Creationism - Lazy Man's science?

[OdwinOddball]

That is why I read books written by people who have a Phd in science. So the arguement does come from someone that knows what they are talking about. It is pretty easy to condense a chapter down to one paragraph to open up a conversation on it.

Evolution does not contradict the Bible. If it did contradict the Bible then you can be sure the Bible is right and evolution is wrong. For everytime you want to argue evolution, I can argue creationism. That is what we do here on this board. You have been shown time and again that creationism is right and evolution is wrong. For some reason the truth has not sunk in. Sooner or later you will come to the light and see the truth. The Bible says you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. You will see how well science and the Bible get along and compliment each other.

Now now John, at least speak the truth. You have SAID time and time again that Creationism is right and Evolution is wrong, but you have yet to ever show why this is true. You don't present references, much less actual evidence for Creationsim, yet we continue to do so for Evolution.

You can deny it all you want, but it doesn't make it true. Just as you claiming Creationism is true doesnt make it so if the evidence(or in your case lack thereof) does not bear this out.

 

[JohnR7]

someone else their knowledge in science is lacking

Not really, we have what we call discernment that is a gift of the Holy Spirit of God. You are right in that I have no way of knowing apart from God. But gifts like discernment, knowledge and understanding is a work of God in us and though us. The gifts are given to help strangthen and build people up.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Hey John,

I see at the time I'm posting this that you are online again. I believe this is the 3rd or 4th request from me for you to post some links of the websites which you stated, way back, can present your position far better then you can. You also told Beastt to just google them, but I think we all want to be enlightened by the exact ones which you consider superior.

C'mon John, are you going to keep ignoring me?

 

[MartinM]

as we go to the center of the earth, the gravity is stronger

That's precisely wrong. Gravity gets weaker as we go to the centre of the Earth.

 

[OdwinOddball]

Hey John,

I see at the time I'm posting this that you are online again. I believe this is the 3rd or 4th request from me for you to post some links of the websites which you stated, way back, can present your position far better then you can. You also told Beastt to just google them, but I think we all want to be enlightened by the exact ones which you consider superior.

C'mon John, are you going to keep ignoring me?

Chances are yes. Anytime he gets backed into a corner by someone requesting evidence for his claims he often will leave the thread at least till such requests get buried under other posts. Usualy however, he just leaves the thread for good and starts a new one about a totally unrelated topic.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

That's precisely wrong. Gravity gets weaker as we go to the centre of the Earth.

Saw that too, apparently the ability to do integration is no longer necessary for people who work at NASA

 

[Beastt]

Not really, we have what we call discernment that is a gift of the Holy Spirit of God. You are right in that I have no way of knowing apart from God. But gifts like discernment, knowledge and understanding is a work of God in us and though us. The gifts are given to help strangthen and build people up.

"I know more than you do because God told me."?

Really, John; unless you can demonstrate this to be true, (and you haven't, nor has any other Christian), then it is but a Christian fantasy. If it were true, there would be no problem providing conclusive evidence that it was true. But as no Christian has ever been able to demonstrate this proclaimed "God-given" knowledge, it's fairly obvious that it's a fallacious claim.

 

[And-U-Say]

Not really, we have what we call discernment that is a gift of the Holy Spirit of God. You are right in that I have no way of knowing apart from God. But gifts like discernment, knowledge and understanding is a work of God in us and though us. The gifts are given to help strangthen and build people up.

Too bad this "discernment" hasn't helped christians figure out which of their denominations or which of their tenets is the "real" one(s). I guess its just really good luck on your part that you happened across your denomination with its "true" discernment capabilities. apparently all the other christians just don't have that inside track to god's intentions.

 

[JohnR7]

I guess its just really good luck on your part that you happened across your denomination with its "true" discernment capabilities.

My brother recommended it. I was attending a charismatic episcopal church. They are big on the charismas or the gifts of the Spirit. It was a good church and the teaching was good at the time.

 

[JohnR7]

no Christian has ever been able to demonstrate this proclaimed "God-given" knowledge

You are wrong there, because I just demonstrated it. Look at Moses in the Bible. He knew what He knew because he was taught of God. If you do not want to accept the truth, that does not make it any less true.

 

[Valkhorn]

Really, John; unless you can demonstrate this to be true, (and you haven't, nor has any other Christian), then it is but a Christian fantasy. If it were true, there would be no problem providing conclusive evidence that it was true. But as no Christian has ever been able to demonstrate this proclaimed "God-given" knowledge, it's fairly obvious that it's a fallacious claim.

You are wrong there, because I just demonstrated it. Look at Moses in the Bible. He knew what He knew because he was taught of God. If you do not want to accept the truth, that does not make it any less true.

Swing and a miss.

