Creationists - Christ's worst enemies

[Beastt]

Praxiteles:

I know that I'd rather have my post be classified as "can't have been that bad" than "wasn't that good". Once again, you list no points that were what you call "PRATTs". Please give me a few examples from what I said that classify as this "PRATT".

Yeah, sure that's cool.

Actually, the physical evidence is what you said minus the old-age interpretation as the "facts don't speak for themselves". For example the physical evidence of 3rd stage SNRs is that there is none in our galaxy. The interpretation is that since there is none, then the big bang time scale is false.

Scientists use assumptions based on faith in their radiometric dating methods as well. These assumptions (e.g. constant decay rate, how much daughter element was initally there and how much of the elements have been subtracted or added to the system) are based on their underlying beliefs. That must be setting off some alarm bells in your head as to their validity. Radiometric dating methods are a classic example of the good old circular reasoning, i.e. using old age assumptions to prove that the Earth is billions of years old.

The different forms of radiometric dating cross-confirm one another. Please explain how this would be possible if the methods rely only upon assumptions born and maintained out of faith. The various radiometric dating methods also display a high degree of agreement with non-ratiometric dating techniques when applied to samples from the same specimens.

As concerns your SNR viewpoint, perhaps it would be of some use to apply the information here.

 

[Tomk80]

How on Earth did you come to this conclusion?

Because the things you mentioned either aren't used to support evolution anymore, were never used as such or were shown to be hoaxes before any conclusions were drawn.

Evolution is a theory designed to for all practical purposes detail and explain the origin of the evidence of the present. For example, where did the first life come from? Lifeless chemicals on Earth. Where did the planet Earth come from? And if we keep on asking where, you'll get to the big bang inflation of singularity in 4D. You only look at a small part of the picture, while I stand back and look at the grand scheme of things.

The only thing the theory of evolution does is explain the current biodiversity on earth. Now repeat after me:

• Evolution does NOT explain how the universe came into existance, nor does it try to.
• Evolution does NOT explain how matter came into existance, nor does it try to.
  
• Evolution does NOT explain how planets came into existance, nor does it try to.
  
• Evolution does NOT explain how life came into existance, nor does it try to.
  
• Do only thing evolution tries to explain is how the current biological diversity arose out of the first life formed.
  

They assumed factors that would make the evidence conform to their belief in evolutionism (i.e. big bang and it's timescale). I'll let you decide whether or not that is wrong, but I personally think it's a little embarrassing.

So again, you would rather have that they would continue using a faulty model? How is that valid?

And once again, I ask you how do you come to that conclusion? If you're referring to the quote, that wasn't mine as I made clear, it was a quote from Dr Richard L. Mauger who has his Ph.D in geology; at the time he was the Associate Professor of Geology, East Carolina University. For some reason, I've got that sneaking suspicion that he knows a hell of a lot more than you on the topic. Either way, you're not ridiculing me, it's your evolutionary brother who is copping it...

I'll deal with your other post shortly. By the way, your last post in particular is quite weak...

Somehow, I think he has said more than only the two sentences you quoted, and I'm quite curious on the context. Can you provide it?

But what Gluadys is hinting at, is that even if there are some anomalous samples, this doesn't falsify the enourmous number of clues that the earth is indeed old. It seems that the professor you quoted was arguing that anomalous results, when fully investigated, would have an explanation but this doesn't imply that that explanation would be that the dating method is inaccurate. If this was the case, there would be a lot of reason to investigate the anomalous results fully.

 

[Jet Black]

The example of the no third stage SNRs in our galaxy is one, this proves that the universe is a lot younger than the billions of years evolutionists give it. For if it were really that old, we should expect to observe many second and third stage SNRs, the fact is, well, we don't.

this is long and complex:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/

needlesss to say, AIG were talking from the wrong end.

The fact that there is no enough helium in the atmosphere for Earth to be the billions of years old it is given by evolutionists. Let me explain, helium is formed during radioactive alpha-decay in rock minerals. It rapidly escapes and enters the atmosphere much faster than it can escape Earth's gravity. Even if God had created the world with no helium to begin with, the small amount in the atmosphere would have taken at most around two million years to accumulate. That is, there is not even enough time for biological evolution to happen.

wrong again. ionised helium is extracted from the poles. taking this into account, the production/influx rates and outflow rates show the amount of helium in the atmosphere is in equilibrium.

For the following, the unbelieving evolutionists are called "evolutionists".
It is more than relevant to evolution because these animalistic acts and others (including the Holocaust) happened because they thought that evolution was FACT and TRUTH. All this was done in the name of evolution and the acts were completely consistent with the evolutionary faiths.

utterly wrong. in what way was the holocaust "consistent with evolutionary faiths"

 

[random_guy]

Dr Russell Humphreys' white hole cosmology as outlined in Starlight and Time for one.

Does this theory include God? Did this theory get published in a scientific journal (creationists journals by definition are not scientific because they throw out any evidence that does not support the Bible).

By the second part you're referring to philosophical beliefs. Evolution is also a philosophical belief and has NOT contributed anything of real value to operations science. Evolution and creation are BOTH philosophical INTERPRETATIONS about the origin of the SAME evidence. Why do you think you get so hyped up whenever it gets challenged? Because it is at the core of your very beliefs.

Really?

