Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2019 2:59:13 GMT -5
I suppose your difficulty fitting God into space/time before He created space/time stems from your rather poor Bible knowledge - the Bible presents God as being BEYOND space/time - just as an artist is not part of any picture he paints. I consigned my bible to the fiction section of the library but then biffed it as it was not even good fiction. Ah huh - so you try telling believers what they believe from Biblical ignorance. Marvelous.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Sept 4, 2019 3:11:43 GMT -5
I consigned my bible to the fiction section of the library but then biffed it as it was not even good fiction. Ah huh - so you try telling believers what they believe from Biblical ignorance. Marvelous. Gratu, feel free to believe whatever mythology you take a fancy to. Just don't try and legitimize it with your shonky science.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Sept 4, 2019 3:12:58 GMT -5
I consigned my bible to the fiction section of the library but then biffed it as it was not even good fiction. Ah huh - so you try telling believers what they believe from Biblical ignorance. Marvelous. What makes you think you have superior biblical knowledge @gratu ? Which translation of the bible do you use and why ?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 4, 2019 8:01:08 GMT -5
"I am not sure how to deal with what seems to be increasing attributional bias on your part." ah huh - i have seen this trick before too. As I mentioned, the signs of attributional bias are coming more frequently and seem to be less specific. I wonder if the server is changing the time stamps to confuse you. This does not require much of a setup. You did change your post after I quoted it. The mystery is solved. To be fair, there have been no tricks except in your mind. Posting a fake quote and attributing it to a fake book in the bible is not a trick that I played. It is upsetting to you because you didn't notice it was a non-existing book until it was pointed out by someone else. You consider the faint text a trick because you failed to observe it even though others had no issue seeing it. You consider the DanaSoft image a trick because you didn't understand how it worked and wrote some panic warning posts before your boss explained to you how it worked. And now you are claiming there are other tricks. Attributional bias is characterized by a person constantly making attributions regarding the cause of behaviors, both theirs and others, that frequently are not an accurate reflection of reality, often based on an incomplete understanding of the facts or a willingly disregarding the facts. Because they are unable to objectively perceive and evaluate the situation they become prone to perceptual errors in their interpretation of situations. Over time this intensifies as the reality needs to be distorted to a greater extent to accommodate all of the misconceptions that have accumulated over time. This is sometimes the start of a trip down the slippery slope to full blown paranoia.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 4, 2019 8:12:40 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. Are you sure Paul was the boogie man? Why didn't they just name him?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2019 8:15:54 GMT -5
Since we're here anyway, conceptually, is it possible to not have anything except all of eternity?
If I were to say that maybe people won't spend all of eternity in hell, does that imply that hell is not eternal. If it can be divided by time, then what good is the concept from practical purposes? I admit I haven't thought about this very much, so I might be out of my head. Or, more than likely, there is a well-established mathematical or logical principle which underlies the premise that I'm simply too ignorant and lazy to look up or know about.
If you imagine an XY coordinate system, with numbers one through 10 on the X & Y axis, what if there was a straight line with no slope running along the 3 on the y-axis? If the line was eternal, would it even matter if there was an x-axis at all?