 

[Hallucinogen]

You are wrong there, because I just demonstrated it. Look at Moses in the Bible. He knew what He knew because he was taught of God. If you do not want to accept the truth, that does not make it any less true.

you need an eye opener man. just because its in the bible that doesnt mean its true.

 

[JohnR7]

you need an eye opener man. just because its in the bible that doesnt mean its true.

It is true if you know how to read your Bible. Of course what the serpent said to Eve was not true and that is recorded in the Bible. But the Bible makes it clear that what the serpent was telling Eve was not true.

This might be the first recorded case of evolution in the Bible, because we are told that the "serpent" "evolved" in a way so that he no longer had legs.

 

[JohnR7]

Now now John, at least speak the truth. You have SAID time and time again that Creationism is right and Evolution is wrong, but you have yet to ever show why this is true.

We need to define what Creationism is and what Evolution is. I have given scientific evidence that shows Creationism to be true, just like I have given scientific evidence that shows Evolution not to be true. I have Phillip Johnson's and Lee Strobel's books here right now. They both present a pretty good case against Evolution. Of course their degrees are in law and not science, so this may have some impact on how people accept their arguement. But that does not make it any less of an arguement against evolution. We still have a long ways to go with different points they bring up in their books. So be prepared to defend evolution and what you believe.

Now you have people like Francis Collins who's only real objection to creationism is that he does not want it to cause any confusion as to what Theistic Evolution is. So it is just a question of how theistic creationism is, because it is pretty well establish that science maybe agnostic, they maybe theistic, but atheism is not compatible with science.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

We need to define what Creationism is and what Evolution is. I have given scientific evidence that shows Creationism to be true, just like I have given scientific evidence that shows Evolution not to be true. I have Phillip Johnson's and Lee Strobel's books here right now. They both present a pretty good case against Evolution. Of course their degrees are in law and not science, so this may have some impact on how people accept their arguement. But that does not make it any less of an arguement against evolution. We still have a long ways to go with different points they bring up in their books. So be prepared to defend evolution and what you believe.

Now you have people like Francis Collins who's only real objection to creationism is that he does not want it to cause any confusion as to what Theistic Evolution is. So it is just a question of how theistic creationism is, because it is pretty well establish that science maybe agnostic, they maybe theistic, but atheism is not compatible with science.

What on earth are you trying to say in your second paragraph?

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

So it is just a question of how theistic creationism is, because it is pretty well establish that science maybe agnostic, they maybe theistic, but atheism is not compatible with science.

Care to (and I can't believe I'm asking this again) back up your claims?

Pretty please. With a cherry and sugar on top.

 

[JohnR7]

Care to (and I can't believe I'm asking this again) back up your claims?

Pretty please. With a cherry and sugar on top.

You mean that atheism is not compatible with science? First lets look at where it comes from. Before Darwin there was no atheism in science. At the time of Constantine, Christianity became the official religion, whoever did not convert was killed. People had no choice but to accept the christian faith.

Then later on, Darwin himself was not a atheist, but his bulldog: Dawkins was an atheist that loved to set up a strawman and then dismantle it with great relish. Even though Dawkins accepted the Moral Laws. If he had rejected that also, we may never have heard of him.

It is actually no less than Gould that chastised Dawkins for his perspective. Stephan Jay Gould said: "for the umpteenth millionth time: Science simply cannot by its legitimate methoids adjudicate the issue of God" Gould believed that science could not confirm it, they could not deny it, science was not qualified to comment on it as scientists. So a scientist can not confirm or deny God. Science can be agnostic, but science can not be atheistic.

 

[JohnR7]

What on earth are you trying to say in your second paragraph?

Francis Collins is taking a stand for theistic evolution. He feels that theistic evolutionists have backed down on this for two long and now it is time to take a stand. In his book: "The Language of God" he leaves nothing to the imagination. He lays it all out on the table. If you then look at the chapter on creationism, he feels that theistic evolution is actually the ultimate form of creationism. But they do not want to be associated with that word, because he wants to avoid any confusion. He suggests maybe coming up with a new name like "Biologos" Bio is greek for life and logos is greek for the word. A word that many christian believers associate with God.

 

[Beastt]

You are wrong there, because I just demonstrated it. Look at Moses in the Bible. He knew what He knew because he was taught of God. If you do not want to accept the truth, that does not make it any less true.

Why don't you look at Moses in the Bible, John. Look to his claim that God's power was contained within the Ark of the Covenant when anyone half familiar with the very basics of electronics can show you that based upon it's construction, (as depicted in the Bible), it was a large capacitor and nothing more. What Moses told everyone was God's power was simply static electricity.

Look then to Leviticus 14:1-9 where Moses claims he was given a cure for leprosy by God himself. Take a good long look at his proclaimed cure. The man was a scam-artist, pure and simple.

 

[Kaonashi]

If he even existed that is.