Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[Ophiolite]

I'm sorry you don't know the difference.

It is precisely because I do know the difference between ignorance, fatuousness and irrelevance that I used all three words in my post. The single word that would have conveyed the same message is, quite rightly, not permitted on the forum.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is precisely because I do know the difference between ignorance, fatuousness and irrelevance that I used all three words in my post. The single word that would have conveyed the same message is, quite rightly, not permitted on the forum.

All I said was the Bible starts out IN THE BEGINNING ... not ONCE UPON A TIME ... and you get so worked up you have to restrain yourself from posting something that's against the rules?

Quite frankly, people like that scare me.

 

[HitchSlap]

All I said was the Bible starts out IN THE BEGINNING ... not ONCE UPON A TIME ... and you get so worked up you have to restrain yourself from posting something that's against the rules?

Quite frankly, people like that scare me.

Oh get over yourself, Av. People are so full of it, Penn & Teller even had a show about it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh get over yourself, Av. People are so full of it, Penn & Teller even had a show about it.

Somehow I don't think if I told those Laurel & Hardy wannabees that the Bible doesn't start out ONCE UPON A TIME, even they wouldn't reciprocate with controlled anger.

 

[NobleMouse]

It's not real science because their members have to adhere to faith statements requiring them to reject anything that doesn't conform to their prescribed belief system. Young-Earth creationist organizations will never produce real science as long as they keep rejecting anything that contradicts their beliefs.

There is no sense complaining about it. It's just what it is.

Many scientists that adhere to biblical creation have published work in both creationist and secular science journals, so not buying it. This false view that creationist scientists don't do 'real' science comes from non-creationist scientists having a chip on their shoulder because the beliefs and research by creationist scientists undermines and challenges the conventionally held beliefs and views - I think that may be the 'complaining' you were referring?.

I ignored it because it seems liked little more than an argument from incredulity. On top of that, the existence of God is somewhat a moot point given we were talking about the age of the Earth. Whether God exists or not doesn't change how old the Earth appears to be.

In the absence of evidence that you or anyone else here can bring to the table demonstrating that design, intelligence, patterns, information, processes, systems, matter, etc... arises from absolutely nothing without the need for an all-powerful God, only demonstrates your own incredulity. The response you gave was rhetoric and a self-indictment to willful ignorance of the truth. Unlike most things debated here in this forum, the evidence for God really is unequivocal. Christianity is true because, unlike false religions and false gods, God's word is historically accurate, where it touches on scientific principles it is accurate, the prophesies from God to the prophets were written hundreds, sometimes thousands of years in advance of them being exactly fulfilled, and Jesus is the only Messiah who claimed to be God, performed miracles, and actually rose from the dead with hundreds of eye-witness accounts attesting to this. Anyone here is free to bury their heads in the sand if they so desire (btw, God also made the sand), but the truth is inescapable. Seems most follow the ABC approach to rejecting the Bible (Anything But Christ), and are willingly to believe a myriad of anything else.

There are umpteen creation stories to choose from umpteen religious beliefs throughout history. I'm sure you don't subscribe to the majority of them either, so not sure what your point is.

On top of that, this *still* has nothing to do with how old the Earth appears.

Science is about investigating the natural world and reporting back on the way things appear. The world appears to be 4.6 billion years old.

These other creation stories are false - and a clear rejection of God's word; again, ABC at work. Good wording on your part here... how old the earth "appears" (key) as appearance is based on perception and assumptions. I hope you're not just blindly accepting 4.6 billion years thinking scientists have made no assumptions coming up with this number. In fact, 4.6 billion years isn't even based upon the earth directly at all - it's based off of radiometric dating (in and of itself contains numerous assumptions) of meteorites.

I wonder if this is a result of the dichotomy some create between science and religion. If certain religious beliefs are dependent on science not having answers for things, then as science fills in the gaps with knowledge, religion gets squeezed out.

I think so, and my experience here in CF thus far is that many have such a strong affinity towards what scientists say that they'll rashly adjust their faith in God's word, they'll twist and distort what it means, or just toss it out altogether.

This to me is one of the biggest things that would scare me if I were to be a creationist. Your belief system is dependent on science being "wrong" and consequently you've set up your own beliefs for falsification.

