging back two thousand years ago, how in the world can we know what happened at the beginning of creation? “ You are in luck. Virtually all of the work published on the subject has been subject to per review. If you read the publications you can learn how the various theories define the 'big bang'. Or you can just keep restating what you read/hear from the creationists sites. That sounds like a creationist view - it all came from nothing from the command of a paranormal entity of which there is no verifiable proof. If I am not mistaken the creationist belief is that the whole universe came from nothing. I will say that throwing in a god of the gaps really answers nothing. I guess if you believe that there really are no questions and it is clear. Maybe you could adopt these lyrics: Nothing comes from nothing Nothing ever could So somewhere in my youth or childhood I must have done something goodRichard Rodgers
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2019 10:52:58 GMT -5
"That sounds like a creationist view - it all came from nothing from the command of a paranormal entity of which there is no verifiable proof. If I am not mistaken the creationist belief is that the whole universe came from nothing."
Ah huh – you cannot seem to decide WHAT the “creationist” view is – on the one hand you read-in a “paranormal entity“ into “creationist” views and on the other you read-in “the whole universe came from nothing “ into “creationist” views -- as if “creationists” are the ones so confused, not YOU.
And all YOU got is “peer reviewed” words of men 'billions' of years after your Big Bang. And I think THAT is a really humorous big bang on the knee given the peer-reviewed history of man's guesses and speculations on anything, most especially men who do not believe God exists as their peer-reviewed primary presupposition.
Edit -
So, let us compare:
Genesis 1:1 (the "peer reviewed" word of God)
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The “peer-reviewed” word of man
In the beginning the Big Bang went boom.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 3, 2019 11:27:37 GMT -5
It starts out before defining its terms, “Evolutionists sometimes call biblical creation a pseudoscience. Is such a claim defensible? Could it be that evolution is in fact pseudoscience while creation makes science possible? “ And it is no surprise that an Evolutionist who has made the charge against creation would ignore that starting point. And of course, such an Evolutionist would find it EASIEST to pick on the grayest area plausible in the whole article, while doing diddly to refute any of the article whatsoever. The problem is that the word "science" didn't even exist in biblical times!
The whole idea of how "science" works to determine verifiable facts that leads to the verifiable knowledge of our earth didn't even exist in biblical times!
With the knowledge that was offered in biblical times do you think that we could ever have landed on the MOON? -or banished the disease smallpox?
Of course not! Much of our advancement in the medical field has been due to the understanding of the evolution of life.
But now that we have knowledge many people who still want that cocoon the comfort that they think the bible gives to them have tried to co-opt even the term "Science!"
Calling it a CREATION SCIENCE!
The sad part is that for some psychological reason those people can't let go of their security blanket ! Sadder yet, -is they try to teach our children their deluded view!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2019 12:15:56 GMT -5
“The problem is that the word "science" didn't even exist in biblical times! “
I would guess that YOU adhere to the common 'caveman' theories regarding early human history – such that human beings during biblical times were stupid in comparison to human beings of today.
Biblically, the very first human being was PERFECT – so the 'caveman' theory is just a modern myth that boosts modern man's self esteem abundantly. And from that perfect human being, once he FELL from that already eternal state by his own choice, started degenerating. And his offspring were born imperfect and degenerating at birth. And each generation that followed them were more and more degenerated at birth. But, of course THAT does not suit the modern man's self pride very well, so modern man formulated a 'caveman' theory to make himself LOOK ever so smart – right along with evolution theory that by random chance produces the non-existent upward mutation accidents that make organisms improve from single celled organisms to mankind – given 'billions of years' that are impossible as shown by JUST the existence today of comets.
