A Question for Creationists

[AV1611VET]

Aah....a perfect example to demonstrate what I'm talking about....thank you for feeding it to me......(are you sure you're not a double agent working for our side....?... )

Thank you for making my point.

Are you sure you're not a double agent working for our side?

Here is one summary of the current theory...

Oh ... now we're gonna get "one summary of the current theory"?

That supports my point: There are six summaries out there, aren't there?

But let's see what your ...

... magnificent and wonderful world is continually revealing through reason and reality:

Astronomers believe ...

Not "astronomers know," which is what I would expect from such "wonderful and magnificent continual revelation through reason and reality."

Sounds to me like such {wonderful and magnificent continual revelation through reason and reality} only ends up piling one theory upon another, doesn't it?

But to be honest, I'll give you credit for stating that it is the "current theory."

So we can break these {wonderful and magnificent continued revelations through reason and reality} down into "current" and "secondary" theories, can't we?

So much for {wonderful and magnificent continued revelations through reason and reality}, eh?

So....what does your 'side' offer....?

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

That your preferred imaginary hero crossed his arms, twitched his nose and blinked the moon into existence...!

No, He spoke it into existence ex nihilo.

So much for trying to convince me your rebuttal is legitimate.

How does that help any understanding..?

The way you worded it ... it wouldn't.

As the verse said, it takes faith to understand.

How does that lead us to want to explore further..?

The way you worded it ... LOL ... I'm sure NASA is just dying to find out how this {imaginary hero crossed his arms, twitched his nose and blinked the moon into existence}.

It's a lazy, wish-filled approach which does nothing to further the knowledge of mankind...!

I like the way you approach our "knowledge of mankind."

Who're the lazy ones?

Those who wait for {this magnificent and wonderful world to continually reveal itself through reason and reality}?

Or those who actually learn the proper terminology?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll wager you've never met any 'True Scotsmen' either..........

We meet them all the time when something goes wrong.

Thalidomide? not science's fault!

Heroin? LSD? big pharmaceutical companies made us invent them!

Tombaugh's Folly? Pluto never was a planet in the first place!

Deepwater Horizon? administration's fault!

L'Aquila? (Italy put a stop to scientists invoking No True Scotsman, so L'Aquila isn't a good example.)

 

[Davian]

These creationist/evolutionists debates about the evidence always reminds me of this:

Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist Wendy Wright (Part 1/7) - YouTube

 

[AV1611VET]

Some christians don't ask questions, because they don't want to hear the answer.

... That works both ways, chief.

Watch an atheist light up and come running when someone on visitation asks a member of their family if they know where they are going when they die?

They'll do almost anything to "protect" their family from hearing the answer.

As Jesus put it -- and I'll paraphrase it so as not to offend sensitive psyches: You won't enter in the kingdom, but you won't let others enter in, either.

 

[biggles53]

We meet them all the time when something goes wrong.

Thalidomide? not science's fault!

Heroin? LSD? big pharmaceutical companies made us invent them!

Tombaugh's Folly? Pluto never was a planet in the first place!

Deepwater Horizon? administration's fault!

L'Aquila? (Italy put a stop to scientists invoking No True Scotsman, so L'Aquila isn't a good example.)

Huh...??

My response was in connection with what Crazy asserted a 'real Christian' to be.......?

 

[biggles53]

... That works both ways, chief.

Watch an atheist light up and come running when someone on visitation asks a member of their family if they know where they are going when they die?

They'll do almost anything to "protect" their family from hearing the answer.

As Jesus put it -- and I'll paraphrase it so as not to offend sensitive psyches: You won't enter in the kingdom, but you won't let others enter in, either.

Really....? You no doubt have mountains of evidence to back this ridiculous claim...?

Oh, I forgot.......inconvenient things like evidence can 'take a hike' can't they.....?

 

[AV1611VET]

Really....? You no doubt have mountains of evidence to back this ridiculous claim...?

You mean like being told to go down the street and take a left?

You mean like having a dog sicked on you?

I will say this much though, some atheists (or whatevers) will thankfully send their children to church on the bus* while they stay home.

* We call them "bus kids" -- and they are certainly a welcome site. Many times, they end up convincing the parents to come to church.

 

[biggles53]

Oh ... now we're gonna get "one summary of the current theory"?

That supports my point: There are six summaries out there, aren't there?

Indeed......because that's how science works.....! Unlike the arrogance of dogmatic religious belief, the practice in science is to permit consideration of a range of evidence-backed explanations for a phenomenon....

