Do creationists not know their own Bibles?

[LoricaLady]

Read the bolded section I posted. Here it is again:

• By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

You cannot do honest science whereby you automatically throw out a conclusion simply because it contradicts a predetermined religious belief.

You have moved the goal post because you can't provide the quote I asked for because...it doesn't exist.

 

[pitabread]

You have moved the goal post because you can't provide the quote I asked for because...it doesn't exist.

There is no moving of goal posts.

I'm pointing you to the exact part of the faith statement that prevents employees of AiG from using the scientific method. Their own faith statement requires them to reject any evidence that disagrees with their beliefs.

If you don't want to accept it, that's fine. But it's there in perfect black and white text for everyone to see.

I do give AiG points for being honest about it; but they aren't doing science.

 

[JackRT]

"The finding, published in Science, suggests that a reservoir of water is hidden in the Earth's mantle, more than 400 miles below the surface. ... It extends deep into the Earth's interior as the oceanic crust subducts, or slides, under adjoining plates of crust and sinks into the mantle, carrying water with it. "Oct 14, 2019 Smithsonian

An excellent article here:
https://letstalkscience.ca/educational-resources/stem-in-context/ringwoodite-and-deep-water-cycle

 

[LoricaLady]

You have moved the goal post because you can't provide the quote I asked for because...it doesn't exist.

P.S. Nowhere in AIG do they ever say the scientific method is not valid because it contradicts
Scriptures. Of course the many highly qualified scientists who publish for them, and are quoted by them, do use the scientific method in many different fields. I mentioned Georgia Purdom, a molecular biologist. You think she doesn't believe in, and hasn't used, the scientific method in her training and work? That would be possible, because unlike so called abiogenesis, she has dealt with what is testable, repeatable and observable.

Again, never, ever, does AIG tell anyone not to follow the scientific method.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Take your time. Remember it has to include the directive from AIG saying their scientists are not go follow the scientific method. Please don't comment to me anymore until I see that quote I want to see that you are a credible source of information.

It does not have to specifically state that they cannot follow the scientific method. It only needs a phrase in it that would mean that was what they are doing. And @pitabread already quoted it for you. One does not get to assume an answer in the sciences. Here it is again:

• By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

One cannot go against the evidence with the scientific method. The stories in the Bible are the claim. They are not the evidence. They need to be supported by evidence for a scientist to support them. By swearing to follow that one is saying that no matter what the evidence says that they are going to follow the Bible rather than the scientific method where one follows the evidence.

 

[pitabread]

Again, never, ever, does AIG tell anyone not to follow the scientific method.

They tell their employees to reject anything that contradicts their religious beliefs. Once again:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.​

If an AiG employee uses the scientific method and comes to conclusions that contradict those beliefs (which AiG also lays out in their faith statement), then AiG is telling that employee to reject that conclusion.

Which means those employees cannot legitimately use the scientific method as per AiG employees.

You can keep trying to claim otherwise, but it's still there in black and white for all to see. I'm not sure what you're not seeing here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have moved the goal post because you can't provide the quote I asked for because...it doesn't exist.

That is the quote. You asked for a quote that was never promised to you. You demanded an unreasonable quote. If anyone "moved the goalposts" you did after the quote was provided.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is the quote. You asked for a quote that was never promised to you. You demanded an unreasonable quote. If anyone "moved the goalposts" you did after the quote was provided.

QV please: 1823

 

[LoricaLady]

It does not have to specifically state that they cannot follow the scientific method. It only needs a phrase in it that would mean that was what they are doing. And @pitabread already quoted it for you. One does not get to assume an answer in the sciences. Here it is again:

• By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

One cannot go against the evidence with the scientific method. The stories in the Bible are the claim. They are not the evidence. They need to be supported by evidence for a scientist to support them. By swearing to follow that one is saying that no matter what the evidence says that they are going to follow the Bible rather than the scientific method where one follows the evidence.

Twist and spin and evade. You couldn't find the quote because it doesn't exist.

I will give scientific evidence for the Bible and then I am out of here as these debates become distasteful and too time consuming.


The evidences for the Bible are too numerous to mention and include areas such as archaeology, history, fulfilled prophecies and, yes, science.

Let's start with DNA. All DNA is always just a copy of a copy of a copy and so on which replicates what has already been seen in nature. Yes, it can be altered to a limited extent, but no original, novel, strands of DNA are ever created and, further, no one has any data to show how any DNA got here. This matches the Bible which says creation has halted.

