Creationist Club

[busterdog]

The idea was to pool resources and positive proof for Creationism. I was most interested in posts like they have in the Quiet Thread in the Creation/evolution forum. You could post more technical discussions and the resources you have posted a hundred times before.

I suggested it to Erwin but never heard anything back from him. I think the idea could be a big help for creationists if it was done right.

It is a good idea. The challenges from the outside really help to sharpen the arguments on one hand. But, you don't get to learn as much technical stuff, since the arguments always move away from the central issue, since no one will ever concede anything, even for the sake of argument.

 

[mark kennedy]

It is a good idea. The challenges from the outside really help to sharpen the arguments on one hand. But, you don't get to learn as much technical stuff, since the arguments always move away from the central issue, since no one will ever concede anything, even for the sake of argument.

I never really mind conceding a point but it would seem the only thing you have to do in order to be totally wrong is to say hi I'm a creationist.

It's become increasingly obvious that evolutionists are determined to bury the truth. I've been accumulating this and that and would like to set something up were a creationist can just go in and learn. It's not going to happen on this board secularists simply don't stop pushing and they have ran off a lot of the creationists who I have met on here.

Most of this is not hard to learn except that it's hard to get anything straight with the full court press they like so well. Learning the life sciences without Darwinism is the only obvious answer, you just don't need a single common ancestor for every living thing on earth.

I'm not much for campaigns or causes but this one would be a fight worth having. I'm working on somekind of a resource center now, it could take some time but I think it's important.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[busterdog]

I never really mind conceding a point but it would seem the only thing you have to do in order to be totally wrong is to say hi I'm a creationist.

It's become increasingly obvious that evolutionists are determined to bury the truth. I've been accumulating this and that and would like to set something up were a creationist can just go in and learn. It's not going to happen on this board secularists simply don't stop pushing and they have ran off a lot of the creationists who I have met on here.

Most of this is not hard to learn except that it's hard to get anything straight with the full court press they like so well. Learning the life sciences without Darwinism is the only obvious answer, you just don't need a single common ancestor for every living thing on earth.

I'm not much for campaigns or causes but this one would be a fight worth having. I'm working on somekind of a resource center now, it could take some time but I think it's important.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Well, I have a thread open on physcial constants. All that Setterfield/Dolphin stuff usually engenders a lot of heat, ie, "this is Princess Ponies in Rainbow Land, no science." There hasn't been any of that, but the creationists don't seem real interested either.

Apparently the flaming is not allowed there, but there isn't much life either.

What is the answer?

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, I have a thread open on physcial constants. All that Setterfield/Dolphin stuff usually engenders a lot of heat, ie, "this is Princess Ponies in Rainbow Land, no science." There hasn't been any of that, but the creationists don't seem real interested either.

Apparently the flaming is not allowed there, but there isn't much life either.

What is the answer?

I listened to the audios and really don't think I followed the physics. It's not the first time I have heard the relativity thing applied to time and space relationships. One of the biggest problems with evolution is that it's too linear, something like Setterfield/Dolphin are proposing is fine if you can get people the concept behind the scenerio.

What you really need is people who will take the time to learn it well enough to decide if it's helpfull or not. One of the biggest problems I run into is getting the fact across to creationists that most of the actual science is irrelevant to their theology or to history for that matter.

Generally their eyes will gloss over, they'll yawn/stretch, pat me on my head and wish me well on my journey. When you tell creationists that the physical universe and living systems are functioning in a way consistant with the way the Bible describes our origins they really won't be very supprised or impressed. The way they see it, they allready knew that and could have told you if you had only thought to ask.

My point is you have to get their attention and try to keep it long enough to explain the details of you approach.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[busterdog]

I listened to the audios and really don't think I followed the physics. It's not the first time I have heard the relativity thing applied to time and space relationships. One of the biggest problems with evolution is that it's too linear, something like Setterfield/Dolphin are proposing is fine if you can get people the concept behind the scenerio.

What you really need is people who will take the time to learn it well enough to decide if it's helpfull or not. One of the biggest problems I run into is getting the fact across to creationists that most of the actual science is irrelevant to their theology or to history for that matter.

Generally their eyes will gloss over, they'll yawn/stretch, pat me on my head and wish me well on my journey. When you tell creationists that the physical universe and living systems are functioning in a way consistant with the way the Bible describes our origins they really won't be very supprised or impressed. The way they see it, they allready knew that and could have told you if you had only thought to ask.

My point is you have to get their attention and try to keep it long enough to explain the details of you approach.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Yes. Interesting points. The Lord Himself will prove Gen. 1 before we ever manage.

However, one of the more beautiful epiphanies of my life was to read about Setterfield c-decay ideas, which collapses the conventions on atomic time and makes them coincide with 6,000 years of dynamic time.

Whether or not Setterfield is right, he did prove your point. In one evening, God lead this guy to an insight which trashes hundreds of years of scientific convention on how things work. He whooped on Einstein and ate his freakin' lunch! That is humbling. Talk about the knowledge of good and evil! Physics puts some light on what that's about by being so incredibly limited.

That really helped me get a grasp on inerrancy. Such a huge lesson for me anyway. Not that he proved it. But, as for everything else, the joint was thoroghly busted up. What is left that can possibly be true but the Word?

The physics also teaches us alot abot how people and how they make mistakes in dealing with knowledge.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes. Interesting points. The Lord Himself will prove Gen. 1 before we ever manage.

However, one of the more beautiful epiphanies of my life was to read about Setterfield c-decay ideas, which collapses the conventions on atomic time and makes them coincide with 6,000 years of dynamic time.

Whether or not Setterfield is right, he did prove your point. In one evening, God lead this guy to an insight which trashes hundreds of years of scientific convention on how things work. He whooped on Einstein and ate his freakin' lunch! That is humbling. Talk about the knowledge of good and evil! Physics puts some light on what that's about by being so incredibly limited.

That really helped me get a grasp on inerrancy. Such a huge lesson for me anyway. Not that he proved it. But, as for everything else, the joint was thoroghly busted up. What is left that can possibly be true but the Word?

The physics also teaches us alot abot how people and how they make mistakes in dealing with knowledge.

One of the problems with science is that once it becomes common knowledge it's usually obselete. Gregor Mendel had figured out the most basic and common rules of inheritance worked 50 years before anyone had seen a chromosome. When you think about it the genuine article of science is being buried beneath Darwinian mythologies while actual genetics and biology are ignored.

That's how the world is, the next time you are in a bookstore look around at how much fiction is on the shelves. What would you say sells better, fiction or science?

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm bumping this thread because I want to see if Creationists are interested in working on a list of resources for the subforum.