Can Creationism Interpret Evidence?

[AV1611VET]

Which maybe their real agenda in some cases.

Their agenda, IMO, is to sterilize as much of the Bible as they can before the Antichrist shows up.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Their agenda, IMO, is to sterilize as much of the Bible as they can before the Antichrist shows up.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.…

When they go before the Judgement throne of God they will have nothing to say. Their glass alibis will not hold up their airtight alibis will turn out to be not so airtight.

 

[AV1611VET]

When they go before the Judgement throne of God they will have nothing to say. Their glass alibis will not hold up their airtight alibis will turn out to be not so airtight.

Let's pray they don't.

But for those that do, I made up this little scenario, based on Revelation 20:11.

Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

GREAT WHITE THRONE SCENARIO

Joe: God says ...
Atheist: Show me.
Joe: Show you what?
Atheist: Show me evidence.
Joe: I don't have any.
Atheist: Too bad then.

[Atheist dies, later stands before God]

God: Why didn't you believe I created the Heavens & Earth?
Atheist: All the evidence shows otherwise.
God: Show Me.
Atheist: Sure, it's right ... um ... well ... it was right here.
God: I'm waiting.
Atheist: It's around here somewhere.
God: Look for it.
Atheist: I'm sorry. I can't seem to find it. It was here a minute ago.
God: Too bad then.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Let's pray they don't.

But for those that do, I made up this little scenario, based on Revelation 20:11.

Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

GREAT WHITE THRONE SCENARIO

Joe: God says ...
Atheist: Show me.
Joe: Show you what?
Atheist: Show me evidence.
Joe: I don't have any.
Atheist: Too bad then.

[Atheist dies, later stands before God]

God: Why didn't you believe I created the Heavens & Earth?
Atheist: All the evidence shows otherwise.
God: Show Me.
Atheist: Sure, it's right ... um ... well ... it was right here.
God: I'm waiting.
Atheist: It's around here somewhere.
God: Look for it.
Atheist: I'm sorry. I can't seem to find it. It was here a minute ago.
God: Too bad then.

It isn't that the evidence shows otherwise, AV, it is that there was no evidence for God existing. I wouldn't respond "the evidence shows otherwise", I would say "the ancient text that seemed to contradict reality in multiple ways without doing mental gymnastics worthy of an Olympic gold medal, which served as the only basis for your existence, wasn't particularly convincing".

And then I go to hell, I guess, and make my new goal of existence kicking the devil where the sun don't shine. Even if I never succeed, I view that as a goal worth trying for, should it really come down to that... ... ... I really don't fear hell as much as the nonexistence I actually think awaits me after I die.

 

[AV1611VET]

It isn't that the evidence shows otherwise, AV, it is that there was no evidence for God existing.

I disagree.

Paul said that embracing the science that Linnaeus gave us runs the risk of making atheists, not agnostics, out of us.

And then I go to hell, I guess, and make my new goal of existence kicking the devil where the sun don't shine.

I'll tell you what.

Let me take you to the local burn unit here and we'll see if the patients on that floor are walking up and down exhibiting that attitude towards how they got there.

That's big talk, Sarah, but the truth of the matter is that you'll be busy doing other things.

And it won't be pretty.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I disagree.

Paul said that embracing the science that Linnaeus gave us runs the risk of making atheists, not agnostics, out of us.I'll tell you what.

Let me take you to the local burn unit here and we'll see if the patients on that floor are walking up and down exhibiting that attitude towards how they got there.

That's big talk, Sarah, but the truth of the matter is that you'll be busy doing other things.

And it won't be pretty.

Linnaeus gave none of the evolutionary science you dislike so much. Let the man rest in peace already.

I did say I might never succeed... In kicking satan where it hurts most, even if I do end up in hell. However, if not his, than something else is getting kicked there. Those demons better rip off my limbs quick!

It's easy to say stuff like that when one doesn't think hell is real, sure, but if circumstances allow you to see me up there, I will not go back on what I say. Even if hell takes away my sense of humor, I will do it just because I said so, and boy do I hate lies and broken promises.

 

[AV1611VET]

and boy do I hate lies and broken promises.

Well, you can be sure Jesus will never break His promises!

John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

 

[SkyWriting]

Not to be rude or overly hostile, but are you seriously denying the existence of quarks? Multiverses and string theory are pretty speculative and not major aspects of physics outside of theoretical stuff. Quarks are actually visibly detectable, though (in a bubble chamber based on the trails that they leave, but still, these aren't mysterious and unproven particles).

Rudeness will get you banned, so good decision there.
If you are hostile to my content, that is welcomed.

But they originally were. The point is, you don't get to
rule out what is not mainstream or insist that
mainstream is the only stream.

Are you undecided about dark matter and dark forces?

 

[ecco]

Francis Collins is the leading expert on DNA and He is a Creationist that has written the book on how DNA is the Language of God.

I was under the impression that Creationists avoid specifying a god. Does he state which god's language he is referring to?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I propose it is evolutionists that are unable to interpret the evidence correctly.

Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African.

Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff.

