is creation outside of science's scope?

[rambot]

From the OP

it was not done via the scientific rules or laws as all such items were created at that point in time as well. God was not subject to such laws but created them to make the world and the universe work as he wanted them.

What is completely lost on the OP is that God may be above scientific law but his creation, is NOT. His creation is DICTATED and CONTROLLED by these "laws". So, that is how we get our information. Scientists don't test God, they test creation to find the laws.
Seriously, such rudimentary ideas are lost it seems.

well thank you for the link but i won't accept an evolutionary model, as i do not think they are based in reality nor fact.

Then look at Linnaeus. 200 years ago he came up with a fairly decent model for classification (Taxonomy).
You will find that our current "KPCOFGS" is the BEST method of organization possible. Not only is it "within our realm of comprehension" (unlike the Bible's use of kind and your reluctance oir inability to give a reasonable definition), it is conscise, precise, and employable!
Not only that but it can VERY easily be considered outside of the context of evolution.

There is no point in arguing with your flimsy "remember Lucy?" and various and sundry other "scientific objections" you raise:

well thank you for the link but i won't accept an evolutionary model, as i do not think they are based in reality nor fact

So there is NO point in arguing with you to refute and expose your bad science. You've already clearly said that you won't accept good science from a site that supports evolution (as though a CREATIONIST site is going to have answers).
What you should consider doing is investigating the information instead of dismissing the source without even reading word one. Get a few pieces of key text from an important source, then go back to your creationist sites and refute it.
Then allow us to come back and use our evolutionary sites to refute you, ad naseum. At least that way you are ALLOWING a reasonable debate instead of saying "Look at my gun. Let's fight. No, you're not allowed a gun".

 

[archaeologist]

There is no point in arguing with

this is a discussion forum NOT an arguing one. if you want to argue, go bother someone else

your reluctance oir inability to give a reasonable definition

please save yourself the trouble of writing if you can't read the post correctly. if you read it right you would have seen that i went as far as i could go at this time

You've already clearly said that you won't accept good science from a site that supports evolution

why would i accept an evolutionary grouping when i know evolution doesn't exist? surely science can come up with other alternatives or what good is it?

with your flimsy "remember Lucy?"

you missed my point with that example.

 

[shernren]

why would i accept an evolutionary grouping when i know evolution doesn't exist? surely science can come up with other alternatives or what good is it?

Well, if evolution is the best scientific explanation for those hominid fossils' appearance and distribution, then what would that say about the validity of evolution? Surely good science is that which conforms to our observations of physical reality ... not that which tries to find alternatives to reality!

 

[SpiritDriven]

What better way to show the handy work of the Lord than in the record of the Earth ?


Peace

 

[archaeologist]

What better way to show the handy work of the Lord than in the record of the Earth

in His working in people's lives today, starting with those who believe alternatives to the genesis account.

 

[archaeologist]

Well, if evolution is the best scientific explanation for those hominid fossils' appearance and distribution, then what would that say about the validity of evolution? Surely good science is that which conforms to our observations of physical reality ... not that which tries to find alternatives to reality!

evolution is not the best explanation for hominid fossils for all you know those skeletens could have been damaged by the flood.

good science follows God and not theories which have no hope of existence.

 

[shernren]

evolution is not the best explanation for hominid fossils for all you know those skeletens could have been damaged by the flood.

Can you show this somehow, or are you speaking off the top of your head again?

good science follows God and not theories which have no hope of existence.

... like "skeletons could have been damaged by the flood and that would explain why hominid fossils seem to fit in well with evolution"?

 

[archaeologist]

Can you show this somehow, or are you speaking off the top of your head again?

the biggest problem with talking with TE's is that they are as close-minded as their secular evolutionist brethern. here are a few of their requirements:

1. science can only be done their way

2. if you don't believe in evolution,then you're not a scientist

3. if you are a creationist you can't read or understand the Bible

4. if you are a creationist then you are reading into the Bible

5. TE's do not accept other points of view, even when supported by credible scholars

6. Te's think that 150 years is a long time to study something forgetting that Creationists have 6-10,000 years on their side, all of ancient history,and other fields. but that doesn't matter as one unbeliever trumps Jesus, the disciples, all scholarly work done by very well trained and so on.

7. TE's refuse to back up their state,ments with proof, links, facts, quotes, sources.

8. Te's think nature is on par with the Bible, though that idea has not been proven by them

9. if it isn't evolution then you are intellectually retarded and a crackpot

10. if you post here you won't be treated like a person but be subjected to all sorts of thinly, badly disguised insults and personal attacks, all of which deny their claim to being a christian.

11. if you prove them wrong TE's will ignore or twist the words so that they do not have to think about why they are wrong.

these are just some of the things i have noticed since i started posting here and i have neglected to mention a few more.

oh oh oh oh

12. they won't admit to being wrong, even when shown scripture that proves them wrong

13. they will deny what you have written and interpret everything their way so they can continue to feel good about their beliefs

14. to ignore the truth they will hide behind interpretation, allegory and metaphors.

 

[archaeologist]

didn't think TE's would respond to that list

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

didn't think TE's would respond to that list

Archie, seriously, what is there to respond to?

 

[TomBormat]

I liked number nine of that list. I agree whole-heartedly.

 

[archaeologist]

well it is the impression i have received while posting here. the arrogance and elitism abounds by those who ignore God's word and choose alternatives.

since that is the impression i got (the list) while posting here, i wonder what the non-churched observers saw?

 

[KokoTheGorilla2]

40 pages!

So many!!

 

[TomBormat]

well it is the impression i have received while posting here. the arrogance and elitism abounds by those who ignore God's word and choose alternatives.

since that is the impression i got (the list) while posting here, i wonder what the non-churched observers saw?