There was a time I found myself hanging on the conclusions of science as a confirmation aiding to anchor my faith, but I've come to view science as little more than a philosophy as it relates to origins. Physics is one thing where we can test and observe and repeat experiments here in the present, but to speculate about a past event (say the evolution from a single-celled organism over billions of years is something that was not observed, cannot be repeated, and is not evident from the fossil record - 3 strikes, it's out!)... so this remains mostly 'speculation' and not so much 'science'. While I can appreciate what creationist scientists are doing - looking for scientific 'proof' that the Bible is correct, I've already pointed out that science is an ineffective tool for unequivocally proving or disproving the Bible and so it has little bearing with regard to the truth contained in God's word.

So what you've set up here is a logical fallacy where you presumed that the beliefs of creationists is dependent upon science being "wrong" where in fact that is not true - I would propose that the majority of creationists, like myself, place their belief and faith in God's word. Creationists didn't make up things like 6 days of creation and there being a flood that destroyed all the life on land. This is in the Bible, from God, to man, it is a historical account just as it claims to be in Genesis 2:4. That said, is their scientific evidence of Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon river? Nope, just a historical account so I guess it didn't happen?. No, of course it happened, science is simply too near-sighted. The Bible is historically accurate.

The science that creationists reject (esp. young-Earth creationists) has real-world application. You should read the following:

Usefulness of "old Earth" geology:

Instead, the widespread success of oil and gas exploration is perhaps the greatest testament to the accuracy of our age estimates. If the geologic column were created within the past 6,000 years, then no oil or gas should be found today, for the same reason you can’t make a medium-rare pot roast in only 30 seconds.​

https://ageofrocks.wordpress.com/2015/02/08/can-young-earth-creationists-find-oil/

Conventional Old Earth geology is the best model for finding oil and gas. Every well drilled is a multi-million dollar bet on that proposition.
​

https://stevemaley.com/2017/03/05/young-earth-creationism-old-earth-geology/

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. ​

http://www.oldearth.org/whyileft.htm

These are old and worn out canards of OEC's and the secular scientific community. Biblical creationist geologists use exactly the same tools and techniques to locate oil/coal/natural gas as other geologists. The only difference is how they view the process(es) and associated timing of events that produced these resources. So, I come back to absolutely zero benefit by believing billions of years. In fact, as a side note - Steve Austin defended his PhD dissertation on coal formation of the Kentucky coal beds by way of a floating log mat model - and it didn't require millions or billions of years.

Applications of phylogenetics (study of evolutionary relationships and common ancestry):

The inference of phylogenies with computational methods has many important applications in medical and biological research, such as drug discovery and conservation biology. A result published by Korber et al. (19), that times the evolution of the HIV-1 virus, demonstrates that ML techniques can be effective in solving biological problems. Phylogenetic trees have already witnessed applications in numerous practical domains, such as in conservation biology (3) (illegal whale hunting), epidemiology (5) (predictive evolution), forensics (27) (dental practice HIV transmission), gene function prediction (7) and drug development (14). Other applications of phylogenies include multiple sequence alignment (11, 25), protein structure prediction (31), gene and protein function prediction (12, 22) and drug design (30). A paper by Bader et al. (2) addresses important industrial applications of phylogenetic trees, e.g. in the area of commercial drug discovery.
​

https://sco.h-its.org/exelixis/pubs/CGP2005.pdf

Again, biblical creationist biologists also recognize that viruses will adapt to vaccines (this is why flu vaccines have to be modified on an ongoing basis) and has nothing to do with believing all life evolved from a single-celled organism billions of years ago. Notice, the vaccines are still to treat the flu virus every year... because the virus is still the flu virus - it hasn't evolved into a different life form. Same with identifying genetic similarities in life, drug design, protein structure predictions, etc... creationist biologists perform the same research and provide the same solutions as their secular counterparts. So, (again) I come back to absolutely zero benefit by believing in macroevolution across billions of years.

 

[NobleMouse]

Duplicate

 

[Speedwell]

Many scientists that adhere to biblical creation have published work in both creationist and secular science journals, so not buying it. This false view that creationist scientists don't do 'real' science comes from non-creationist scientists having a chip on their shoulder because the beliefs and research by creationist scientists undermines and challenges the conventionally held beliefs and views - I think that may be the 'complaining' you were referring?.