And btw, fish don't have DNA instructions for legs, and lizards don't have DNA instructions for feathers, wings etc. Since no new DNA is ever created, only altered to a very limited extent, where would they get it from? Oh, wait, I'm sure evolutionism has lots of...theories....on that. But the Bible says things were created fully formed and fully functional, so there ya go with DNA fulfilling an expected prediction.

Another example of how creation has been halted is seen when you look at the taxonomic groupings of animals and plants, ascending from species to family, to class, to order, to phylum, to kingdom. No plants or animals ever go higher than the creation of a new species, no matter what Darwin, or evolutionary peer reviews, claim happened in the invisible and unverifiable past.

Hundreds of thousands of species of beetles stay beetles, thousands and thousands of species of trees, bees, bacteria, fish, lizards, whatever, stay trees, bees, bacteria, fish, lizards, whatever. That stasis matches what the Bible says, also, about creation having been halted. Plants and animals stay in their "kinds" i.e. families. This is what the Bible would predict, life forms sticking to their own "kind" i.e. taxonomic family.

The Bible talks about a Great Flood. So we could predict the following: There should be countless billions of fossils all over the planet. There are. Now, fossils are created when life forms are suddenly buried with water, then rapidly covered with sediment. To give you an idea of their vast numbers, consider that there are billions of fossils of just one kind of ocean dwelling nautiloid, alone, in the Grand Canyon alone. And, speaking of ocean dwelling creatures, 98% of all fossils on land are marine. Now how did all that ocean water get everywhere? Marine life forms washed all over the earth would be predicted for a world wide Flood.

You can find extinct marine life form's fossils in incredible numbers on most any mountaintop, like trilobytes for example, and all kinds of sea shells, etc. In addition there are hundreds of Great Flood legends all over the world from the Aborigines to the Cherokees to Peruvians. Though they are not totally identical they all tell of a humanity that sinned, and a righteous person who took his family and some animals onto a boat to survive the punishment of a great deluge.

Bible predictions would leave no room for a Geologic Colulmn. Guess what? There never was any Geologic Column, or any Cambrian, Jurassic, Triassic etc. periods. Those are all fictional. Real science uses real data. The real data shows the fossils are jumbled or, you could say, awash. For just one of countless examples, you can find giant sharks next to dino bones in America. So called lowest level Cambrian, deep sea, fossils are found at every level on the planet from Canada to New Zealand. When I say every level, that includes the hills of mid America, for instance, and most mountain tops in the world.

If you think there is a Geologic Column, go on a search for photos of one showing the lowest level Cambrian fossils at the bottom, and asecending layers of fossils matching the GC charts. Close ups now, not some distant photos of mountains ranges or rock piles they CLAIM have GCs in them.

If we demonstrate there is no GC, we are then are told "plate tectonics" moved the fossils around. Plate tectonics are used to create theories piled on hypotheses that are heaped on speculation to fit the evolutionary narrative. As usual in evolutionism, their theories and hypotheses and speculations and conjectures are presented as fact, not as faith.

But we have some real data! Common sense and universal experience, and scientific research, let us know what erosion does. Now some of those deep sea life creatures' fossils, like trilobites, are supposed to have gone extinct two hundred MILLION years ago. Yet, around the planet, we see that their fossils are not uncommonly found in mint condition. Google "Trilobites on mountains." The real scientific data, and common sense, tell us those fossils would be nothing but dust and rubble in all that time. But the Bible would predict they could still often be intact because the Flood was only several thousand years ago.

Huge cities with pyramids bigger than Egypt's, and with giant statues, found sunken in oceans around the world, also testify to the Flood.

And we're also supposed to buy it that dino bones lasted 75 million or so years? That narrative is still promoted even though they keep finding more and more soft tissues, including flesh with liquid blood in it, in dinosaur bones all the time. There always is some unverifiable, never supported by actual data, "theory" given for why such things lasted, of course. The actual data from forensic science - which makes it clear those materials could not survive more than a few thousand years - and common sense are ignored.

Art works, and historical accounts, around the world, which show dinos, sometimes with people, are also ignored or else the false claim is made, with no justification at all, that they must be fake. Ancient Dinosaur Depictions | Genesis Park Yes, Noah would have taken dinos on the Ark. Juveniles, no doubt. They all started out in eggs about the size of a football.

