Why doesnt creationism need any data?

[dad]

This train of responses is in response to someone rejecting evolution because it is based on man's reasoning. If they were consistent, they would also reject christianity because it, too, is based on man's reasoning as I have shown. That is the whole point.

Then you lose and have no point! You have not shown that belief in Christ is based on man's reasoning! That is absurd, and untrue.

People want to claim that creationism is different because it is not based on man's reasoning. This is completely untrue. It is based on man's reasoning from books written by man.

False. God is not a man. You have no way to prove God did not write it by proxy. I have a way to prove He did. The risen Christ, and fulfilled prophesies.

Creationism is so myopic that creationists are afraid to look anywhere else but the Bible, shutting their eyes to the rest of the universe.

Delusional nonsense. I fear nothing of the sort. It is not I squinting from the light here.

Look at AV. He has to ignore science because the universe contains evidence that is inconvenient to his beliefs. How sad is that?

The universe contains evidence!!!?? That is a pretty broad brush and a vague claim! Perhaps the bits of the universe he has seen were enough out of the box of closed minded limited cultish so called science, that he realized that it needed to be put in it's place?

 

[driewerf]

None has ever been presented to support it.

im curious why the believers dont need any.

They'd surely need some before investing in a get rich scheme.

Or if they are told their kid committed a crime.

Or that the roof needs replacing.

Why not for creationism?

This thread is over the 70 pages long, but I want my shot at the OP.

Professional creationists don't need data because it stands in their way. By 'Profesional creationists' I mean people like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and, slightly different Jack Chick.
They are not interested in science. They aren't even interested in promoting creationism. Their only goal is to make money (remember Marjoe!). Why else do they never present their material to a panel of experts, according to the criteria of academics, but do they travel the country from church to church, always speaking in front of an audiance of laymen. Kent Hovind boasted even about the number of debates and lectures he did in a year. But never in front of a panel of experts.

You have on the other hand, the 'grass root creationist'. The christian believer who swallows what his preacher - or the crooks pictured above - tells him. Not educated in science (and not interestd enough to check what he is telled), he is not able to grasp the fallacies that Hovind et al. are pouring over him. He trusts the professional creationists, posing and introduced as an axpert. That's why Hovind starts all his lectures by introducing himself as a bible believing christian, a family man, good husband etc. You can not distrust such a guy, can you? That's also why Hovind uses so often the word "lies" when depicting mainstream science. By lack of scietific criteria he can only make his way on trust, and therefor he has to picture himself as the good guy vs the bad guys, the scientists, the liars.

 

[AV1611VET]

By the way, when God's Own hand wrote the commandments on the tablets, would you credit Moses as the writer?? When God spoke out of a cloud, or from heaven, would what He said be attributed to the poor sod writing it down?

Don't forget the handwriting on the wall in Belshazzar's court, and Jesus writing on the ground.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Don't forget the handwriting on the wall in Belshazzar's court, and Jesus writing on the ground.

All lovely mythical stories.

BTW, were you there?

 

[Delphiki]

I have a way to prove He did. The risen Christ, and fulfilled prophesies.

So you "prove" it with another claim you can't prove. How clever.

 

[Greg1234]

All lovely mythical stories.

FYI, he regards your doctrine (that they are myths) as myths.

BTW, were you there?

Were you there for the Boston Tea Party? Guess what we're here for? Evidence against Darwinism. It appears that materialism was unfounded when he wasn't there and in the present, when he's there.

But we all know that materialists have their materialistic theories about the past (texts were written based on ignorance, they had spots in their eyes, they copied from Q, they actually mean Darwinism, material resources were used to obtain the cause of phenomena) just like the present, and that these theories are the best ones they have to explain he data and they will uphold it until a new materialistic theory emerges, everybody else is not doing science, theists should let materialists create theories etc etc..you know the drill. These theories are likewise, rejected.

I'm surprised you reverted back to your original state so soon after your hypocritical stint in the Creationism sub-forum. Apparently you didn't realize that the lingering stench of your antagonism is much to pervasive for you, of all people, to even think of trying to pull off that stunt.

 

[Split Rock]

No they don't.

As you like to say, they infer (guess, assume, speculate, estimate, approximate, etc) based on the evidence.

Infer, in this case, does not mean "guess, assume, or speculate," regardless of what you may like to believe. It means that scientists make logical conclusions based on the evidence. Why don't you explain to us how one uses creationism to explain these phenomena?

 

[Split Rock]

Yes, it says that the OBSERVATIONS must be repeatable, not the hypothesis.



Hypothesis: Humans and chimps share a common ancestor that existed in the past. If this is true, then humans and chimps should share many ERV's at the same location in each of their genomes.

Test: Locate and sequence the ERV's in each genome. This procedure is repeatable and objective.

Please tell me how this is not scientific.

I predict that Sky will ignore this post, like he ignores all posts that ask him questions he cannot answer, as he repeats the same erroneous claims over and over again.

 

[Nathan Poe]

FYI, he regards your doctrine (that they are myths) as myths.

So I've noticed.

Were you there for the Boston Tea Party? Guess what we're here for? Evidence against Darwinism. It appears that materialism was unfounded when he wasn't there and in the present, when he's there.