In the absence of evidence that you or anyone else here can bring to the table demonstrating that design, intelligence, patterns, information, processes, systems, matter, etc... arises from absolutely nothing without the need for an all-powerful God, only demonstrates your own incredulity. The response you gave was rhetoric and a self-indictment to willful ignorance of the truth. Unlike most things debated here in this forum, the evidence for God really is unequivocal. Christianity is true because, unlike false religions and false gods, God's word is historically accurate, where it touches on scientific principles it is accurate, the prophesies from God to the prophets were written hundreds, sometimes thousands of years in advance of them being exactly fulfilled, and Jesus is the only Messiah who claimed to be God, performed miracles, and actually rose from the dead with hundreds of eye-witness accounts attesting to this. Anyone here is free to bury their heads in the sand if they so desire (btw, God also made the sand), but the truth is inescapable. Seems most follow the ABC approach to rejecting the Bible (Anything But Christ), and are willingly to believe a myriad of anything else.


These other creation stories are false - and a clear rejection of God's word; again, ABC at work. Good wording on your part here... how old the earth "appears" (key) as appearance is based on perception and assumptions. I hope you're not just blindly accepting 4.6 billion years thinking scientists have made no assumptions coming up with this number. In fact, 4.6 billion years isn't even based upon the earth directly at all - it's based off of radiometric dating (in and of itself contains numerous assumptions) of meteorites.


I think so, and my experience here in CF thus far is that many have such a strong affinity towards what scientists say that they'll rashly adjust their faith in God's word, they'll twist and distort what it means, or just toss it out altogether.


There was a time I found myself hanging on the conclusions of science as a confirmation aiding to anchor my faith, but I've come to view science as little more than a philosophy as it relates to origins. Physics is one thing where we can test and observe and repeat experiments here in the present, but to speculate about a past event (say the evolution from a single-celled organism over billions of years is something that was not observed, cannot be repeated, and is not evident from the fossil record - 3 strikes, it's out!)... so this remains mostly 'speculation' and not so much 'science'. While I can appreciate what creationist scientists are doing - looking for scientific 'proof' that the Bible is correct, I've already pointed out that science is an ineffective tool for unequivocally proving or disproving the Bible and so it has little bearing with regard to the truth contained in God's word.

So what you've set up here is a logical fallacy where you presumed that the beliefs of creationists is dependent upon science being "wrong" where in fact that is not true - I would propose that the majority of creationists, like myself, place their belief and faith in God's word. Creationists didn't make up things like 6 days of creation and there being a flood that destroyed all the life on land. This is in the Bible, from God, to man, it is a historical account just as it claims to be in Genesis 2:4. That said, is their scientific evidence of Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon river? Nope, just a historical account so I guess it didn't happen?. No, of course it happened, science is simply too near-sighted. The Bible is historically accurate.


These are old and worn out canards of OEC's and the secular scientific community. Biblical creationist geologists use exactly the same tools and techniques to locate oil/coal/natural gas as other geologists. The only difference is how they view the process(es) and associated timing of events that produced these resources. So, I come back to absolutely zero benefit by believing billions of years. In fact, as a side note - Steve Austin defended his PhD dissertation on coal formation of the Kentucky coal beds by way of a floating log mat model - and it didn't require millions or billions of years.


Again, biblical creationist biologists also recognize that viruses will adapt to vaccines (this is why flu vaccines have to be modified on an ongoing basis) and has nothing to do with believing all life evolved from a single-celled organism billions of years ago. Notice, the vaccines are still to treat the flu virus every year... because the virus is still the flu virus - it hasn't evolved into a different life form. Same with identifying genetic similarities in life, drug design, protein structure predictions, etc... creationist biologists perform the same research and provide the same solutions as their secular counterparts. So, (again) I come back to absolutely zero benefit by believing in macroevolution across billions of years.

So you appear to believe that the objective historical accuracy of the Bible is proof of Christianity. Is that right?

 

[NobleMouse]

So you appear to believe that the objective historical accuracy of the Bible is proof of Christianity. Is that right?

Just to clarify, I believe the word of God is correct, regardless of whether it is generally accepted by scientists, secular historians, etc.... For a long time there has been evidence for the historical authenticity of the Bible, and more evidence continues to surface attesting to the historical accuracy of the Bible. God's word has also predicted future events that was later fulfilled, and Jesus claimed to be God, performed miracles, and rose from the dead with hundreds of eye witnesses. Holistically, and in very abbreviated discussion here, I believe these qualities separate Christianity from other religions and demonstrate that Christianity and faith in Jesus as the only way to God is true.

If that is what you meant, then yes.

 

[HitchSlap]

Somehow I don't think if I told those Laurel & Hardy wannabees that the Bible doesn't start out ONCE UPON A TIME, even they wouldn't reciprocate with controlled anger.

Your wannabe martyrdom is cute.