Yet when Asian mates with African we observe variation in the species (Afro-Asian). When Husky mates with Mastiff we observe variation within the species (Chinook).

We can do this with every species in existence. White-tail deer mate with White-tail deer and produce only White-tail deer. Brown bears mate with brown bears and produce only brown bears. T-Rex produced only T-Rex.

If evolutionist's had never seen a dog in life nor knew anything about them and found fossils of the Husky and Mastiff and then found fossils of the Chinook in a later layer, they would claim the Husky or the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook simply because the Chinook appears at a later time in the record. Yet we know from observational fact that this is not what has occurred, even if the Chinook appeared at a later date. The Husky remained a Husky, the Mastiff remained a Mastiff.

Only by ignoring the observational data and refusing to apply it to the fossil record do they come up with claims that can not be supported by direct empirical observations. Claims that are in direct conflict with every observation of the natural world. Which is why we only get claims and no observational data when it comes to evolution.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not to be rude or overly hostile, but are you seriously denying the existence of quarks? Multiverses and string theory are pretty speculative and not major aspects of physics outside of theoretical stuff. Quarks are actually visibly detectable, though (in a bubble chamber based on the trails that they leave, but still, these aren't mysterious and unproven particles).

A quark has NEVER been observed. Please refrain from making unsubstantiated claims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

"quarks are never directly observed or found in isolation; they can be found only within hadrons, such as baryons (of which protons and neutrons are examples), and mesons. For this reason, much of what is known about quarks has been drawn from observations of the hadrons themselves."

This of course does not mean they do not exist, just that we interpret their existence by observing other things, since to us they are invisible.

As we interpret the existence of God (Who is invisible) based upon those things that were made. Romans 1:20.

 

[AV1611VET]

I was under the impression that Creationists avoid specifying a god.

Isaiah 52:6 Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I was under the impression that Creationists avoid specifying a god. Does he state which god's language he is referring to?

Isaiah 52:6 Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I.

Indeed AV.

Why would we avoid specifying a God or refuse to name Him except for reasoning's made by men??

John 17:25 "O righteous Father, although the world has not known You, yet I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me; 26and I have made Your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them."

 

[bhsmte]

I was under the impression that Creationists avoid specifying a god. Does he state which god's language he is referring to?

Francis Collins is an avid supporter of the theory of evolution.

 

[Hoghead1]

They don't use layering in the simplistic way you describe it. It is much more complicated than that. They can pretty accurately tell whether you are seeing something that was in upheaval, one thing dumped on another, or whether layers appear in the order they occurred. Remember, these guys are scientists and certainly know more than you and I know. Often, they use more than one dating technique. They may take, say, not one but three samples to use for carbon-dating. In addition, they would bring in many other factors. In archaeology, for example[, they would also look at the pottery. All these instruments have to point to the same date. If not, they see the area as contaminated and therefore they really can't and won't use use anything from it.

 

[TudorGothicSerpent]

A quark has NEVER been observed. Please refrain from making unsubstantiated claims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

"quarks are never directly observed or found in isolation; they can be found only within hadrons, such as baryons (of which protons and neutrons are examples), and mesons. For this reason, much of what is known about quarks has been drawn from observations of the hadrons themselves."

You're very correct. Sorry, I misunderstood something that I looked at elsewhere. Thank you for the correction, and my apologies to everyone involved.

 

[Job8]

We often hear that creationism is just a different interpretation of the evidence. It is my contention that creationists don't interpret the data at all.

You are absolutely right. Christians don't interpret data simply because THEY DO NOT NEED TO INTERPRET DATA. God told us that he made humans, chickens, and mice all completely different. So there's nothing to interpret. If you would simply believe God, you could do the same. We would need to start re-interpreting the Bible when we discovered that a chimpanzee walked out of the jungles and managed to get a college degree. Jane Goodall, for all her efforts could not achieve this result.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

GREAT WHITE THRONE SCENARIO

Joe: God says ...
Atheist: Show me.
Joe: Show you what?
Atheist: Show me evidence.
Joe: I don't have any.
Atheist: Too bad then.

[Atheist dies, later stands before God]

God: Why didn't you believe I created the Heavens & Earth?
Atheist: All the evidence shows otherwise.
God: Show Me.
Atheist: Sure, it's right ... um ... well ... it was right here.
God: I'm waiting.
Atheist: It's around here somewhere.
God: Look for it.
Atheist: I'm sorry. I can't seem to find it. It was here a minute ago.
God: Too bad then.

So Christianity is about believing in creationism rather than accepting the theory of evolution?

The Gospels already provide a "great white throne" scene:

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people on from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats on the left. Then the king will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundations of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.' Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?' And the king will answer them, 'Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.' Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and id not take care of you?' Then he will answer them, 'Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' And these will go away into the eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

 

[AV1611VET]

So Christianity is about believing in creationism rather than accepting the theory of evolution?

Christianity is about believing in Jesus Christ rather than accepting science as your savior.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Christianity is about believing in Jesus Christ rather than accepting science as your savior.

There's nothing wrong with science. Contemporary genetics owes to Mendel, a monk, and the Big Bang theory owes to Lamaitre a Catholic priest.