Arch, I'll agree with you. There are quite a few smug posters. But, on the whole, I'd say people here are pretty nice and far more worried about being polite than I expected.

Take gentle Koko, she's always got something good to say.

 

[theFijian]

A potted selection:

1. science can only be done their way

Well, science should be done scientifically if that's what you mean.

3. if you are a creationist you can't read or understand the Bible

I don't think anyone does, not properly anyway.

4. if you are a creationist then you are reading into the Bible

We all read into the bible in some way or other.

5. TE's do not accept other points of view, even when supported by credible scholars

Both sides have credible scholars.

6. Te's think that 150 years is a long time to study something forgetting that Creationists have 6-10,000 years on their side, all of ancient history,and other fields. but that doesn't matter as one unbeliever trumps Jesus, the disciples, all scholarly work done by very well trained and so on.

Can you produce some creationist research from 6000 years ago top back up this claim?

7. TE's refuse to back up their state,ments with proof, links, facts, quotes, sources.

I think Morton's demon is at work here.

8. Te's think nature is on par with the Bible, though that idea has not been proven by them

Nature is revelation, scripture is revelation. Both are of God and both reveal things about God, however they both reveal diffrent things.

10. if you post here you won't be treated like a person but be subjected to all sorts of thinly, badly disguised insults and personal attacks, all of which deny their claim to being a christian.

It depends on how you post archie, you might notice some Creationists are treated with the courtesy they deserve. If you are antagonistic then you will naturally get people's backs up.

11. if you prove them wrong TE's will ignore or twist the words so that they do not have to think about why they are wrong.

Well you haven't proved anyone wrong (apart from yourself)

12. they won't admit to being wrong, even when shown scripture that proves them wrong

Gen 1:24 ring any bells archie?

13. they will deny what you have written and interpret everything their way so they can continue to feel good about their beliefs

Again... Gen 1:24

14. to ignore the truth they will hide behind interpretation, allegory and metaphors.

Just like Jesus did, I seem to remember he taught a lot in metaphors and allegory. Parables I think they were called.

Didn't think any TE's (sic) would respond to that

Apologies but some of us do actually have to work for a living.

 

[notto]

evolution is not the best explanation for hominid fossils for all you know those skeletens could have been damaged by the flood.

Unsupported assertion - check
No links to any evidence that could possibly support it - check
Lack of understanding about what we know about the evidence - check
Using the flood to explain all things - check

You are a great creationist.

7. Creationists refuse to back up their statements with proof, links, facts, quotes, sources.

Just how the heck does a flood damage the skeletons?

You made a prediction, now back it up.

What would you predict a flood to do to the skeletons? What evidence supports it? What evidence would falsify it?

Come on man - do some God Science! You've got the God part down, now lets combine it with some science!

 

[shernren]

the biggest problem with talking with TE's is that they are as close-minded as their secular evolutionist brethern. here are a few of their requirements:

1. science can only be done their way

2. if you don't believe in evolution,then you're not a scientist

3. if you are a creationist you can't read or understand the Bible

4. if you are a creationist then you are reading into the Bible

5. TE's do not accept other points of view, even when supported by credible scholars

6. Te's think that 150 years is a long time to study something forgetting that Creationists have 6-10,000 years on their side, all of ancient history,and other fields. but that doesn't matter as one unbeliever trumps Jesus, the disciples, all scholarly work done by very well trained and so on.

7. TE's refuse to back up their state,ments with proof, links, facts, quotes, sources.

8. Te's think nature is on par with the Bible, though that idea has not been proven by them

9. if it isn't evolution then you are intellectually retarded and a crackpot

10. if you post here you won't be treated like a person but be subjected to all sorts of thinly, badly disguised insults and personal attacks, all of which deny their claim to being a christian.

11. if you prove them wrong TE's will ignore or twist the words so that they do not have to think about why they are wrong.

these are just some of the things i have noticed since i started posting here and i have neglected to mention a few more.

oh oh oh oh

12. they won't admit to being wrong, even when shown scripture that proves them wrong

13. they will deny what you have written and interpret everything their way so they can continue to feel good about their beliefs

14. to ignore the truth they will hide behind interpretation, allegory and metaphors.

I'm sorry, but do you have proof to back this up? Where are your links? Where are your sources? Where is your research and data that show that TEs consistently do all these things?

And you think we refuse to back up our statements with proof, links, facts, quotes, sources?

 

[archaeologist]

interesting answers.

but do you have proof to back this up

yes, all the mis-representing posts, all the insulting posts,all the attacking posts, not just at me but at all creationists who post here.

Where are your sources

christianforums.com/originstheology--- pick a thread.

Just how the heck does a flood damage the skeletons?

a year under water, crushed against walls of caves, etc., water pressure (it was quite deep), receeding water action.

there are numerous options available that would do great damage to a skull or bone.

Gen 1:24 ring any bells archie?

please you trot that verse out every time and it does not even remotely refer to evolution. talk about taking out of context and ignoring what all the other Bible passages say.

Well you haven't proved anyone wrong

well God has already done that but TE's like to ignore Him.

 

[notto]

i
a year under water, crushed against walls of caves, etc., water pressure (it was quite deep), receeding water action.

All unsupported assertion without reference or any evidence.

How does receding water action and water pressure affect a skull and what skull specimen can you point to to demonstrate this supposed affect?

Come on, support your claim and your prediction?

You can't and you won't.

You are a great creationist.

 

[shernren]

yes, all the mis-representing posts, all the insulting posts,all the attacking posts, not just at me but at all creationists who post here.

christianforums.com/originstheology--- pick a thread.

Specific posts please. Links, quotes, sources. Not just a vague "Gee, doesn't everybody here know that TEs are savage creationist-attackers, do I really need to prove that?"