There is no Creation Debate

[Loudmouth]

Try not to post gibberish and spam.

Once again, all you have are insults.

 

[dad]

You are the only one who has to avoid facts.

We wait for some fact you post. Should we all cringe in fear that if you ever stumble on one we will all have to abandon ship??

 

[dad]

Once again, all you have are insults.

Try not to take good advice the wrong way. Make posts cohesive, and intelligible.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

We have ice cores that go back hundreds of thousands of years.

Correction - you have an assumption, based on man's fallible ideas, that the ice cores go back hundreds of thousands of years. Other scientists think differently http://creation.com/do-greenland-ice-cores-show-over-one-hundred-thousand-years-of-annual-layers You can't prove that you are right, any more than the creation scientists can prove that they are right. But I tell you what, since the creation scientists' conclusions are in keeping with Biblical history, I choose to believe them rather than the long-ages conclusions of the anti-Biblical scientists.

 

[dad]

Where has that ever been shown? ..

Just the other day some poster was trying to pawn off the idea that where it talks about the blood saving us and the Son..that doesn't mean Jesus.

 

[Loudmouth]

Try not to take good advice the wrong way. Make posts cohesive, and intelligible.

So now you insult my posts. Go figure.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Correction - you have an assumption, based on man's fallible ideas, that the ice cores go back hundreds of thousands of years. Other scientists think differently http://creation.com/do-greenland-ice-cores-show-over-one-hundred-thousand-years-of-annual-layers You can't prove that you are right, any more than the creation scientists can prove that they are right. But I tell you what, since the creation scientists' conclusions are in keeping with Biblical history, I choose to believe them rather than the long-ages conclusions of the anti-Biblical scientists.

No. Scientists can count. And those are not scientists at that that site, in fact they require their workers not to use the scientific method. When creationists accuse scientists of "assuming" at best they are saying that they do not understand.

Do you have any legitimate science that opposes the dating of ice cores? I am betting that you do not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just the other day some poster was trying to pawn off the idea that where it talks about the blood saving us and the Son..that doesn't mean Jesus.

I was not part of that debate, and he may have a valid theological point. But I find Christians tend to be very confused about their own beliefs. Perhaps that is why there are upwards of 40,000 different sects of Christianity.

 

[The Cadet]

Therein lies the problem. When people reject God, they have to come up with all sorts of ideas to replace Him.

I really feel the need to stress this. The ideas you are complaining about are things like "the universe exists" and "my senses are accurate most of the time". Do you not believe that the universe exists? Do you not believe your senses are usually accurate? These first principles are things everyone must necessarily accept.

 

[dad]

So now you insult my posts. Go figure.

Rather than deny that some post you tapped out may be less than deserving of a Nobel prize for literature, it might be better to make some small effort to make them clear.

 

[dad]

I was not part of that debate, and he may have a valid theological point. But I find Christians tend to be very confused about their own beliefs. Perhaps that is why there are upwards of 40,000 different sects of Christianity.

I see, so you agree now that the creator of all things is Jesus?

Col 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Whatever gives you the idea that I hate science? It was my favourite and strongest subject at school.

Did you skip biology? You say you love science but have a serious problem with evolution, which is an observable fact. So, do you just enjoy science that doesn't threaten your beliefs?

I think science when properly used is brilliant, but what I do object to is the pseudo science that masquerades as science and presents all sorts of weird and wonderful ideas as if they were proven facts.

Translation "I love science that benefits my life, for example, this computer I am typing on. But when I think it threatens my belief system, I will ignore all facts" Ever benefited from modern medicine? The understanding of evolution is vital to it's advances. It's the foundation of biology.

You can't disprove God or disprove that He created everything by trying to make out that it is unscientific to have that view

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

it's just as unscientific (more so, I would say) to believe that the universe sprang into existence all on its own from nothing or that life came from non-living chemicals without any divine intervention.

Define 'nothing'. I don't know the answer the question for how the universe came into existence. I don't pretend to know.
Every scientific discovery that has been made has come with a natural explanation. I wouldn't be surprised that the answer to how the universe came to be was a natural explanation as well.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

in fact, the more I learn about this remarkable universe, the more I am convinced that it had to come from a being with supreme intelligence and power to match.

What evidence do you have that there is a supreme intelligence responsible for it all? Please describe this without committing the fallacy of personal incredulity.

 

[Loudmouth]

Correction - you have an assumption, based on man's fallible ideas, that the ice cores go back hundreds of thousands of years.

We have evidence that they go back hundreds of thousands of years. The age of those layers is a conclusion drawn from evidence, not an assumption.

Other scientists think differently http://creation.com/do-greenland-ice-cores-show-over-one-hundred-thousand-years-of-annual-layers

"They have used predictions from their long-age ice-accumulation models to interpret ‘annual’ layers using variables such as oxygen isotope ratios, cloudy bands, electrical conductivity, laser-light scattered from dust, major ion chemistry, and volcanic ash bands."

Those aren't predictions. They are observations. We can observe how ice behaves, and use those behaviors to determine the age of the ice.

You can't prove that you are right, any more than the creation scientists can prove that they are right.

Where have creationists disproven anything?

But I tell you what, since the creation scientists' conclusions are in keeping with Biblical history,

Just another admission that the evidence does not support creationism. If the evidence did support creationism, you wouldn't have to find excuses for ignoring it.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

False it is a tool to avoid truth and deny truth and mock truth

Why do you use a computer and the internet if you think the scientific method denies truth?
I've never seen someone respond to you in agreement on here, dad. Your nonsense is entertaining though.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Do you have any legitimate science that opposes the dating of ice cores? I am betting that you do not.

Predictable. Just mock any scientists who dare to go against the ruling paradigm of naturalism. If you deny that takes place then take a look here.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

The age of those layers is a conclusion drawn from evidence, not an assumption.

Like I said, an assumption, based on man's fallible ideas. The creation-believing scientists have exactly the same evidence, but reach very different conclusions.

 

[Loudmouth]

Like I said, an assumption,

If you look at what I wrote, I clearly said conclusion.

based on man's fallible ideas.

It is based on observation, not ideas.

The creation-believing scientists have exactly the same evidence,

Where did they use this evidence to reach their conclusions?

I dare you to find a single instance where they use this evidence. I bet you can't do it.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Like I said, an assumption, based on man's fallible ideas. The creation-believing scientists have exactly the same evidence, but reach very different conclusions.

By starting at a conclusion they want and working backwards. The very opposite of the scientific method and the definition of pseudoscience.

Do you think it's intellectually honest for that creation site to post that they will reject any facts that contradict their scripture? That is the height of arrogance to think you have a monopoly on the truth. It's not caring about what is true, it's only caring about what you want to be true.

 

[Loudmouth]

Predictable. Just mock any scientists who dare to go against the ruling paradigm of naturalism.

Unless they have published peer reviewed papers on the subject, they haven't gone against anything in science. Writing misinformed blog posts on a creationist website is not science.

If you deny that takes place then take a look here.

Why don't you start a fresh thread and try to defend what is on that page. I don't think you will like the outcome.

 

[The Cadet]

Predictable. Just mock any scientists who dare to go against the ruling paradigm of naturalism. If you deny that takes place then take a look here.

If I debunk the crap on that list, will you care?