That yin/yang, circular (with no angles ever), always balanced,... starts to tug at the imaginations.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 4, 2019 8:19:41 GMT -5
I think it would expend a lot less mental acrobatics to believe that God created it ALL 6000 years ago, which is supported by the continuing existence of just comets. Throwing in a god of the gaps to solve difficult problems has always been the easy path. Regarding the comets - your argument could be at least considered to carry some validity as long as neither the Kuiper belt nor the Oort belt had been observed. But the Kuiper belt was confirmed by Stern in 2003 using ground based tools and the observation of objects in the Oort cloud by Irion in 2004. Both provide a huge supply of material for comets. Yet you still cling to the disproved claim that the presence of comets confirm a young universe. You need to look beyond creationist sites for your information.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2019 10:45:29 GMT -5
I think it would expend a lot less mental acrobatics to believe that God created it ALL 6000 years ago, which is supported by the continuing existence of just comets. Throwing in a god of the gaps to solve difficult problems has always been the easy path. Regarding the comets - your argument could be at least considered to carry some validity as long as neither the Kuiper belt nor the Oort belt had been observed. But the Kuiper belt was confirmed by Stern in 2003 using ground based tools and the observation of objects in the Oort cloud by Irion in 2004. Both provide a huge supply of material for comets. Yet you still cling to the disproved claim that the presence of comets confirm a young universe. You need to look beyond creationist sites for your information. I know that and it depends upon whether or not Stern did observe the long speculated Kuiper belt or Oort cloud. It is understandable that one who NEEDS either belt desperately would observe either or both. And I do not believe that the few objects observed are in either speculated belt - just as the old argument over whether or not Pluto is a planet. But if YOU believe either or both belts have been observed, that is your right to choose whatever you like to believe. Perhaps YOU might take a look at your hated "creationist sites" and refute the arguments against those objects as proof of either belt, but that is up to you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2019 11:01:18 GMT -5
Since we're here anyway, conceptually, is it possible to not have anything except all of eternity? If I were to say that maybe people won't spend all of eternity in hell, does that imply that hell is not eternal. If it can be divided by time, then what good is the concept from practical purposes? I admit I haven't thought about this very much, so I might be out of my head. Or, more than likely, there is a well-established mathematical or logical principle which underlies the premise that I'm simply too ignorant and lazy to look up or know about. If you imagine an XY coordinate system, with numbers one through 10 on the X & Y axis, what if there was a straight line with no slope running along the 3 on the y-axis? If the line was eternal, would it even matter if there was an x-axis at all? That yin/yang, circular (with no angles ever), always balanced,... starts to tug at the imaginations. Eternity = infinity, which is well beyond human mental capacity since we are locked within created space/time. But infinity at least begins to be observable now that computers can plot numbers on a graph to show infinite designs of wonder. I have seen what are called "fractals." and computers are capable to zoom in on them until all available memory is used up and the computer crashes as a result - with those designs of wonder still visible on the graph up to that point. So maybe when we build computers that have infinite memory, we will be able to observe infinity at least on a plot graph, but I won't be holding my breath waiting for computers that have infinite memory. Edit - Dr Jason Lisle - The Physical World Obeys God's Math (Fractals) www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaDvPeWjBuY
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 4, 2019 12:10:28 GMT -5
Throwing in a god of the gaps to solve difficult problems has always been the easy path. Regarding the comets - your argument could be at least considered to carry some validity as long as neither the Kuiper belt nor the Oort belt had been observed. But the Kuiper belt was confirmed by Stern in 2003 using ground based tools and the observation of objects in the Oort cloud by Irion in 2004. Both provide a huge supply of material for comets. Yet you still cling to the disproved claim that the presence of comets confirm a young universe. You need to look beyond creationist sites for your information. This is, of course, old news. NASAs New Horizons is out in the area and has confirmed what Sternes published.Yes, we do know who needs to claim the data sent back is false. To scientists the existence doesn't matter. The data will be used to check the existing theory. In this case it confirmed the theory. But the creationists - they need to deny the data because they have no theory. Just a claim there should be no comets in a young universe. But the confirmation of the multitude of icy objects brings the comment excuse to a full stop. It has been confirmed by a number of people. And now by a craft that has ventured close enough to confirm their existence. Remember the quote from Søren Kierkegaard? There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.The existence of a huge number of icy objects show that the existence of comets does not limit the age of the universe. The confirmed existence of the objects in the Kuiper belt. There is no need to continue to believe that which is not true. And, unless you can show how several people got together and presented data that was false, there is no need to refuse to believe that which is true. BTW - It is not the sites that are the problrm. It is the false information they promote.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2019 13:00:07 GMT -5