For the statistics on the Ark and "How could all those animals fit onto it?" see this video with all the science and mathematics, and the destruction of false preconceptions about it and the kinds of animals on it:

And btw, I have sometimes had evolution believers to demand that they be shown bunny bones with dino bones. This vid goes over the Ashley Phosphate fossil beds which show a vast, 18 inch deep, jumble of fossils including those from dinos, people, rabbits, horses, rhinos, whales and on and on.

Irreducible complexity is also evidence of the truth of the Bible which claims instant creation of all life forms. I will give you my favorite example, though all life is irreducibly complex.

Google a picture of the bacterial flagellum and its motor and whip. picture of bacterial flagellum - Google Search: Now if the b.f doesn't move, it doesn't do its job and is useless. It isn't going to move anywhere until both the motor, and whip on the motor, are completely formed and attached together. So, while those 2 parts are just "evolving" nubs and stubs, what good are they? What "co option" purposes could they serve? If you can't even imagine the answers, how is mindless "evolution" going to make it happen?

Why and how would evolution keep those two, partial and incomplete, parts in limbo for eons until they are complete and connected and ready to work together? Well, it's not going to happen. There is zero evidence it ever happened, too, of course. In fact, there is zero evidence the b.f. has ever been anything but exactly what it is right now. Some claim a simpler life form evolved into the b.f., by something they call "co option" but as usual there is zero data to support any such claim. In evolutionism you ignore, or spin, the actual data and present data-free, evidence-free, scenarios which defy the real data in order to support an evolutionary narrative.

Again, irreducible complexity, which indicates incredible intelligence, not to mention unimaginable power, is seen at every level in life forms. The Bible presents a picture of life forms created instantly, fully complete and fully functional. That's what irreducible complexity in living examples, and the fossil record, reveal.

If the Creator went to all that "trouble" to create that little, high tech, irreducibly complex nano machine called a bacterial flagellum, how much more does He care about you, in whom He placed it?

 

[pitabread]

Twist and spin and evade. You couldn't find the quote because it doesn't exist.

There is twisting, spinning and evading here, but it ain't from us.

You simply appear to be in denial that a ministry like Answers in Genesis is not a source for legitimate scientific information.

And this is without even getting into the specifics of how they frequently twist scientific reporting for the purpose of spreading FUD about science. We could have an entire thread on that topic alone.

Oh wait, I already did: How Answers in Genesis lies to their audience

 

[LoricaLady]

They tell their employees to reject anything that contradicts their religious beliefs. Once again:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.​

If an AiG employee uses the scientific method and comes to conclusions that contradict those beliefs (which AiG also lays out in their faith statement), then AiG is telling that employee to reject that conclusion.

Which means those employees cannot legitimately use the scientific method as per AiG employees.

You can keep trying to claim otherwise, but it's still there in black and white for all to see. I'm not sure what you're not seeing here.

IF. Except that doesn't happen. You know why? Because the Bible holds up beautifully to the scientific method, whereas evolution is nothing but a bunch of theories presented as gawd's truth facts, piled on logical fallacies.

May you come to see the truth. Bye!

 

[Subduction Zone]

P.S. Nowhere in AIG do they ever say the scientific method is not valid because it contradicts
Scriptures. Of course the many highly qualified scientists who publish for them, and are quoted by them, do use the scientific method in many different fields. I mentioned Georgia Purdom, a molecular biologist. You think she doesn't believe in, and hasn't used, the scientific method in her training and work? That would be possible, because unlike so called abiogenesis, she has dealt with what is testable, repeatable and observable.

Again, never, ever, does AIG tell anyone not to follow the scientific method.

Of course they do not admit the obvious. They are dishonest, they are not total idiots.

And here is a very reasonable question for you. Why can't they publish their "articles" in well respected peer review? I know why, and it is not due to prejudice.

Georgia Purdom has abandoned science. Where are her articles on creationism in a well respected professional peer reviewed journal?

 

[pitabread]

Because the Bible holds up beautifully to the scientific method, whereas evolution is nothing but a bunch of theories presented as gawd's truth facts, piled on logical fallacies.

If the above is true, then why would Answers in Genesis require the following in their faith statement?

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.
​

On a side note, it's interesting how Biblical scholarship and archaeology also don't support many of the claims from YEC ministries like AiG. Which again, seems to reinforce why they need the above statement in their faith statement. They recognize that real-world science doesn't support their claims.

 

[LoricaLady]

An excellent article here:
https://letstalkscience.ca/educational-resources/stem-in-context/ringwoodite-and-deep-water-cycle

Thank you for the link. I looked at it briefly and will try to study it more fully later. For now, though I am leaving this string. Blessings and bye!

