Are there any creationists willing to debate?

[fortheloveofmike]

Why don't you refute his arguments if they're so "silly".

because his arguments have nothing of substance. they are just what he calls facts, (which arent facts) and thats all.

 

[lucaspa]

or maybe, just maybe, God knows way way more than you about everything. he knows what to create and how to make this universe work.

And how the univerwe works is the methods discovered by science. If you believe in God, it makes God pretty smart.

From the Fontispiece of Origin of the Species:
"But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this -- we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws" Whewell: Bridgewater Treatise.

You didn't address the deceiver problem. You simply sidestepped it.

We still have the original problem: IF God created the rocks with the correct amounts of parent and daughter isotopes to make it LOOK old, then God is deceiving us. That's a big problem for Christianity.

Again, why are you willing to destroy Christianity simply to keep from giving up your interpretation of Genesis? Is your interpretation so important that it is worth destroying the very faith you are saying you are defending?

 

[lucaspa]

you guys really need to get off the "God is lying to us all" notion. we arent as smart as God is. maybe these things couldve happened within these timeframes in ways you havent thought of yet. like i said before, just because you suck at interpreting data doesnt mean God is lying to us.
besides, accusing people of lying isnt very cool, accusing God of lying is flat out moronic.

But that's just what your Appearance of Age argument does. It is not US having God be a liar, but YOU and creationism. We are simply pointing out the consequences of your argument.

Accusing us of not interpreting the data correctly doesn't help, because you haven't taken the effort to show us how the data is misinterpreted. All this is is a denial of data you don't like.

Fortheloveof, the Appearance of Age argument was tried in 1857 in the book Oomphalos. This is what Reverend Charles Kingsley wrote to the author about his book:

"You have given the 'vestiges of creation theory' [a pamphlet advocating an early form of evolution] the best shove forward which it has ever had. I have a special dislike for that book; but, honestly, I felt my heart melting towards it as I read Oomphalos. Shall I tell you the truth? It is best. Your book is the first that ever made me doubt the doctrine of absolute creation, and I fear it will make hundreds do so. Your book tends to prove this - that if we accept the fact of absolute creation, God becomes God-the-Sometime-Deceiver. I do not mean merely in the case of fossils which pretend to be the bones of dead animals; but in ...your newly created Adam's navel, you make God tell a lie. It is not my reason, but my conscience which revolts here ... I cannot ...believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie for all mankind. To this painful dilemma you have brought me, and will, I fear, bring hundreds. It will not make me throw away my Bible. I trust and hope. I know in whom I have believed, and can trust Him to bring my faith safe through this puzzle, as He has through others; but for the young I do fear. I would not for a thousand pounds put your book into my children's hands." Garret Hardin, ""Scientific Creationism'" - Marketing Deception as Truth" in Science and Creationism edited by Ashley Montagu, 1982.

As I said, science can accept a deity that makes things look old when they are really young. It is Christianity that revolts against this.

 

[lucaspa]

also, for emphasis, GOD CAN DO ALL THINGS! STOP PUTTING HIM WITHIN OUR LAWS OF PHYSICS!!!!!!

This isn't about what God CAN do. It's about what God DID.

Making the earth instantaneously in its present form has consequences.

We could easily conclude that the earth were 6,000 years old if we had found the following evidence:

1. No or very little sedimentary rock, because there has not been enough time for erosion to make sediments.

2. No stars visible beyond 6,000 light years and stars becoming visible thru history as their light first reached the earth.

3. Isotopes with half-lives less than 50 million years in the earth's crust.

4. No or very few fossils. And those fossils are those of contemporary organisms. Skeletons of ALL organisms mixed together in the sediments.

5. Clear genetic boundaries between the "kinds" of organisms.

You can add others. We would conclude the earth and universe is 6,000 years old. What you are going thru mental contortions about is explaining why God didn't do this.

After all, think about it. When God resurrected Jesus, He made it look exactly like a resurrection. Down to nail holes and wounds. So why is God so deceptive here?

 

[lucaspa]

the other option is that the Genesis story is literal, and God left the evidence for it, but you are interpreting it wrong.

Then we aren't doing so well being in the "image of God" are we?

Again, fortheloveof, true statements can't have false consequences. CreationISM or a literal interpretation of the creation stories in Genesis has false consequences. You can't misinterpret that.

Plus remember that the scientists who falsified creationISM were all Christians, many of them ministers. If Christians are so bad at interpretation, then you have the problem of whether they interpreted God's message in the Bible correctly.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

 

[Dayton]

luscapa,

The Bible can not be falsified, because it is the inerrant Word of God. The Bible teaches Creationism, not evolution. Why can't you beileve the plain teaching of Scripture?

 

[lucaspa]

easy...God made it, i dont know when, but i do know how. if you want to know how, read the bible.

Which creation story? In Genesis 1 God made organisms by speaking. In Genesis 2 He formed them from dust. Which HOW is correct? Why are they different?

What we are saying, fortheloveofmike, is that the HOW derived from a literal reading of Genesis 1 is wrong. That's NOT the how.

And God tells us it is wrong. Remember, you said "God made it". That means the physical universe studied by science is made by God. That means all the evidence in that universe WAS PLACED THERE BY GOD. Thus, God is telling us in His Creation how He made it.

The Bible is to tell us WHO made the universe and WHY. It is not to tell us how. You are reading the wrong book of God to tell you how.