This is, of course, old news. NASAs New Horizons is out in the area and has confirmed what Sternes published.Yes, we do know who needs to claim the data sent back is false. To scientists the existence doesn't matter. The data will be used to check the existing theory. In this case it confirmed the theory. But the creationists - they need to deny the data because they have no theory. Just a claim there should be no comets in a young universe. But the confirmation of the multitude of icy objects brings the comment excuse to a full stop. It has been confirmed by a number of people. And now by a craft that has ventured close enough to confirm their existence. Remember the quote from Søren Kierkegaard? There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.The existence of a huge number of icy objects show that the existence of comets does not limit the age of the universe. The confirmed existence of the objects in the Kuiper belt. There is no need to continue to believe that which is not true. And, unless you can show how several people got together and presented data that was false, there is no need to refuse to believe that which is true. BTW - It is not the sites that are the problrm. It is the false information they promote. "Yes, we do know who needs to claim the data sent back is false. To scientists the existence doesn't matter. The data will be used to check the existing theory. In this case it confirmed the theory. But the creationists - they need to deny the data because they have no theory. Just a claim there should be no comets in a young universe. But the confirmation of the multitude of icy objects brings the comment excuse to a full stop." So, assuming that NASA has 'proven' an Oort cloud etc. your conclusion could well be true that creationists need to disbelieve NASA's 'proof' in order to continue using ONE argument that supports creation. If that were the ONLY argument, it would be critically important to disprove NASA's proof. But that is NOT the only argument that supports creation better than evolution. So I am not desperate to hang onto the lack of observation of an Oort cloud that is still not observed. NASA is not God by any stretch of imagination. It is really interesting to observe that every argument I make is YOU manipulate in order to turn it back upon me, just as some workers always did to me - what a waste of my time YOU and they have been.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 4, 2019 13:28:23 GMT -5
Eternity = infinity, which is well beyond human mental capacity since we are locked within created space/time. Speak for yourself. It has always been possible to plot by hand anything that could be plotted by a computer. It is faster to use a computer but then, fractals can be plotted by children. Why would zooming in on a fractal consume memory? Doesn't the zoom in look only at a portion of the set? Isn't the size of the image being generated limited to the pixels on the screen? Perhaps the system has a memory leak. What would be the point of infinite memory? The limit is still the display. Maybe the math is developed to fit the physical world. Math changed over time to accommodate new concepts. Math explains the physical world. I get the feeling Lisle would push the idea that gelatin molds conform to the shape of the gelatin if he thought it supported his creationist views.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Sept 4, 2019 14:48:06 GMT -5
Are you sure Paul was the boogie man? Why didn't they just name him? The liar is specifically said to teach straying from the law, to remove the boundary markers which the ancestors had set down, to lead people astray in a trackless waste and to deny the law in the midst of the whole community. Nothing can be a better example of what Paul does in both the Jerusalem conference and in his writing.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 4, 2019 16:09:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Sept 4, 2019 17:55:39 GMT -5
Ah huh - so you try telling believers what they believe from Biblical ignorance. Marvelous. What makes you think you have superior biblical knowledge @gratu ? Which translation of the bible do you use and why ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2019 18:06:59 GMT -5
"... so in conclusion, learning science makes people commit mass murder, and religion has the remedy! Now, if you open your Bibles, let's learn about those evil Amalekites and why God commanded them to all be killed."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2019 21:25:38 GMT -5
What makes you think you have superior biblical knowledge @gratu ? Which translation of the bible do you use and why ? The answer to your first question requires that you first clarify who or what my knowledge of the Bible is being compared to by you. Your second question has had detailed answer previously.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 4, 2019 22:32:44 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. Gratu, you say that: "So far as I can see does a first rate ABC explanation that is not only valid, but all logical. Perhaps the only reason that you can "see Lisle does a first rate ABC explanation" is simply because you can't see very FAR?
Also perhaps you really don't know the definitions of what the terms "valid" & "logical" ?
Actually, it is rather difficult to attempt to present the soundness of the truth of anything when you try to fit your argument into something obtained from an archaic book written at a time when there wasn't the knowledge about today's earth & universe that we are fortunate to have, -which of course is what Lisle attempts to do.
Reminds me a bit like Cinderella's sisters trying to make Cinderella's slipper fit their own foot.
They either had to cut off part of their foot or stuff artificial material into the toe!