 

[HitchSlap]

Just to clarify, I believe the word of God is correct, regardless of whether it is generally accepted by scientists, secular historians, etc.... For a long time there has been evidence for the historical authenticity of the Bible, and more evidence continues to surface attesting to the historical accuracy of the Bible. God's word has also predicted future events that was later fulfilled, and Jesus claimed to be God, performed miracles, and rose from the dead with hundreds of eye witnesses. Holistically, and in very abbreviated discussion here, I believe these qualities separate Christianity from other religions and demonstrate that Christianity and faith in Jesus as the only way to God is true.

If that is what you meant, then yes.

Yawn*... all religions have similar claims. Nothing special about the Bible when compared to any other religion.

 

[Speedwell]

Yawn*... all religions have similar claims. Nothing special about the Bible when compared to any other religion.

In this case, although it is not true of most Christians, I think we have something rather different. For fundamentalist Evangelicals the role their holy book plays in their belief system is unique in my experience. If you look at "any other religion" you will find that the authority of their scriptures derives from God, who is responsible in one way or another for producing it. This is true of Christians generally as well. For fundamentalists, however, it appears that the authority of scripture rests not in its divine authorship but in its objective historical accuracy.

 

[HitchSlap]

For fundamentalists, however, it appears that the authority of scripture rests not in its divine authorship but in its objective historical accuracy.

Agreed. However, I would add to the above statement, that their authority also rests largely on their narrow interpretation of scripture.

 

[AV1611VET]

Agreed. However, I would add to the above statement, that their authority also rests largely on their narrow interpretation of scripture.

How do you interpret a STOP sign?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Your entire post here had good questions, but I'm not certain that you realize all you're doing, like most here, is just squabbling about in the weeds of scientific assertions. You've not addressed pointed statements I made showing evidence for God, as you requested, (post #943 towards the bottom) using just logic and reason.

-_- you can't use philosophy to provide evidence for anything, it just amounts to making thought experiments.

Here is an example of a completely logical sequence of proposals and conclusions
Cheese has holes
More cheese means more holes
More holes means less cheese
More cheese = less cheese.

I am not joking, that entire thing follows logic rules perfectly. It is stuff like this that makes me view any sort of pure logic argument as questionable at best. Philosophy is only supposed to be used for items too subjective for science to properly evaluate; it's actually supremely less useful and accurate than science as a result, to the point that philosophy doesn't actually have theories or hypotheses. I would not consider whether or not deities exist to be a question so abstract that the conclusion would have to be subjective regardless of evidence, do you?

In the absence of a response from you (and anyone else for that matter), I'll assume the post was overlooked.

I'm not on here every day, so it is a distinct possibility. Sorry.

From your latest post here, I can see you either have possibly just not given it any thought, or you simply think information, order, patterns, systems & processes, matter, all just comes together on it's own, from nowhere... like "magic".

No, I'm just willing to admit I don't know how the universe came to be. Not knowing doesn't mean a deity is responsible.

This will forever be your vice and the vice of every atheist.

XD only people that don't know atheists all that well think we believe the universe came from nothing. I have no idea as to the origins of the universe. It could have a paradoxical origin where a human creates the universe for all I know.

You can choose to get lost in scientific intellectualistic debates, but you will never escape it's grip --> the universe and everything in it, which contains all the qualities I just described, can only exist if it was created by an intelligent creator

Oh look, a logical fallacy. You have to actually demonstrate that a universe cannot form without an intelligent creator before that statement has any meaning. It's like saying that the only way I can't get wet when it is raining is by having an umbrella, not even considering that it is also possible that I just stayed indoors. We don't know how our universe came to be, so it is presumptuous to assign any qualities to universe formation.

- every experiment demonstrates that intelligence is required to produce intelligence.

This type of statement has never made sense to me. Since when have humans ever created an intelligence like ourselves in the slightest? Did dolphins create an intelligent robot race and I just never heard about it? What definition of intelligence are you even using for that statement?

You can believe that intelligence and information comes from nowhere, but zero evidence supports your position.

-_- information isn't a physical thing, it is knowledge that we acquire about the world. A consequence of curiosity, I suppose. Our intelligence is a heritable trait, just as much as our sight is. Nothing about it is actually special compared to any other trait we have other than the value we have chosen to assign to it. It doesn't come from nowhere, it comes from brains, which developed over the course of millions of years, derived from basic responses all cells have to stimuli, made more specialized over all of this time.

Do not be willingly ignorant of this any longer.

I'm not willfully ignorant of anything. But I notice an extreme lack of actual evidence for deities here. Seems more like you are incredulous about the idea of the universe, etc., forming via natural processes. -_- which isn't an argument for anything.

