Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[AV1611VET]

...was Saul.

The snake story btw is really a fish story

So a fish jumped out of the fire and bit him?

Acts 28:3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.

What was it? a piranha viper?

 

[sjastro]

Must be that infamous anti-Christian bias of the Nobel Committee.

Or maybe the Nobel Committee were waiting for the discovery of Dyson spheres built by super intelligent alien civilizations in which case Dyson would have won the Nobel Prize on the spot.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I'm still puzzled how anyone can say they
know Truth, unless they are infallible, or,
at least, think they are.

So the only truth you know is that you can't know truth?

Believing something is the truth =/= knowing it to be true. We will never 100% know something due to fallible senses gathering data which is interpreted by fallible minds but we can 100% believe it to be the case or at least be 99.9999999999999999% sure. Anyway my question was in regards to the reasoning used by him as a Christian, I didn't even realise I was on the Atheistic sub-forum >_<.

 

[dlamberth]

What would Hubble say about Jesus turning water into wine?

Hubble: It didn't happen. After all, it takes a long time to make wine.

Light that the Hubble Telescope has seen has taken 13 Billion years to arrive here on Earth. That's a very long time to be sure. The James Webb Telescope even further. As I was saying, the knowledge learned from those scientific instruments is helping to usher in a new Creation story that is counter to the Genesis story. Out with the old as it's replaced with the new.

 

[Hammster]

Science doesn't care about the existence or non existence of God.

Lol.

 

[Hammster]

Twaddle, My theology lecturer used a much more earthy phrase to describe that argument in the 70s.

And?

 

[Hammster]

Paul was Paul.

Was he incorrect?

 

[Hammster]

I see that you quote Rushdoony. Are you a dominionist?

How is that relevant to my post?

 

[AV1611VET]

Light that the Hubble Telescope has seen has taken 13 Billion years to arrive here on Earth.

Assuming no wormholes ... right?

 

[sjastro]

Lol.

Is this the best you can do by making a snide remark which is even more unedifying when it comes from a moderator.
Clearly you are not up to presenting counterarguments when I have demonstrated your comment that "Science has created a way to try to explain away God. Professing to be wise, they became fools." is pure bogus since God is unfalsifiable in science.

Militant atheists such as Steven Weinberg and the deeply religious Abdus Salam were able to collaborate and advance science to win the Nobel Prize in physics without having to care about the existence or non existence of God.

 

[Hammster]

Is this the best you can do by making a snide remark which is even more unedifying when it comes from a moderator.
Clearly you are not up to presenting counterarguments when I have demonstrated your comment that "Science has created a way to try to explain away God. Professing to be wise, they became fools." is pure bogus since God is unfalsifiable in science.

Militant atheists such as Steven Weinberg and the deeply religious Abdus Salam were able to collaborate and advance science to win the Nobel Prize in physics without having to care about the existence or non existence of God.

It’s not the best I could do. In fact, it’s the least I could do to point out the ridiculousness of your comment.

 

[Astrid]

So the only truth you know is that you can't know truth?

No

 

[sjastro]

It’s not the best I could do. In fact, it’s the least I could do to point out the ridiculousness of your comment.

What is ridiculous here is a moderator resorting to flaming because he can’t comprehend God is unfalsifiable in science and is reduced to making silly petulant comments.

As a scientist who is also happens to be a Christian your remark “Science has created a way to try to explain away God. Professing to be wise, they became fools.”, is based on ignorance and bigotry and refuted by the fact Christians can be scientists without renouncing their faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

As a scientist who is also happens to be a Christian your remark “Science has created a way to try to explain away God. Professing to be wise, they became fools.”, is based on ignorance and bigotry and refuted by the fact Christians can be scientists without renouncing their faith.

Then why do atheists prefer science over theology ten-to-zero?

 

[Hammster]

What is ridiculous here is a moderator resorting to flaming because he can’t comprehend God is unfalsifiable in science and is reduced to making silly petulant comments.

As a scientist who is also happens to be a Christian your remark “Science has created a way to try to explain away God. Professing to be wise, they became fools.”, is based on ignorance and bigotry and refuted by the fact Christians can be scientists without renouncing their faith.

No, it’s based on observation.

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

The primary objection to evolution from creationists seems to be centered on human evolution specifically. For some reason the fact of sharing hereditary ancestry with other species causes creationists no end of grief.

However, if we didn't share ancestry with other species, why are we made of all the same 'stuff' as other animals? Especially in regards to our closest relatives (other primates), we share the same body plan, organs, cell structure, majority of our genetic makeup and so on.

If it was really important that we be distinct from other animal species, why didn't God make us wholly unique? Why not give us a completely unique physical makeup and genetic structure?

Evolution at least can explain this via genetic inheritance. Independent creation... not so much.

And before you say, "God just reused common parts":

a) Why would God reuse common parts in a manner that is perfectly consistent with genetic inheritance and biological evolution?

b) Why would it matter if we consider ourselves physically "related" to animals if we're all made from the same stuff to begin with?

Evolution is extremely flawed. There is not one example of an in-between skeleton of just two animals in all the fossils ever created. Best evolutionists can do is adaptation where finches have bigger beaks.

There's a reason it's called the "missing" link, because it's missing.

 

[Frank Robert]

No, it’s based on observation.

I think it is fair to say that there are some atheists whom may be scientists who don't appreciate creationist attempts to degrade science in the hope of getting being able to thrust their views into the public schools and onto the public in general.

 

[Frank Robert]

an in-between skeleton of just two animals

Speciation in the fossil record​

Abstract
It is easy to claim that the fossil record says nothing about speciation because the biological species concept (which relies on interbreeding) cannot be applied to it and genetic studies cannot be carried out on it. However, fossilized organisms are often preserved in sufficient abundance for populations of intergrading morphs to be recognized, which, by analogy with modern populations, are probably biological species. Moreover, the fossil record is our only reliable documentation of the sequence of past events over long time intervals: the processes of speciation are generally too slow to be observed directly, and permanent reproductive isolation can only be verified with hindsight. Recent work has shown that some parts of the fossil record are astonishingly complete and well documented, and patterns of lineage splitting can be examined in detail. Marine plankton appear to show gradual speciation, with subsequent morphological differentiation of lineages taking up to 500000 years to occur. Marine invertebrates and vertebrates more commonly show punctuated patterns, with periods of rapid speciation followed by long-term stasis of species lineages.

 

[dlamberth]

Evolution is extremely flawed. There is not one example of an in-between skeleton of just two animals in all the fossils ever created. Best evolutionists can do is adaptation where finches have bigger beaks.

There's a reason it's called the "missing" link, because it's missing.

<em>Archaeopteryx</em> - the missing link between dinosaurs and birds?

 

[sjastro]

Then why do atheists prefer science over theology ten-to-zero?

Totally irrelevant.
Why don't you ask the question instead why isn't science dominated by atheists as this post indicates.