Because Lisle also -"cut off part" of what valid science does know and/or puts his own "artificial material" into his argument. PS: valid
ADJECTIVE (of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent. "a valid criticism" synonyms: well founded · sound · well grounded · reasonable · rational · logical · justifiable · defensible · defendable · supportable · sustainable · maintainable · workable ·
logical
ADJECTIVE
of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument.
synonyms:
reasoning · thinking · straight-thinking · rational · objective · analytical · [more]
characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Sept 4, 2019 23:10:25 GMT -5
I consigned my bible to the fiction section of the library but then biffed it as it was not even good fiction. Ah huh - so you try telling believers what they believe from Biblical ignorance. Marvelous. Maybe re-read this post you made @gratu then my question which you missed the first time will make sense !!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 4, 2019 23:40:46 GMT -5
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. Gratu, aren't you missing something in your comparison?
Who was it that "peer reviewed word of God" in Genesis 1:1?
(hyjujujujujujujujujujujujujujujujujujujujujujujujujujujujujujujujujujujujujujujujuju ) oops! sorry about that, -Fuffy, -my cat, just walked across my keyboard
-but to continue:
You also forget that Genesis 1;1 and all other "books" of the bible, -were NOT actually written by GOD! It was written by men* who wrote only what they knew or conjectured at the time in which they lived.
footnote * (note: no women allowed)
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Sept 4, 2019 23:52:51 GMT -5
This big hoopla about creation is not so unsolvable. Our local brain trust met in the stockroom of the local JCPenny’s to hash it out. They even brought a few tools of the trade: a carpenter's pencil, a jug of the elixor, a pocket knife and a Boy Scout compass.They all agreed that the prevailing theory states that the universe was born from an infinitely dense singularity through some currently unknown mechanism. But they decided that leaving at that was somehow almost siding with those bible thumpers down the street at the Baptist School of Remedial Studies. Clem who had just gotten out of rehab (which must not have been healthy for him because his nose which used to be bright red seems to have turned a shade of white or two) argued that the equations have yet to be complete enough to describe the moment of creation, a revelation the rest of the group wholehearted agreed will follow the discovery of the theory of everything (which the whole group thought they were one-step closer to doing).
Following after that an argument broke out about why they were stuck talking about what happened immediately after the big bang, up to about 10^-35 or so seconds after the event but then after another round of drinking they all agreed they were so close it should only take them a few more meetings to get it sorted.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 5, 2019 8:09:10 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. First, I am not responding to entice anyone to ride. And I can see why you thought you had never used an analogy. And yet you used an analogy here. How odd.I have provided references to information from several sources that indicated what Lisle is selling is wrong. Lisle claims that there should be no comets so I referenced the work by Sterns as well as the information sent back by a vehicle sent out to the region where Sterns discovered icy material. That data points out that what Lisle claimed was wrong. I do not think you can support your claim that I have yet to present data that showed that Lisle was either wrong or the facts he was presenting were distorted.If this were an elementary school lesson the teaching of the ABCs might do the trick but what about the ASC? There are so many reasons why that theory doesn't work. No matter how logical Lisle is in presenting it or how how good he is in dumbing down the information it still doesn't hold water. If it did he would have been running to every available scientific journal to get it published. He is not willing to even have it reviewed.And yet another analogy. Presenting information that details why a theory being presented is incorrect is not calling the kettle black. It is showing data that supports a point of view that is in opposition to the claims you make - well, in opposition to the claims you regurgitate from creationist sites. You really can't be blamed for the ideas developed by others except in the case(s) when you claim the ideas to be your own. As others have pointed out, so far you have offered little personal insight into any of these issues. At best when questioned you post another creationist sourced video or, in some cases, report the material in question in support of the material itself. It would be like asking how would a person know if Lloyd's book were true and the response was "Read Lloyd's book".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2019 8:48:16 GMT -5
Ah huh - so you try telling believers what they believe from Biblical ignorance. Marvelous. Maybe re-read this post you made @gratu then my question which you missed the first time will make sense !! “Maybe re-read this post you made gratu then my question which you missed the first time will make sense !! “ “The answer to your first question requires that you first clarify who or what my knowledge of the Bible is being compared to by you. “ Your above quoted response is not clarification of who or what you are comparing my Bible knowledge to- even with its double exclamation marks. What you suggest that I “re-read” shows either your Biblical ignorance or YOUR OWN opinion of your own knowledge of the Bible. I really don't care if you continue to hide behind ambiguity in reply to my request for your clarification, because in just two posts you have shown your own 'knowledge' of the Bible. And the non-2x2 (never 2x2) believing audience will now have a pretty good idea WHERE workers get their blanket accusation of "bitter" against all former 2x2s - thanks for your response on their behalf.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2019 8:54:55 GMT -5
"Who was it that "peer reviewed word of God" in Genesis 1:1?"