 

[NobleMouse]

-_- you can't use philosophy to provide evidence for anything, it just amounts to making thought experiments.

Here is an example of a completely logical sequence of proposals and conclusions
Cheese has holes
More cheese means more holes
More holes means less cheese
More cheese = less cheese.

I am not joking, that entire thing follows logic rules perfectly. It is stuff like this that makes me view any sort of pure logic argument as questionable at best. Philosophy is only supposed to be used for items too subjective for science to properly evaluate; it's actually supremely less useful and accurate than science as a result, to the point that philosophy doesn't actually have theories or hypotheses. I would not consider whether or not deities exist to be a question so abstract that the conclusion would have to be subjective regardless of evidence, do you?

That is an example of non sequitur in the form of an illogical syllogism, not logic and reason.

I'm not on here every day, so it is a distinct possibility. Sorry.

No worries.

No, I'm just willing to admit I don't know how the universe came to be. Not knowing doesn't mean a deity is responsible.

XD only people that don't know atheists all that well think we believe the universe came from nothing. I have no idea as to the origins of the universe. It could have a paradoxical origin where a human creates the universe for all I know.

First you indicate it doesn't have to be a deity, then present fictitious scenario where a human created the universe. This feels more like ABC reasoning (Anything But Christ). The idea of a paradoxical origin is unsubstantiated, whereas the claim has been positively made that God created everything, and given what has been revealed of the nature of God, the evidence fits this claim. You DO know how the universe came to be (John 1:1-3), you just don't accept it.

Oh look, a logical fallacy. You have to actually demonstrate that a universe cannot form without an intelligent creator before that statement has any meaning. It's like saying that the only way I can't get wet when it is raining is by having an umbrella, not even considering that it is also possible that I just stayed indoors. We don't know how our universe came to be, so it is presumptuous to assign any qualities to universe formation.

Zero evidence has been produced of a universe being created, especially by humans. Even if humans could create a universe, it would only evidence creation by an "intelligent creator". Your argument against this is based on?? Answer: Nothing. If God is all-knowing and all-powerful and has always existed without beginning (which is what Christians believe, because this is what is revealed of God in scripture), then He has the wherewithal, power, resources, and time to accomplish that which is evidenced. To date, there is no evidence to the contrary. No matter how many straw-man arguments you erect then tear down along the way, will not negate the truth of God's word.

This type of statement has never made sense to me. Since when have humans ever created an intelligence like ourselves in the slightest? Did dolphins create an intelligent robot race and I just never heard about it? What definition of intelligence are you even using for that statement?

Okay... whether we're talking about a quilt, a computer, or a rocket - there is evidence of a pattern that was followed, a process, a purposeful design, and within a computer and rocket we'll also see information, routines and subroutines, logic, mathematical computations, programming language, etc... Of these 3 there is a stark difference between each; however, each reveals evidence of having been created by an intelligent creator.

Moving onto atoms, proteins, DNA/RNA, cells and cell structures, life, self-sustaining ecological systems, planets orbiting stars, atmospheres balanced just right to support life - even if you want to get into quantum physics there are demonstrated behaviors and purpose for particles and sub particles, all revealing evidence of having been created - no wiggling around it.

-_- information isn't a physical thing, it is knowledge that we acquire about the world. A consequence of curiosity, I suppose. Our intelligence is a heritable trait, just as much as our sight is. Nothing about it is actually special compared to any other trait we have other than the value we have chosen to assign to it. It doesn't come from nowhere, it comes from brains, which developed over the course of millions of years, derived from basic responses all cells have to stimuli, made more specialized over all of this time.

Follow that through to conclusion - is intelligence perpetually inherited through endless generations? We've already established the universe had a finite beginning, so at some point intelligence (the ability to learn and apply learned knowledge) had to be imbued... or you run up against the fallacy of intelligence coming from nothing (no matter how long, drawn out, and gradualistic you try to make it - if you say it formed over 6.02 x 10^23 years then you're still saying something came from nothing). And in your last sentence you demonstrate this belief, as in order for there to be any variation in cell types, at all, there first needs to be the information and the template to create each of the cell types, then there also needs to be information to interpret and respond to different cell types accordingly (one cell of which is more advanced than any super computer or rocket).

I'm not willfully ignorant of anything. But I notice an extreme lack of actual evidence for deities here. Seems more like you are incredulous about the idea of the universe, etc., forming via natural processes. -_- which isn't an argument for anything.