 

[lucaspa]

they couldve slowed down. things in motion usually get slowed down by friction

CONSEQUENCES, mike, CONSEQUENCES!!

IF a supercontinent separated in the last 5,000 years and moved to the present position, that means Europe and N. America moved 3,000 miles apart in about 3,000 years. Right? A mile per year. 5,280 feet per 365 days or 14.47 feet per day or 1 foot per hour.

You do realize that a shift of even an inch is the cause of violent earthquakes. Now, you have continuous violent earthquakes over all that time. Just how did the Pyramids stay up? How did Solomon build the Temple?

 

[lucaspa]

""

All science rests on philosophical underpinnings about the universe. But evolution is still just as much science as any other field of scientific study​

.""

I think the above statement reveals a much about how some feel that science and creation conflict.

Science is knowledge gained through an orderly system of facts that have been learned from experiments, observation and study. The natural laws can be validated with predictable results through experimentation. (The Scientific Method). Newton was a creationist
"Philisophical underpinnings" may be present in the premise of a scientific study but they are not taken as fact until they survive the process of emperical science. Care has to be taken to not let (evolutionists for example) hyjack the definitions. Let's debate science with science and philosophy with philosophy. Creation vs philosophy- science would lead us to a flawed conclusion. As Newton said, "The business of science is to deduce causes from effects - until we come to the very first cause ..."

I think you misunderstood the first quote. EVERY search for truth begins with statements that we don't know are true and may never be able to prove are true. For starters, you must have faith that you exist and you are sane. You need the second to trust your senses which are the basis of all knowledge.

In addition, science has faith that the universe is: objective, rational, accessible, contingent, and unified. Now, all these attributes of the universe are SHARED by Christians. If fact, they were first derived from characteristics of God by the first scientists (like Newton), who were Christians.

This is why the poster said that evolution is just as much a science as any other field of scientific study. ALL science, and all search for truth -- including Christianity -- rests on these philosophical underpinnings.

I suggest you not use the world "validated" anymore. That reflects a falsified view of science called positivism.

We can go into this in more detail if you wish.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

because his arguments have nothing of substance. they are just what he calls facts, (which arent facts) and thats all.

How's that false witnessing going for you?

There's plenty of substance there or is your goal dishonesty?:

Catastrophic plate tectonism is an impossibility given the viscosity of the mantle, the heat released by such activity that would destroy life on earth, and radiometric dating of the oceanic crust. Features like the Hawaiian Island chain also falsify the notion that plate tectonism has been slowing down considering the radiometric dates of the basalts comprising the islands can be predicted from our knowledge regarding plate tectonism. The magnetic anomalies of the seafloor do not support catastrophic plate tectonism either. The fact is, there is zero evidence for what you are claiming.

You just ignored it and called it "silly." Talk about your response having no substance whatsoever.

I even started another thread to directly address the claim of catastrophic plate tectonism to augment my response:

http://www.christianforums.com/t50891

 

[Nathan Poe]

luscapa,

The Bible can not be falsified, because it is the inerrant Word of God. The Bible teaches Creationism, not evolution. Why can't you beileve the plain teaching of Scripture?

The Bible is the inerrant word of God because it tells us it's the inerrant word of God.

Do you see a problem here or is it just us?

 

[Jet Black]

luscapa,

The Bible can not be falsified, because it is the inerrant Word of God. The Bible teaches Creationism, not evolution. Why can't you beileve the plain teaching of Scripture?

first of all the universe is the result of God's word. and one could say that it is open to interpretation. Science is a method that carefully strips away false interpretations through falsification. are people's interpretations of the bible held up to such scrutiny? no.

 

[wblastyn]

The Bible is the inerrant word of God because it tells us it's the inerrant word of God.

Actually it doesn't, it just says it's inspired by God, not inerrant.

 

[wblastyn]

luscapa,

The Bible can not be falsified, because it is the inerrant Word of God. The Bible teaches Creationism, not evolution. Why can't you beileve the plain teaching of Scripture?

It's not inerrant because it's not the literal Word of God. Your interpretation of it can be falsified.

 

[Alessandro]

lucaspa, whoever says they are different or contradictions is wrong Gen 1 and 2.

I stand firm, I do not speak on behalf of everyone, just myself, to disregard or disbelieve one part, one might as well disregard all of it. Take it all. Pick and take what you want does not work here.

 

[David Gould]

Pick and take what you want does not work here.

'Work' in what sense? Are you saying that believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old is required in order to be saved?

If so, where does Jesus or any of the gospel authors or anyone else in the Bible say so?

If not, then picking and choosing (as you call it) clearly can work in a salvation sense - provided you pick the right things.

 

[Alessandro]

When one is saved, clearly that shows that one trusts in God and the Word of God. Then there is no reason for him/her to disregard anything in the Bible.

 

[Arikay]

No christian here is disregarding the word of god. they are just humble enough to realize that if gods creation tells them that their interpretation of the bible is wrong, they change their interpretation instead of believe their own interpretation over gods creation.

 

[Alessandro]

Nice.

 

[David Gould]

When one is saved, clearly that shows that one trusts in God and the Word of God. Then there is no reason for him/her to disregard anything in the Bible.

So you are saying that if someone believes that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old then that is evidence that they are not saved?

I just want to be clear about this.