Creation scientists - do they exist?

[Loudmouth]

Yes they are. The book of Genesis is the most quoted book in the whole New Testament. The Creator of the universe when here in human form never once put any doubt on what we are told in Genesis. I would suggest ready the excellent book "The Stranger on the Road to Emmaus" if you have any doubt about that or about the importance of the Genesis account to the overall theme of the Bible.

If the Prodigal Son was not a real person, would that make Jesus a liar?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

When has supernatural magic ever been the sensible conclusion?

Ask that of the Big Bang supporters? They are well and truly into the realm of either supernatural forces or some other undetermined magic.

 

[Loudmouth]

Spot on. That's why the evolutionists usually won't do live debates with creation scientists, because they are running scared (not that they would ever admit that; instead, they'll come up with some other excuse to turn down invitations to discuss the issues with their creation-believing counterparts).

Bill Nye had a live debate with Ken Ham, and Nye wiped the floor with him. Ham had to admit that no evidence would ever change his mind. Nye with the win.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ask that of the Big Bang supporters? They are well and truly into the realm of either supernatural forces or some other undetermined magic.

No, they aren't. This is something you have invented from whole cloth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes they are. The book of Genesis is the most quoted book in the whole New Testament. The Creator of the universe when here in human form never once put any doubt on what we are told in Genesis. I would suggest ready the excellent book "The Stranger on the Road to Emmaus" if you have any doubt about that or about the importance of the Genesis account to the overall theme of the Bible.

Quoting the book of Genesis does not make the claims of those books dependent upon it. I could teach forestry and quote Paul Bunyan. That does not mean that I could not teach a proper forestry class (actually the fact that I know next to nothing about forestry would mean that I could not teach a forestry class, but I hope that you get my point).
\
And if a Christian's beliefs are dependent upon the parts of the Bible that have been shown to be wrong I would have doubts about the strengths of his beliefs. Your link to someone that may have needed Genesis and Exodus does not support your claim.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Creationists wear their bias on their sleeves, and they project that bias on to others in an attempt to discredit them. It is dishonest.

I agreed, they are upfront about their beliefs. But they don't come across as being in any way dishonest. Their arguments, particularly as summarised in their new DVD "Evolutions Achilles Heels" seem perfectly rational to many people.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

No, they aren't. This is something you have invented from whole cloth.

A matter of opinion.

 

[Loudmouth]

A matter of opinion.

A matter of fact. You are making stuff up about what scientists are doing.

 

[Hoghead1]

I hear you, NotByChance. However, divine omnipotence is a major theological mistake, as I see it. God is not some cosmic dictator. We have genuine freedom and then its up to us to decide what will happen. God cannot decide for us. Moment to moment, he provides us with initial aims that will maximize beauty, but it is up to us whether we actualize them or not. Another problem with omnipotence is that it does in fact make God the brutal, the author of evil. Calvin, who argued God predestined absolutely everything, also argued that murders larcenists and other evil doers with the instruments by which God exercises his judgments. So I don't see that the classical image of God's omnipotence provided a less brutal picture of God than some see in evolution. Also, I have found much research that shows how cooperation, rather than ruthless competition, is also part of the evolutionary process. I grant you that many processes I the natural order still look very brutal. But that might our misconception. Animals do have to kill to eat; there is no other way. But humans are far more brutal in that we kill for really no reason at all. So who are we to criticize nature, when much of teh "brutality" there can't be helped, whereas in our case bulk of it can and so most is due to our sinfulness, our failure to follow God's aim. Also, I do not doubt that there is also sin in the natural order. Animals are not machines; they have minds, freedom, can make choices; they also may choose not to follow God's aim and then fall into needless brutality.

 

[Loudmouth]

I agreed, they are upfront about their beliefs. But they don't come across as being in any way dishonest.

REALLY??????

When they accuse scientists of being biased against creationism WHEN THEY HAVE NO SCIENCE TO PRESENT, that is being dishonest. Very, very, very dishonest.

You can't claim that scientists are ignoring creationism when there is no science to ignore.

Their arguments, particularly as summarised in their new DVD "Evolutions Achilles Heels" seem perfectly rational to many people.

To the scientific illiterate, it may sound correct. That only speaks to the ignorance of the people who agree with it.

They aren't bringing this material to scientists because they know it won't stand for more than 1 minute in an arena where people actually understand the science. The schlock that they sling over the internet is only good for convincing the ignorant of what they already believe.

 

[Butterfly99]

Is anyone using evolution to do since either? Does it help build computers or cure diseases? I think not.

Are you being for real? Evolution is v important for medicine. Why do you think we need a new flu shot every yr?