Truly an emblem of atheism is being "Aristotle's fish" (not aware of the fact it is wet because all it knows is wet) so likewise you do not recognize creation by a Creator because everything around you was created, taking for granted that everything from the smallest sub-atomic particle to the largest star in the heavens requires a Creator. If you still can't find evidence around you for God, go look in the mirror. You keep citing a lack of actual evidence, but just as your laundry doesn't get done unless you do it, so also nothing in creation was created without a Creator. And the Bible makes the claim that it is from the One who created all things and His Son Jesus affirmed this and made the claim that He is in the Father and the Father in Him and that no one comes to the Father except by Him.

This is not at all a lack of evidence, and seeing you cannot substantiate a remotely viable alternative beyond "I don't know", this is a rejection of God. God tells us if we seek Him with all of our heart we will find Him (Jeremiah 29:13). You've stated that you cry yourself to sleep at night wanting to believe. So from what I can see based upon our brief encounter here is that: 1) God's word is present and true and has the answers you're seeking, and 2) If your desire for Him is genuine then you will believe. I can either conclude you are not genuine in your desire to believe or there is something else you have not been forthcoming about in this struggle to believe. On the surface it would seem the desire to believe is there, but then when you are presented with the truth in His word - Him telling you that He made everything, He made you, loves you, sent his Son to die for your sins so that you could spend eternity with Him, you respond with "nope" and I see this in post after post from you grasping at any alternative (even if unrealistic and unreasonable). We have to recognize that our senses do not reveal all truths - there are things beyond sight, taste, touch, sound, and smell.

Just being transparent here, I'd like to see you come to believe and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior. If your preference though is to reject His love for you, you have the free will to do so - this is your God-given right.

 

[Ophiolite]

First you indicate it doesn't have to be a deity, then present fictitious scenario where a human created the universe. This feels more like ABC reasoning (Anything But Christ). The idea of a paradoxical origin is unsubstantiated, whereas the claim has been positively made that God created everything, and given what has been revealed of the nature of God, the evidence fits this claim. You DO know how the universe came to be (John 1:1-3), you just don't accept it.

I take strong exception to this:

1. It should be abundantly clear to you that Sarah has chosen an extreme example to highlight that we just do not know (despite your protestations) how the universe was created (or metamorphosed into its present form). Implying that she was making a serious alternative suggestion is either being deliberately obtuse, or not paying proper attention to her post.

2. Thousands of claims as to the origin of the universe have been made by thousands of religions. You believe that the singular claim made by Christianity is the true one. You think you know this to be true, but it is a belief founded in faith. Asserting otherwise is intellectually questionable.

 

[pitabread]

Many scientists that adhere to biblical creation have published work in both creationist and secular science journals, so not buying it. This false view that creationist scientists don't do 'real' science comes from non-creationist scientists having a chip on their shoulder because the beliefs and research by creationist scientists undermines and challenges the conventionally held beliefs and views - I think that may be the 'complaining' you were referring?.

Just to clarify, I'm referring to the material that groups like AiG, ICR, etc, specifically publish through their own media. This includes their so-called 'journals' such as AiG's Answer Research Journal for which they will reject papers that do not agree with their faith statement:

The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria or it conflicts with the best interests of AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of faith.​

And AiG's faith statement states that they flat-out reject anything that contradicts their religious beliefs.

That's not science.

In the absence of evidence that you or anyone else here can bring to the table demonstrating that design, intelligence, patterns, information, processes, systems, matter, etc... arises from absolutely nothing without the need for an all-powerful God, only demonstrates your own incredulity.

To clarify my own position the best answer I can give for the origin of everything is that I simply don't know. It's not a position of incredulity; rather it's a position based on lack of compelling evidence to adopt a particular viewpoint. Hence, why I consider myself agnostic when it comes to questions of a divine creator.

Conversely arguing that the universe must be a result of a divine creator because the alternative (no creator) is simply too unimaginable is an argument from incredulity. Which appears to be the argument you are making.

Unlike most things debated here in this forum, the evidence for God really is unequivocal. Christianity is true because, unlike false religions and false gods, God's word is historically accurate, where it touches on scientific principles it is accurate, the prophesies from God to the prophets were written hundreds, sometimes thousands of years in advance of them being exactly fulfilled, and Jesus is the only Messiah who claimed to be God, performed miracles, and actually rose from the dead with hundreds of eye-witness accounts attesting to this.