... magnificent and wonderful world is continually revealing through reason and reality:

And you'll note that one of the key words there is "continually". The beauty of unravelling knowledge through the scientific approach is that there will always be more to discover.........unlike your preferred method which basically encourages laziness and blind acceptance......

But to be honest, I'll give you credit for stating that it is the "current theory."

You don't have to give me any credit....this reflects the standard approach in science. ALL theories are candidates for review and change....

So we can break these {wonderful and magnificent continued revelations through reason and reality} down into "current" and "secondary" theories, can't we?

No....the correct classification would "current" and "previous"......not that the semantic squabble really makes much difference......

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

No, He spoke it into existence ex nihilo.

Which, as I stated, provides us with NOTHING in the way of understanding, provides us with NOTHING in the way of motivation to explore our origins..........it is a prescription for blind acceptance, it is Ignorance 101.......

As the verse said, it takes faith to understand.

Aah, time for good ol' Sam I think....

"Faith is believin' what you know ain't so..." Mark Twain.

The way you worded it ... LOL ... I'm sure NASA is just dying to find out how this {imaginary hero crossed his arms, twitched his nose and blinked the moon into existence}.

Ummm......no they wouldn't. They are interested in discovering more of what occurs in the real world. I'm pretty confident that the claims of ancient parlour tricks wouldn't fall within their purview......

I like the way you approach our "knowledge of mankind."

Thank you....

Who're the lazy ones?

Actually, I'm not sure if it's laziness or blind fear, or a little of both..........but, it's those who cower behind an explanation provided by an ancient myth, rather than doing the hard work of actually observing and analysing the world around them.....

Those who wait for {this magnificent and wonderful world to continually reveal itself through reason and reality}?

No....those are the ones to be admired and thanked for removing the scales from our eyes.........

 

[bhsmte]

... That works both ways, chief.

Watch an atheist light up and come running when someone on visitation asks a member of their family if they know where they are going when they die?

They'll do almost anything to "protect" their family from hearing the answer.

As Jesus put it -- and I'll paraphrase it so as not to offend sensitive psyches: You won't enter in the kingdom, but you won't let others enter in, either.

Really? Why would an atheist react that way when someone asks where someone is going when they die?

Unless someone can come up with verifiable evidence as to what happens to people when they die, the right answer would be; I don't know, or probably, no where but the coffin.

 

[SkyWriting]

This question probably applies to a subset of Creationists, more so than all Creationists. Specifically, it applies to those who say that no amount of evidence could ever prompt them to reconsider their beliefs. This idea was captured well by Ken Ham: "The Bible says it. That settles it." Why don't you want to know what is really happening?

Each person creates their own reality that they use to understand the world.
Understanding God's plan has far more value than secular knowledge offers.

The best that secular can offer is great wealth with the rest of the
population loathing your guts. And that only lasts a number of years
if you're lucky.

 

[AV1611VET]

So we can break these {wonderful and magnificent continued revelations through reason and reality} down into "current" and "secondary" theories, can't we?

No....the correct classification would "current" and "previous"......not that the semantic squabble really makes much difference......

Just to show you that what you call "semantic squabble" really does make a difference, theory #6 is the newest theory of them all.

In fact, it was just explained this September:

The theory will be explained by Professor Erik Asphaug, from the University of California at Santa Cruz at a conference about the moon to be held at the Royal Society this September.

SOURCE

That tells me that your pet theory, the Impact Theory, is not a "current theory, while all others are previous."

You're trying to buffalo me with your brand of bologna, and I'm not buying it, scientist.

So you can take your ... misinformation ... and go fool someone else with it.

Which, as I stated, provides us with NOTHING in the way of understanding,

That's right -- it provides you with NOTHING alright ... as it should.

What do you think "nihilo" means in the term: creatio ex nihilo, scientist?

I've said this many times here, and it bears repeating:

We creationists literally bring NOTHING into a conversation of creationism, and until you scientific methodist learn to understand NOTHING, you won't understand ANYTHING.

... provides us with NOTHING in the way of motivation to explore our origins...

That's because you're [your term] lazy [/your term].

But more appropriately, you wouldn't even know where to begin.

(Hint: start at NOTHING, instead of using it to ridicule us.)

.......it is a prescription for blind acceptance, it is Ignorance 101.......

Speaking of Ignorance 101, you'll stay in that class as long as you use the terminology you do ... like "poof" and "magic," while we Christians explain it to you guys over and over and over to the tune of ridicule.

Aah, time for good ol' Sam I think....

"Faith is believin' what you know ain't so..." Mark Twain.

