What Makes Creationism a Valid Scientific Alternative?

[SkyWriting]

But faith is a demonstrably bad way to accept an idea. Even you agree with this. There are many more people who believe in non-Christian gods, yet you feel their faith is misplaced.

Have you never had faith in a friend who subsequently let you down?

Why would you want to rely on a mechanism that can so easily fool you?

But God has never failed to answer my prayers.
(Conditions apply)

 

[And-U-Say]

Some information Evolutionists conveniently ignore. When you've read it, lads and lassies, go the Uncommon Descent, and keep up to date with it, then you won't keep embarrassing yourselves:

<ignorant list snipped for sanity>

Incidentally, quantum mechanics makes it clear that mind - and that means the personal mind of the Observer - is the basic reality, not matter. Observation of reality is intersubjective. There is no such thing as objective reality. That should have been a hammer-blow to materialists, eighty years ago.

This term... "quantum mechanics"... I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[And-U-Say]

But God has never failed to answer my prayers.
(Conditions apply)

When every possible outcome can be twisted into "god answered my prayers", then answered prayer has no meaning.

Definition of answered prayer: any and all possible outcomes from my prayer.

Pray to a rock and see if anything is different.

 

[AV1611VET]

When every possible outcome can be twisted into "god answered my prayers", then answered prayer has no meaning.

Definition of answered prayer: any and all possible outcomes from my prayer.

Pray to a rock and see if anything is different.

Does this apply to asking mom for an ice cream cone?

 

[Loudmouth]

Creationism teaches you that when you go fishing to make sure your net is in good repair because you will be catching more fish then you will know what to do with.

Then there is the reality of depelted fisheries. It would seem that Creationism teachings are false.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nearly 200 posts and not a single creationist can produce viable scientific research to support their claims. Is it any wonder that creationism is ignored by scientists?

 

[AV1611VET]

Nearly 200 posts and not a single creationist can produce viable scientific research to support their claims.

As I have been predicting for years.

 

[Loudmouth]

My question is, whoever said the scientific answer is the right answer?

Given the reaction that creationists have towards science, it is the creationists who are saying this with their actions. If faith really held the answers then why do they feel the need to change science class curricula? Why do they feel the need to have creation "science"?

Mankind has a 6,000 year history of interacting with his Creator.

And yet no evidence to show for it.

What if the creation did not happen using natural law, but rather in defiance of it?

What if you actually supported these claims with evidence?

A purely scientific answer can only be true in the absence of supernatural causation. If God created the world, then studying cosmology for 60 years will not bring you one step closer to the truth; nor does it make you any more enlightened than a seven year old who believes that all things were created by God.

Why should we consider supernatural causation when there is no evidence for it?

 

[Loudmouth]

Some information Evolutionists conveniently ignore. When you've read it, lads and lassies, go the Uncommon Descent, and keep up to date with it, then you won't keep embarrassing yourselves:

1) Only minor variations within species have been demonstrated or observed!
2) coded sequential information such as that found in DNA has never been seen to originate from any unguided chemical processes!
3) life reduction experiments clearly show there are NO EXAMPLES of simpler life that evolutionists postulate must have existed to give rise to the functionally complex life we see today!
4) selective breeding only results in trait optimization and distinct limits not new morphological distinction!
5) mutations are a degenerative process that accrues more prohibitively operational damage than it can possibly overcome by any controversial or occasional “good mutation”!
6) Examples of Macro evolution cited by evolutionists are totally within the bounds of a known process called ADAPTATION and do not result in new body plans or body parts that build new function.

Incidentally, quantum mechanics makes it clear that mind - and that means the personal mind of the Observer - is the basic reality, not matter. Observation of reality is intersubjective. There is no such thing as objective reality. That should have been a hammer-blow to materialists, eighty years ago.

Another example of why scientists do not take creationists seriously. For example:

"mutations are a degenerative process that accrues more prohibitively operational damage than it can possibly overcome by any controversial or occasional “good mutation”!"