 

[Subduction Zone]

IF. Except that doesn't happen. You know why? Because the Bible holds up beautifully to the scientific method, whereas evolution is nothing but a bunch of theories presented as gawd's truth facts, piled on logical fallacies.

May you come to see the truth. Bye!

Now if I was a reactionary I would call you a liar for this, but the simple fact is that you do not understand the scientific method and are unwilling to discuss it. That tells us that you are afraid that you are wrong but do not want to learn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An excellent article here:
https://letstalkscience.ca/educational-resources/stem-in-context/ringwoodite-and-deep-water-cycle

I have a suspicion that that is not the sort of article that she wants to see

 

[Subduction Zone]

Twist and spin and evade. You couldn't find the quote because it doesn't exist.

I will give scientific evidence for the Bible and then I am out of here as these debates become distasteful and too time consuming.


The evidences for the Bible are too numerous to mention and include areas such as archaeology, history, fulfilled prophecies and, yes, science.

Let's start with DNA. All DNA is always just a copy of a copy of a copy and so on which replicates what has already been seen in nature. Yes, it can be altered to a limited extent, but no original, novel, strands of DNA are ever created and, further, no one has any data to show how any DNA got here. This matches the Bible which says creation has halted.

And btw, fish don't have DNA instructions for legs, and lizards don't have DNA instructions for feathers, wings etc. Since no new DNA is ever created, only altered to a very limited extent, where would they get it from? Oh, wait, I'm sure evolutionism has lots of...theories....on that. But the Bible says things were created fully formed and fully functional, so there ya go with DNA fulfilling an expected prediction.

Another example of how creation has been halted is seen when you look at the taxonomic groupings of animals and plants, ascending from species to family, to class, to order, to phylum, to kingdom. No plants or animals ever go higher than the creation of a new species, no matter what Darwin, or evolutionary peer reviews, claim happened in the invisible and unverifiable past.

Hundreds of thousands of species of beetles stay beetles, thousands and thousands of species of trees, bees, bacteria, fish, lizards, whatever, stay trees, bees, bacteria, fish, lizards, whatever. That stasis matches what the Bible says, also, about creation having been halted. Plants and animals stay in their "kinds" i.e. families. This is what the Bible would predict, life forms sticking to their own "kind" i.e. taxonomic family.

The Bible talks about a Great Flood. So we could predict the following: There should be countless billions of fossils all over the planet. There are. Now, fossils are created when life forms are suddenly buried with water, then rapidly covered with sediment. To give you an idea of their vast numbers, consider that there are billions of fossils of just one kind of ocean dwelling nautiloid, alone, in the Grand Canyon alone. And, speaking of ocean dwelling creatures, 98% of all fossils on land are marine. Now how did all that ocean water get everywhere? Marine life forms washed all over the earth would be predicted for a world wide Flood.

You can find extinct marine life form's fossils in incredible numbers on most any mountaintop, like trilobytes for example, and all kinds of sea shells, etc. In addition there are hundreds of Great Flood legends all over the world from the Aborigines to the Cherokees to Peruvians. Though they are not totally identical they all tell of a humanity that sinned, and a righteous person who took his family and some animals onto a boat to survive the punishment of a great deluge.

Bible predictions would leave no room for a Geologic Colulmn. Guess what? There never was any Geologic Column, or any Cambrian, Jurassic, Triassic etc. periods. Those are all fictional. Real science uses real data. The real data shows the fossils are jumbled or, you could say, awash. For just one of countless examples, you can find giant sharks next to dino bones in America. So called lowest level Cambrian, deep sea, fossils are found at every level on the planet from Canada to New Zealand. When I say every level, that includes the hills of mid America, for instance, and most mountain tops in the world.

If you think there is a Geologic Column, go on a search for photos of one showing the lowest level Cambrian fossils at the bottom, and asecending layers of fossils matching the GC charts. Close ups now, not some distant photos of mountains ranges or rock piles they CLAIM have GCs in them.

If we demonstrate there is no GC, we are then are told "plate tectonics" moved the fossils around. Plate tectonics are used to create theories piled on hypotheses that are heaped on speculation to fit the evolutionary narrative. As usual in evolutionism, their theories and hypotheses and speculations and conjectures are presented as fact, not as faith.