"Good ol' Sam" can take a hike.

That definition erases a rich heritage of martyrdom throughout history.

No one dies for something he knows isn't true.

I take it "good ol' Sam" had faith his name was Mark Twain, not Samuel Clemens?

Try this definition for size:

Faith is believing something, even when science says otherwise.

 

[biggles53]

Just to show you that what you call "semantic squabble" really does make a difference, theory #6 is the newest theory of them all.

In fact, it was just explained this September:
SOURCE

That tells me that your pet theory, the Impact Theory, is not a "current theory, while all others are previous."

You're trying to buffalo me with your brand of bologna, and I'm not buying it, scientist.

So you can take your ... misinformation ... and go fool someone else with it.

Whatever.......I demonstrated to you the ongoing nature of scientific research, the willingness to be wrong and to make corrections, as opposed to the dogmatic arrogance of saying "Stop looking.....we already know all the answers...!"

We creationists literally bring NOTHING into a conversation of creationism, and until you scientific methodist learn to understand NOTHING, you won't understand ANYTHING.

Now, I know that you creationists just hate the idea of quote mining....but would you mind very much if I used that quote above as part of my signature quotes............I just think it says so much more than I ever could......!?

Speaking of Ignorance 101, you'll stay in that class as long as you use the terminology you do ... like "poof" and "magic," while we Christians explain it to you guys over and over and over to the tune of ridicule.

No, the terms are entirely appropriate and interchangeable....."magic" describes a phenomenon in which the observers are encouraged to believe that the laws of nature are temporarily suspended........exactly what you folks would have us believe....

"Good ol' Sam" can take a hike.

That definition erases a rich heritage of martyrdom throughout history.

No one dies for something he knows isn't true.

I take it "good ol' Sam" had faith his name was Mark Twain, not Samuel Clemens?

Try this definition for size:

Faith is believing something, even when science says otherwise.

Ah, I see that "wall" of ignorance which you asked your god to help you erect is still standing......

 

[Loudmouth]

Each person creates their own reality that they use to understand the world.

Not so. Some people open their eyes and use evidence to tell them how reality works. They are called scientists. Those who don't are called creationists.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now, I know that you creationists just hate the idea of quote mining....but would you mind very much if I used that quote above as part of my signature quotes............I just think it says so much more than I ever could......!?

Be my guest.

 

[Loudmouth]

We meet them all the time when something goes wrong.

Thalidomide? not science's fault!

Who discovered that Thalidomide causes birth defects?

 

[Theodor1]

Not so. Some people open their eyes and use evidence to tell them how reality works. They are called scientists. Those who don't are called creationists.

Ezekiel 12:2(NKJV)
2 “Son of man, you dwell in the midst of a rebellious house, which has eyes to see but does not see, and ears to hear but does not hear; for they are a rebellious house.

 

[biggles53]

Ezekiel 12:2(NKJV)
2 “Son of man, you dwell in the midst of a rebellious house, which has eyes to see but does not see, and ears to hear but does not hear; for they are a rebellious house.

Theodor, do you understand what 'circular reasoning' is...?

It's a little like claiming that I know the earth is flat and then pointing to the Flat Earth Society's handbook as evidence......

Watch your similar argument here....

I know there is another 'reality' other than the one we see.
I know this because this is where God exists.
I know God exists because it says so in the Bible.
I know the Bible is correct because it is the word of God.

And around and around we go......

 

[USincognito]

Paleontologist Jack Horner in 2003 unearthed a Tyrannosaurus rex that lived 68 million years ago in Montana and recovered a still-elastic blood vessel from inside a fractured thigh bone fossil. Recent phylogenetic analyses of this isolated tissue by a team of scientists reveals that the closest living relative of T. rex is none other than the domestic chicken. Of seven decoded amino acid sequences from the collagen molecules, three matched chicken uniquely. Another matched frog uniquely, one matched newt uniquely, and a few matched multiple sequences.

I see that KWC doesn't understand how gene comparisons are conducted. Chicken DNA is used as an avian "type species" for developing phylogenetics relationships via genetics. The person who wrote that blog entry is wrong. The chicken isn't any more closely or distantly related to T-Rex than every other bird species on the earth right now.

 

[AV1611VET]

Who discovered that Thalidomide causes birth defects?

The ones who invented it?

 

[USincognito]

I am not the one who said that. It came rom Gringich, the cucrrent so called whale expert.

Mendacious prevarication and nothing more. Gingerich never said anything of the sort.

Hint - whales are Cetartiodactyls, dogs are Carnivora.