I'm sure you really believe that and that's fine. I'm not interested in debating over whether or not Christianity is true especially since it appears you'd just end up using the same boilerplate arguments I've come across many times in the past.

My own view that has been shaped by the past couple decades of discussing religious beliefs and studying different religions is that they appear to be cultural in nature. For example, you list your location as being the U.S. Mid-West for which the dominant religious faith is Protestant Christianity. And here you are proselytizing Protestant Christianity as the One True Faith™.

I suppose you should consider yourself lucky you are part of a culture for which that is the dominant belief. Had you been born in a different place or time you might have missed out.

In fact, 4.6 billion years isn't even based upon the earth directly at all - it's based off of radiometric dating (in and of itself contains numerous assumptions) of meteorites.

Of course. This also coincides with helioseismology deriving a solar age of 4.6 billion years.

So what you've set up here is a logical fallacy where you presumed that the beliefs of creationists is dependent upon science being "wrong" where in fact that is not true - I would propose that the majority of creationists, like myself, place their belief and faith in God's word.

Then let me ask: If it were shown definitively that the Earth appeared to be 4.6 billion years and that modern species appeared to be the result of billions of years of evolution how would that impact your beliefs? Would you still subscribe to young Earth creationist beliefs? Would you remain a Christian?

Biblical creationist geologists use exactly the same tools and techniques to locate oil/coal/natural gas as other geologists.

Which is based on conventional "old Earth" geology. That's the point: nobody uses the young-Earth creationist models of geology for anything. Everything is based on conventional geology which involved processes having shaped modern geology over millions/billions of years.

If the creationist model of a 6000 year old Earth were actually correct, the first place you'd be hearing about this would be from industry. They have a vested financial interest in the best understanding of geology possible. So why aren't they subscribing to young-Earth creation models if conventional geology is incorrect?

Again, biblical creationist biologists also recognize that viruses will adapt to vaccines (this is why flu vaccines have to be modified on an ongoing basis) and has nothing to do with believing all life evolved from a single-celled organism billions of years ago. Notice, the vaccines are still to treat the flu virus every year... because the virus is still the flu virus - it hasn't evolved into a different life form. Same with identifying genetic similarities in life, drug design, protein structure predictions, etc... creationist biologists perform the same research and provide the same solutions as their secular counterparts. So, (again) I come back to absolutely zero benefit by believing in macroevolution across billions of years.

I'm not sure you understand the scope of phylogenetics. It's the study of evolutionary relationships regardless of whether it's studying the evolution of the flu virus or the evolutionary relationships of species that evolved over millions of years.

The study of mammalian genomes tend to involve the latter, for example studying livestock genomes for agriculture or human genome for medical purposes. There are uses of phylogenetics that include evolutionary relationships that creationists typically reject such as primate evolutionary history.

And there are even companies that patent techniques based on this.

The science you reject is being used today in real-world applications.

 

[NobleMouse]

I take strong exception to this:

1. It should be abundantly clear to you that Sarah has chosen an extreme example to highlight that we just do not know (despite your protestations) how the universe was created (or metamorphosed into its present form). Implying that she was making a serious alternative suggestion is either being deliberately obtuse, or not paying proper attention to her post.

"I don't know" does not work when presented with an answer.

Example:
2 + 2 = 5

Would you respond to this with, "I don't know" then go into a lengthy discussion about the possibility of arbitrary values being assigned to the symbols "2" and "5" with a philosophical review of what the operators "+" and "=" could represent? Or, would you respond with "I take strong exception to this" and explain that under the conventional mathematical understanding of the symbol "2" and the operator "+" that the correct answer is the symbol "4"?

The claim has been made by the Bible that God created the universe. In other words, an answer has been provided to the question of origins. I'm completely unconvinced that anyone here who is either an agnostic or atheist is truly wandering about wishing someone could help solve the mystery of how the universe came to be. As an agnostic, you're a bit more 'gray' or 'blurred' so I cannot really comment on what your position is; however, [a]theists here see God as being the creator of the universe as 2 + 2 = 5 and you are rejecting the answer. Further, judging from the responses,

2. Thousands of claims as to the origin of the universe have been made by thousands of religions. You believe that the singular claim made by Christianity is the true one. You think you know this to be true, but it is a belief founded in faith. Asserting otherwise is intellectually questionable.

Generalizations aside, the vast majority of the 'thousands' is going to be the false beliefs held within small indigenous people groups with only a handful of major religions representing 99% of the world's population. With both Christianity and Islam sharing the 5 first books found in the Bible, this represents a similar belief around creation, representative of over 3.6 billion people alone, so just to be clear, there really isn't a myriad of thousands of different beliefs evenly distributed across the planet.