Can anyone point any scientific research that backs this claim?

 

[46AND2]

Why waste your time arguing against something that you believe does not exist. Would you waste this time arguing against the existence of sAnta clause. Who are you trying to convince, yourself or believers?

Hmm. It's as if you didn't even read the post you just quoted. Weird.

 

[46AND2]

That's solid aurum, 46.

You keep asking questions until you get an answer you don't like, then you terminate the conversation with ridicule.

And you guys wonder why I call you Internet scientists?

It's not my fault you don't see the circular logic in your reasoning.

You have faith because you heard God's word.
You know it was God's word because you have faith.

You have faith in a supernatural being, because a supernatural being gave you faith. You know that this faith is the correct faith, because a supernatural being gave it to you.

 

[46AND2]

I said can't be proven to YOU! God does not reveal Himself to those who have no faith. God reveals Himself to His own, who have first accepted the gift of salvation. Proving Himself to the unsaved removes the element of faith, and thus damns him forever.

In order to have faith, you first have to have faith. Got it.

Just like Thomas...er, wait...

 

[46AND2]

God has "proven" himself more than one normally requires of anyone when you are talking with them.

We already established that the supernatural cannot be proven by tangible means.

If there is evidence, please bring it forward. That is what this thread is about, afterall.

 

[46AND2]

I've never seen the Holy Spirit in a persons life other than Christian.
I've known many "Christians" without Spirit fill lives, but I've never
seen non-Christians filled with the Spirit.

So you are disagreeing with AV that it is the Holy Spirit which convinces you that your faith in Christ is the correct faith, since you have already been convinced by the time you receive the Holy Spirit?

 

[46AND2]

But God has never failed to answer my prayers.
(Conditions apply)

Of course not...if the answers are always either, yes, no, or not yet. How can you possibly tell the difference between that and nobody answering the prayers?

 

[And-U-Say]

Does this apply to asking mom for an ice cream cone?

Are you implying that god and mom are the same thing? If you had a broken leg and asked mom for help, she would help! There would be no "no". Would god help you if you had a broken leg?

If you had cancer and it was within mom's power to cure you, she WOULD. Would god?

 

[AV1611VET]

So you are disagreeing with AV that it is the Holy Spirit which convinces you that your faith in Christ is the correct faith, since you have already been convinced by the time you receive the Holy Spirit?

The filling of the Holy Spirit can come more than once. I forget who it was ... Paul or Stephen ... but he was 'filled with the Spirit' twice.

When you get saved, the Spirit takes up residence in you, but we can quench and grieve Him to the point that He isn't as effective in our lives.

As we say: One Spirit, many fillings.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you implying that god and mom are the same thing?

The concept is the same: God says YES, NO, or WAIT; so does mom.

There would be no "no". Would god help you if you had a broken leg?

If you had cancer and it was within mom's power to cure you, she WOULD. Would god?

God gifts us doctors and expects us to use them.

As Jesus said ...

Luke 5:31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.

Please read that verse and answer this simple question:

Who did Jesus say sick people needed?

 

[46AND2]

The concept is the same: God says YES, NO, or WAIT; so does mom.

God gifts us doctors and expects us to use them.

As Jesus said ...

Luke 5:31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.

Please read that verse and answer this simple question:

Who did Jesus say sick people needed?

Except God doesn't SAY yes, no, or wait, like Mom. You have to observe the results. Which is exactly what would happen if you prayed to a rock.

 

[Jamin4422]

You know it was God's word because you have faith.

We know the Bible is the word of God because when we test the word it works. Science often can not deliver on what they say they can deliver on. Science often does not have solutions or answers. God always delivers, HE does not disappoint, He always has the answer for every question. He always has the solution for every problem. To be sure it is not our solution. That it just another way that we know God is at work because often the solution is something we never thought of.