Answer - The peer reviewed word of God was ALL peer reviewed (not just Genesis 1:1) by His only peers -- i.e., the One living God Himself - Father, Son and Holy Spirit to be precise.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 5, 2019 9:33:13 GMT -5
“Maybe re-read this post you made gratu then my question which you missed the first time will make sense !! “ “The answer to your first question requires that you first clarify who or what my knowledge of the Bible is being compared to by you. “ Your above quoted response is not clarification of who or what you are comparing my Bible knowledge to- even with its double exclamation marks. What you suggest that I “re-read” shows either your Biblical ignorance or YOUR OWN opinion of your own knowledge of the Bible. I really don't care if you continue to hide behind ambiguity in reply to my request for your clarification, because in just two posts you have shown your own 'knowledge' of the Bible. And the non-2x2 (never 2x2) believing audience will now have a pretty good idea WHERE workers get their blanket accusation of "bitter" against all former 2x2s - thanks for your response on their behalf. Posted by someone who mistook Hezekiah as a biblical book...
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 5, 2019 9:34:37 GMT -5
"Who was it that "peer reviewed word of God" in Genesis 1:1?" Answer - The peer reviewed word of God was ALL peer reviewed (not just Genesis 1:1) by His only peers -- i.e., the One living God Himself - Father, Son and Holy Spirit to be precise. The creationist idea of peer reviewed carries right into the bible - Self-publish and review yourself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2019 11:49:36 GMT -5
Evolution: Not Science, Pseudoscience Posted on May 6, 2016 by Duane Caldwell rationalfaith.com/2016/05/evolution-not-science-pseudoscience/Excerpt A duck dressed as a scientist is still a duck. And a pseudoscientific theory dressed up like real science is still pseudoscience. That just leaves the question: is evolution pseudoscience? Fortunately, that’s an easy question to answer: yes. And even better, you don’t need to be a scientist to recognize a pseudoscience, just as you don’t need to be a doctor to recognize the difference between a human and a non-human like a duck. Anyone who knows what a “human” and a “duck” is can easily discern the difference. And anyone who knows what “science” and “pseudoscience” is will likewise easily discern the difference. As you are probably already aware, a favored tactic of proponents of evolution is to label both Creation and Intelligent Design disciplines as “pseudosciences.” The irony of course being that it is a trivial matter to demonstrate that Darwinian goo-to-you evolution is the epitome of a pseudoscience. Yet regardless of how clear the evidence is, you will never, ever get an evolutionist to acknowledge that Darwinian molecules-to-man evolution is a pseudoscience. So in this article we’ll first take a look at how Darwinian evolution fits the definition of a pseudoscience perfectly; then press on to demonstrate how evolution breaks a number of the known laws of science further proving it to be pseudoscience in spite of their protestations that “it’s science.”
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2019 14:59:27 GMT -5
What Does “Day” Mean? by Dr. Lisle | Aug 16, 2019 | Apologetics, Origins | biblicalscienceinstitute.com/apologetics/what-does-day-mean/Excerpt Deep Time Since our youth, most of us have been utterly brainwashed with the idea that the Earth is billions of years old. We are told that science has demonstrated this, particularly by the method of radiometric dating of rocks. Of course, the scientific method by its very nature could never establish such a thing, and is in fact predicated upon biblical creation. But not many people realize this. Hence, even many Christians have fallen into the trap of “deep time.” For this reason, many Christians are strongly motivated to read the Bible in such a way as to accommodate the hypothetical vast ages proposed by the secularists. And one of the most common proposed mechanisms is to assume that the days of Genesis chapter 1 are not really days at all, but vast ages millions of years long. The idea is often called the “day-age theory.” Like Craig, many professing Christians think that when God said He created in six days, He really meant “six long periods of time, perhaps hundreds of millions of years each.”
|
|