 

[HitchSlap]

"I don't know" does not work when presented with an answer.

Example:
2 + 2 = 5

Making up answers is arrogant and sloppy. It takes more courage to admit when you don't know something. Unfortunately, religion tends to promote fabricating answers in the absence of knowledge.

Would you respond to this with, "I don't know" then go into a lengthy discussion about the possibility of arbitrary values being assigned to the symbols "2" and "5" with a philosophical review of what the operators "+" and "=" could represent? Or, would you respond with "I take strong exception to this" and explain that under the conventional mathematical understanding of the symbol "2" and the operator "+" that the correct answer is the symbol "4"?

Either you can demonstrate 2+2=5, or you can't.

The claim has been made by the Bible that God created the universe. In other words, an answer has been provided to the question of origins.

And you can either demonstrate this to be true, or you can't.

I'm completely unconvinced that anyone here who is either an agnostic or atheist is truly wandering about wishing someone could help solve the mystery of how the universe came to be.

Our origins is an intriguing question, and everything we've learned about it thus far, has been through scientific rigor, and not the bible.

As an agnostic,

As an agnostic, I don't have knowledge of a god/s existing.

however, [a]theists

As an atheist, I don't believe in god/s.

here see God as being the creator of the universe as 2 + 2 = 5 and you are rejecting the answer. Further, judging from the responses,

The bible makes unsubstantiated claims. Claims that are best understood as a product of the information available to the authors at the time.

Generalizations aside, the vast majority of the 'thousands' is going to be the false beliefs held within small indigenous people groups with only a handful of major religions representing 99% of the world's population. With both Christianity and Islam sharing the 5 first books found in the Bible, this represents a similar belief around creation, representative of over 3.6 billion people alone, so just to be clear, there really isn't a myriad of thousands of different beliefs evenly distributed across the planet.

Well, that's the thing about religions, they can't all be right, but they could all be wrong.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Sorry, I have to wade in here...

"I don't know" does not work when presented with an answer.

Example:
2 + 2 = 5

Would you respond to this with, "I don't know" then go into a lengthy discussion about the possibility of arbitrary values being assigned to the symbols "2" and "5" with a philosophical review of what the operators "+" and "=" could represent? Or, would you respond with "I take strong exception to this" and explain that under the conventional mathematical understanding of the symbol "2" and the operator "+" that the correct answer is the symbol "4"?

Well, a more accurate analogy would be -

Examples:
2 + 2 = 2.2
2 + 2 = 2.2222^
2 + 2 = 3
2 + 2 = 5
2 + 2 = X
2 + 2 = A + 1
2 + 2 = 22
2 + 2 = A + B
2 + 2 = Y^2
etc.

As above, most can be disproven straight off the bat but their adherents literally ignore the relevant definitions and meanings - then some are unfalsifiable, because their adherents move the goalposts claiming a point of view on what an operand is and what is really meant by it, or if operands are literal or abstract, and whether the symbols have values and what they might be, etc. Apologists for all these different answers are out there and all are claiming they have the one and only "Truth" of 2 + 2.

The claim has been made by the Bible that God created the universe. In other words, an answer has been provided to the question of origins. I'm completely unconvinced that anyone here who is either an agnostic or atheist is truly wandering about wishing someone could help solve the mystery of how the universe came to be. As an agnostic, you're a bit more 'gray' or 'blurred' so I cannot really comment on what your position is; however, [a]theists here see God as being the creator of the universe as 2 + 2 = 5 and you are rejecting the answer.

Well, when reality is showing something different to what God supposedly says is the case, then of course there's a problem.

Further, judging from the responses,

Generalizations aside, the vast majority of the 'thousands' is going to be the false beliefs held within small indigenous people groups with only a handful of major religions representing 99% of the world's population. With both Christianity and Islam sharing the 5 first books found in the Bible, this represents a similar belief around creation, representative of over 3.6 billion people alone, so just to be clear, there really isn't a myriad of thousands of different beliefs evenly distributed across the planet.

Firstly, go back a few thousand years and ask around what shape the Earth is. That 99% of them thought it was flat make it any more truer than it is now?

There are a myriad of religions that predate every version of your religion, some of which are still practiced today. Why is it that all of these religions enjoyed the greater percentile of believers in the past as yours does now? Just like they shrunk, why is your religious followers now a shrinking percentile of the worlds population compared with other religions, and to those of no religion too?