All modern man had to do to boost his self pride today is REVERSE observable science. And if there are 'billions' of years even possible, one might think that random chance improvements of organisms might have made mankind eternal by now.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Sept 3, 2019 12:45:28 GMT -5
“So, brothers and sisters, if we can’t even sort out fact from fiction during a two hundred year period ranging back two thousand years ago, how in the world can we know what happened at the beginning of creation? “ That's very easy to sort out these days – all we need is a “peer-reviewed” “Big Bang.,” no matter where that peer-reviewed “cosmic egg” or “singularity” came from. You know – that nothing that was really nothing and gave rise to all of the nothing we see today just prior to becoming nothing again ourselves – oh, ya, as long as it all gets peer-reviewed. Now THAT is certainly not confusing in the least – it's as clear as a crystal ball, I'd say. Nope, I think the main thing is to set aside facts like "red shift" and "blue shift" which peer review will continue to accept as fact until disproven and in their place adopt feel good belief's that help us get through our insecurities. Sounds good ya? The colours of the rainbow sure mean more than the gibberish mentioned about the flood.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Sept 3, 2019 12:46:44 GMT -5
“The problem is that the word "science" didn't even exist in biblical times! “ I would guess that YOU adhere to the common 'caveman' theories regarding early human history – such that human beings during biblical times were stupid in comparison to human beings of today. Biblically, the very first human being was PERFECT – so the 'caveman' theory is just a modern myth that boosts modern man's self esteem abundantly. And from that perfect human being, once he FELL from that already eternal state by his own choice, started degenerating. And his offspring were born imperfect and degenerating at birth. And each generation that followed them were more and more degenerated at birth. But, of course THAT does not suit the modern man's self pride very well, so modern man formulated a 'caveman' theory to make himself LOOK ever so smart – right along with evolution theory that by random chance produces the non-existent upward mutation accidents that make organisms improve from single celled organisms to mankind – given 'billions of years' that are impossible as shown by JUST the existence today of comets. All modern man had to do to boost his self pride today is REVERSE observable science. And if there are 'billions' of years even possible, one might think that random chance improvements of organisms might have made mankind eternal by now. To hell with the fossil record. Let's just make something up and believe it.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Sept 3, 2019 12:59:02 GMT -5
Nope, I think the main thing is to set aside facts like "red shift" and "blue shift" which peer review will continue to accept as fact until disproven and in their place adopt feel good belief's that help us get through our insecurities. Sounds good ya? The colours of the rainbow sure mean more than the gibberish mentioned about the flood. about the floods...……………. There is no doubt there has been floods throughout time everywhere. Was there a time when the pole ice melted to the degree that the coastline everywhere sank? I would say yes. Did the Mediterranean sea fill to the degree it washed out the barrier between it and the Black Sea? Yes. was it God's fault?No! How do we know it's a fact? Because of underwater surveys that found sunken cities.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Sept 3, 2019 13:05:53 GMT -5
The colours of the rainbow sure mean more than the gibberish mentioned about the flood. about the floods...……………. There is no doubt there has been floods throughout time everywhere. Was there a time when the pole ice melted to the degree that the coastline everywhere sank? I would say yes. Did the Mediterranean sea fill to the degree it washed out the barrier between it and the Black Sea? Yes. was it God's fault?No! How do we know it's a fact? Because of underwater surveys that found sunken cities. North Pole ice would make little difference. South Pole and Greenland land based ice would. But then there is the problem of the South Pole continent not always being where it is now and therefore not covered in snow. Tell me more about these underwater surveys that have found sunken cities. Only links to youtube videos will be deemed accptable and authentic evidence. Especially if they have music like the Beatles "We all live in a yellow submarine"
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Sept 3, 2019 13:21:10 GMT -5
about the floods...……………. There is no doubt there has been floods throughout time everywhere. Was there a time when the pole ice melted to the degree that the coastline everywhere sank? I would say yes. Did the Mediterranean sea fill to the degree it washed out the barrier between it and the Black Sea? Yes. was it God's fault?No! How do we know it's a fact? Because of underwater surveys that found sunken cities. North Pole ice would make little difference. South Pole and Greenland land based ice would. But then there is the problem of the South Pole continent not always being where it is now and therefore not covered in snow. Tell me more about these underwater surveys that have found sunken cities. Only links to youtube videos will be deemed accptable and authentic evidence. Especially if they have music like the Beatles "We all live in a yellow submarine" Sorry I can't offer any music. But, can you just accept my word that the Ancient City Of Akra which belonged to The Bosporus Kingdom now sits under the Black Sea? and I offer you: www.geotimes.org/jan07/feature_BlackSea.html but at last no music. [edit] maybe I should mention: www.independent.co.uk/news/science/remains-found-at-bottom-of-the-black-sea-indicate-that-noahs-flood-was-real-697782.htmlHowever, I would need to remove the mention of Noah's flood and replace with those others guy's flood and attribute it to the proper God and not some Johnnie come lately god.
|
|