But we have some real data! Common sense and universal experience, and scientific research, let us know what erosion does. Now some of those deep sea life creatures' fossils, like trilobites, are supposed to have gone extinct two hundred MILLION years ago. Yet, around the planet, we see that their fossils are not uncommonly found in mint condition. Google "Trilobites on mountains." The real scientific data, and common sense, tell us those fossils would be nothing but dust and rubble in all that time. But the Bible would predict they could still often be intact because the Flood was only several thousand years ago.

Huge cities with pyramids bigger than Egypt's, and with giant statues, found sunken in oceans around the world, also testify to the Flood.

And we're also supposed to buy it that dino bones lasted 75 million or so years? That narrative is still promoted even though they keep finding more and more soft tissues, including flesh with liquid blood in it, in dinosaur bones all the time. There always is some unverifiable, never supported by actual data, "theory" given for why such things lasted, of course. The actual data from forensic science - which makes it clear those materials could not survive more than a few thousand years - and common sense are ignored.

Art works, and historical accounts, around the world, which show dinos, sometimes with people, are also ignored or else the false claim is made, with no justification at all, that they must be fake. Ancient Dinosaur Depictions | Genesis Park Yes, Noah would have taken dinos on the Ark. Juveniles, no doubt. They all started out in eggs about the size of a football.

For the statistics on the Ark and "How could all those animals fit onto it?" see this video with all the science and mathematics, and the destruction of false preconceptions about it and the kinds of animals on it:

And btw, I have sometimes had evolution believers to demand that they be shown bunny bones with dino bones. This vid goes over the Ashley Phosphate fossil beds which show a vast, 18 inch deep, jumble of fossils including those from dinos, people, rabbits, horses, rhinos, whales and on and on.

Irreducible complexity is also evidence of the truth of the Bible which claims instant creation of all life forms. I will give you my favorite example, though all life is irreducibly complex.

Google a picture of the bacterial flagellum and its motor and whip. picture of bacterial flagellum - Google Search: Now if the b.f doesn't move, it doesn't do its job and is useless. It isn't going to move anywhere until both the motor, and whip on the motor, are completely formed and attached together. So, while those 2 parts are just "evolving" nubs and stubs, what good are they? What "co option" purposes could they serve? If you can't even imagine the answers, how is mindless "evolution" going to make it happen?

Why and how would evolution keep those two, partial and incomplete, parts in limbo for eons until they are complete and connected and ready to work together? Well, it's not going to happen. There is zero evidence it ever happened, too, of course. In fact, there is zero evidence the b.f. has ever been anything but exactly what it is right now. Some claim a simpler life form evolved into the b.f., by something they call "co option" but as usual there is zero data to support any such claim. In evolutionism you ignore, or spin, the actual data and present data-free, evidence-free, scenarios which defy the real data in order to support an evolutionary narrative.

Again, irreducible complexity, which indicates incredible intelligence, not to mention unimaginable power, is seen at every level in life forms. The Bible presents a picture of life forms created instantly, fully complete and fully functional. That's what irreducible complexity in living examples, and the fossil record, reveal.

If the Creator went to all that "trouble" to create that little, high tech, irreducibly complex nano machine called a bacterial flagellum, how much more does He care about you, in whom He placed it?

Wow, another copy and paste of a prewritten post.

Not very impressive. Try again. And please. No false accusations. Those are reportable.

 

[pitabread]

Georgia Purdom has abandoned science. Where are her articles on creationism in a well respected professional peer reviewed journal?

Or for that matter, scientific articles at all.

I seem to recall Dr. Purdom coming up previously and that a quick look into her track as a scientist didn't reveal much. The credibility of a scientist is often dependent on their publication history and Dr. Purdom doesn't really have one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or for that matter, scientific articles at all.

I seem to recall Dr. Purdom coming up previously and that a quick look into her track as a scientist didn't reveal much. The credibility of a scientist is often dependent on their publication history and Dr. Purdom doesn't really have one.

She has a real degree so she may have a few. There are creationists that have published. But for some reason she cannot get past what should be a relatively low barrier for a professional. What is even more surprising are some of the creationists that may be creationists for the money. Andrew Snelling comes to mind. There is not a lot of money in being a research geologist. In the same year that the published an article on radiometric dating involving uranium he also published for AiG. Why the switch? He cannot site any evidence, I know that I should not be so suspicious, but I cannot find another excuse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

QV please: 1823

We have said that. But they do all have one thing in common. All of them are based upon testable hypotheses. You will not find a real scientist that goes by AiG's distorted version.