I'm sorry, will you actually be presenting some evidence against Darwinism this week? I'm trying to make plans here...

But we all know that materialists have their materialistic theories about the past (texts were written based on ignorance, they had spots in their eyes, they copied from Q, they actually mean Darwinism, material resources were used to obtain the cause of phenomena) just like the present, and that these theories are the best ones they have to explain he data and they will uphold it until a new materialistic theory emerges, everybody else is not doing science, theists should let materialists create theories etc etc..you know the drill. These theories are likewise, rejected.

What theories get rejected? The "non-materialistic" theories? Theories straight from the Ghost That Never Lies?

Ghost that never lies - YouTube

I'm surprised you reverted back to your original state so soon after your hypocritical stint in the Creationism sub-forum. Apparently you didn't realize that the lingering stench of your antagonism is much to pervasive for you, of all people, to even think of trying to pull off that stunt.

Are you referring to the honest mistake I made when an honest man seeking honest answers was whisked away to a more *ahem* "sheltered" subforum before I realized it?

What -- you think you're entitled to that same level of respect... why, exactly?

 

[Belk]

Are you referring to the honest mistake I made when an honest man seeking honest answers was whisked away to a more *ahem* "sheltered" subforum before I realized it?

Whats all this? Sounds like an interesting read. Got a link to that thread or a thread title perchance?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Whats all this? Sounds like an interesting read. Got a link to that thread or a thread title perchance?

It was quite the interesting discussion:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7590838/

And here is the post I made before realizing the thread had been moved out of C&E: http://www.christianforums.com/t7590838-6/#post58549465

 

[Belk]

It was quite the interesting discussion:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7590838/

And here is the post I made before realizing the thread had been moved out of C&E: http://www.christianforums.com/t7590838-6/#post58549465

Thank you kind sir.

 

[sandwiches]

No I admit you have no way. I do.

You keep singing that song but when pressed for evidence, you squirm away. So, either put up or shut up. Show the evidence or let the grown ups do the talking.

By the way, when God's Own hand wrote the commandments on the tablets, would you credit Moses as the writer?? When God spoke out of a cloud, or from heaven, would what He said be attributed to the poor sod writing it down?

But we don't have any of that evidence, now do we?

 

[Loudmouth]

Then you lose and have no point! You have not shown that belief in Christ is based on man's reasoning! That is absurd, and untrue.

Christian theology is man's reasoning about scriptures written by men. My point is proven.

You have no way to prove God did not write it by proxy.

You have shifted the burden of proof. It is up to you to show that God DID write it through a proxy, and do so without using man's reasoning.

I have a way to prove He did. The risen Christ, and fulfilled prophesies.

All accounts written by men.

Delusional nonsense. I fear nothing of the sort. It is not I squinting from the light here.

It is you that has to invent fantasies so that you can ignore the scientific evidence.

The universe contains evidence!!!??

Yep, and you continue to ignore it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Irrelevant! What imaginary figments of satanic imagination 'should have' does not Matter a whit in the real world.

Another creationist with eyes firmly shut. Dad won't even allow himself to consider evolution for a second.

If you happened upon an actual human fossil that was different than modern humans, it would just be some adapting of mankind. Nothing more...ever.

Now we can add dogmatic religious philosophy to the list.

You know, the intricacies of the fables of satanic evolution without God have no importance in any reasoning man's mind.

Now we have a combination of the two: dogmatism and blindness. Thanks for playing dad. You have proven that evolution is science and creationism is dogmatic religious philosophy.

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't forget the handwriting on the wall in Belshazzar's court, and Jesus writing on the ground.

Did you forget that these are only found in the writings of men?

 

[Doveaman]

Did you forget that these are only found in the writings of men?

And we should not trust men (scientists), right?

 

[Loudmouth]

And we should not trust men (scientists), right?

That's what creationists keep telling me. All I am asking for is some consistency. If creationists are going to bash scientific theories as the "teachings of man" then they need to bash christian theology for the same reason. If creationists do indeed see something valuable in the reasoning of man then they need to find a new criticism of evolution. Take your pick.

 

[sandwiches]

That's what creationists keep telling me. All I am asking for is some consistency. If creationists are going to bash scientific theories as the "teachings of man" then they need to bash christian theology for the same reason. If creationists do indeed see something valuable in the reasoning of man then they need to find a new criticism of evolution. Take your pick.

This is my biggest pet peeve about theism in general, to be honest. Lack of consistency and honesty. It seems that the same standards they use to determine accuracy or truth about anything about the world every single day of their lives, all of the sudden is inapplicable to a particular book or belief. Every single standard of evidence they demand and use for every other single decision in their daily lives is simply insufficient or inadequate for their particular brand of theism.

 

[dad]

You keep singing that song but when pressed for evidence, you squirm away. So, either put up or shut up. Show the evidence or let the grown ups do the talking.

The context was about the bible. Science has NO way of checking. I do. I see the fulfilled prophesies. Jesus really was born of a virgin in Bethlehem, etc etc etc etc etc etc and real people did see Him live and die and live again, as well as control nature, cure multitudes, etc etc etc etc.

To deny is futile.