 

[keith99]

Are you being for real? Evolution is v important for medicine. Why do you think we need a new flu shot every yr?

And is the reason that people need to use the whole prescription of antibiotics rather than stopping when they feel better.

 

[CarlaB]

Like it says, "In the beginning God..." I believe it happened that way. You don't, so you've got to try to find an alternative explanation, but I don't think you will, EVER.

Why would you believe that? it's not an explanation it's just a story you say you believe, why do you believe that story and not any of the other creation stories?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I agreed, they are upfront about their beliefs. But they don't come across as being in any way dishonest. Their arguments, particularly as summarised in their new DVD "Evolutions Achilles Heels" seem perfectly rational to many people.

Even that title is not professional.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Spot on. That's why the evolutionists usually won't do live debates with creation scientists, because they are running scared (not that they would ever admit that; instead, they'll come up with some other excuse to turn down invitations to discuss the issues with their creation-believing counterparts).

Actually, debates between the two are quite frequent. It is just that most don't get a huge amount of press. Dawkins, as much as I hate bringing that tactless man into this, does it quite frequently. However, people have jobs, live in different locations, etc. that can make it difficult to accept a debate challenge for reasons other than feeling that they might lose. Creationists end up refusing debate challenges quite often as well, would you consider those instances to be "running scared" as well?

 

[lasthero]

I agreed, they are upfront about their beliefs. But they don't come across as being in any way dishonest. Their arguments, particularly as summarised in their new DVD "Evolutions Achilles Heels" seem perfectly rational to many people.

Do you ever learn from something that isn't on a DVD?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Are you being for real? Evolution is v important for medicine. Why do you think we need a new flu shot every yr?

I've only got a brief moment this morning, but in answer to your question, I believe it's because the flu virus mutates and so the vaccine has to be changed to target the new form of the virus. Are you somehow suggesting that this is proof of evolution? Is there any evidence that the flu virus would eventually change into something other than a virus? Also, did not the famous fruit fly experiments ably demonstrate the flaws in the fundamental ideas about how evolution is supposed to work, as summarised in this article? And you wonder why the public are so skeptical of the TOE.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm not sure how I got sucked into this one, but if there is a question or comment about their stand, it is much better to take it up with them. I commented to a comment about it and it has digressed to this.

Again, there is no question.

It's clear what their stance is.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Where's your evidence for your dragon story?

He appeared to me in my bedroom. If it makes you feel better, I could write a book about it too.

We have the Bible, the most studied and authenticated collection of ancient literature in the world by far. So give me an idea of how you would begin your story, have it develop a central theme over thousands of years, be written by many different writers on different continents (without the use of any modern technology I should add, while maintaining its accuracy from one copy to the next) as well as having the ability to prophesy events that would happen hundreds of years in the future?

You mean like the Bagavad Ghita and the Quran?

You seem to think that your Bible is unique in some way... Clearly, that's not true.

Your story would have to be so powerful that a whole new group of people would start to believe in it and would be prepared to die to defend it.

It would have to be so powerful that even the way we record time would eventually be changed to recognise the merits of its central character.

Muslims use another calendar.

You say, "I win"; somehow I doubt it, but if you're up for it, give it a go. I haven't got many more years ahead of me, but I would expect to hear something about your story before I die.

Plenty of religions for you to choose from. I don't need to invent a new one.

Perhaps you can go in for a thetan reading in the Scientology Church. You'ld have to be quick though, Lord Xenu is said to return soon.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You mean, how life can't form (without supernatural input that it)

You determined this, how exactly?

That would be the sensible conclusion from what they ahve discovered thus far.

Argument from ignorance.

Yes it does

No, it doesn't.

Life exists and we can study what it does and how it behaves. It matters not where it came from. Whether it came about through natural processes, whether it was engineered by extra-dimensional aliens, space unicorns or deities... life is what it is. It exists and we can study it.

, if God created life then He's in control of everything in the universe, including but not limited to life on this planet

That does not follow at all.

Evolution would mean that God used a cruel and wasteful way to develop mankind that is supposed to be created "in the image of God."

Or...... your particular religion of choice (or your interpretation thereof) is incorrect.

I don't accept that

Tough. Reality bites.

and many (not the majority admittedly) totally reject that idea as well

The flat earth society rejects a spherical earth as well, but that doesn't make it flat.

There are millions of people in the world who also reject such a notion.

100% of people could reject the evidence of reality, but reality will remain what it is.

But you can't come up with a rational explanation of how it all came about, so you've only got part of the story. If you've only got part of the story, then you don't know anything for certain.

Nobody here is claiming to know for certain how life came about - except you.