To make progress, to learn more about botanical organisms, hypotheses, the subcomponents of theories, are tested by attempting to falsify logically derived predictions. This is why scientists use and teach evolution; evolution offers testable explanations of observed biological phenomena. Evolution continues to be of paramount usefulness, and so, based on simple pragmatism, scientists use this theory to improve our understanding of the biology of organisms. Over and over again, evolutionary theory has generated predictions that have proven to be true. Any hypothesis that doesn’t prove true is discarded in favor of a new one, and so the component hypotheses of evolutionary theory change as knowledge and understanding grow. Phylogenetic hypotheses, patterns of ancestral relatedness, based on one set of data, for example, base sequences in DNA, are generated, and when the results make logical sense out of formerly disparate observations, confidence in the truth of the hypothesis increases. The theory of evolution so permeates botany that frequently it is not mentioned explicitly, but the overwhelming majority of published studies are based upon evolutionary hypotheses, each of which constitutes a test of an hypothesis. Evolution has been very successful as a scientific explanation because it has been useful in advancing our understanding of organisms and applying that knowledge to the solution of many human problems, e.g., host-pathogen interactions, origin of crop plants, herbicide resistance, disease susceptibility of crops, and invasive plants.

For example, plant biologists have long been interested in the origins of crop plants. Wheat is an ancient crop of the Middle East. Three species exist both as wild and domesticated wheats, einkorn, emmer, and breadwheat. Archeological studies have demonstrated that einkorn is the most ancient and breadwheat appeared most recently. To plant biologists this suggested that somehow einkorn gave rise to emmer, and emmer gave rise to breadwheat (an hypothesis). Further evidence was obtained from chromosome numbers that showed einkorn with 14, emmer with 28, and breadwheat with 42. Further, the chromosomes in einkorn consisted of two sets of 7 chromosomes, designated AA. Emmer had 14 chromosomes similar in shape and size, but 14 more, so they were designated AABB. Breadwheat had chromosomes similar to emmer, but 14 more, so they were designated AABBCC. To plant biologists familiar with mechanisms of speciation, these data, the chromosome numbers and sets, suggested that the emmer and breadwheat species arose via hybridization and polyploidy (an hypothesis). The Middle Eastern flora was studied to find native grasses with a chromosome number of 14, and several goatgrasses were discovered that could be the predicted parents, the sources of the BB and CC chromosomes. To test these hypotheses, plant biologists crossed einkorn and emmer wheats with goatgrasses, which produced sterile hybrids. These were treated to produce a spontaneous doubling of the chromosome number, and as predicted, the correct crosses artificially produced both the emmer and breadwheat species. No one saw the evolution of these wheat species, but logical predictions about what happened were tested by recreating likely circumstances. Grasses are wind-pollinated, so cross-pollination between wild and cultivated grasses happens all the time. Frosts and other natural events are known to cause a doubling of chromosomes. And the hypothesized sequence of speciation matches their observed appearance in the archeological record. Farmers would notice and keep new wheats, and the chromosome doubling and hybrid vigor made both emmer and breadwheat larger, more vigorous wheats. Lastly, a genetic change in breadwheat from the wild goatgrass chromosomes allowed for the chaff to be removed from the grain without heating, so glutin was not denatured, and a sourdough (yeast infected) culture of the sticky breadwheat flour would inflate (rise) from the trapped carbon dioxide.

The actual work was done by many plant biologists over many years, little by little, gathering data and testing ideas, until these evolutionary events were understood as generally described above. The hypothesized speciation events were actually recreated, an accomplishment that allows plant biologists to breed new varieties of emmer and bread wheats. Using this speciation mechanism, plant biologists hybridized wheat and rye, producing a new, vigorous, high protein cereal grain, Triticale.

Now, you have 3 choices, lie and continue to believe that evolution is just a philosophy and contributed nothing to science, ignore this post, or admit that you're wrong.

Tell me, how did evolution not contribute to botany?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Am I a prophet or what?! Didn't I say that I would get such unfounded remarks? All of these are baseless accusations to which Mechanical Bliss has not provided evidence.

It's not unfounded, it's just that this has been hashed over so many times it gets tiresome repeatedly showing this.

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

- Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith

"All the genuine facts of science support Biblical creationism and all statements in the Bible are consistent with scientific creationism."

- Institute for Creation Research Tenets of Creationism

Note that both organizations adhere to the philosophy that the only genuine evidences that exist are the ones that support young earth creationism. They presuppose that any other evidence is wrong and can be ignored. The people who work for those organizations are required to adhere to those statements.

You have also epitomized the notion of a creationist ignoring evidence to make your argument when you used the hackneyed creationist comparison of Mt. St. Helens lahar deposits to the Grand Canyon in another thread. That ignores the inherent complexities of the Grand Canyon that make it entirely different. It's considered one of the lowest quality creationist arguments in existence, particularly because it is deliberately ignorant of the evidence.

He just 100% ignored what I wrote and continued saying the usual anit-creationist rhetoric.

I couldn't have ignored 100% of what you wrote if I responded to a portion of it. The problem is your post is nothing the regulars here haven't seen countless times before, and when you make the error of creationists using the same evidence of evolutionists, that just illustrates that you have not looked into this issue very carefully, because that's far from the truth.

So long as we both live in the same universe, we can only use the same evidence or facts, e.g. fossils, stars, sun, planet, rocks, etc..

And like I said, the difference is that scientists actually use all that evidence and creationists do not. They ignore what they don't like in order to preserve their preconceived fixed conclusion. That's exactly how professional creationism works. You can see it just by reading their mission statements.

Your argument denies logical thinking as well.

No it doesn't.

Evolutionists just work from a different framework than creationist.

This is not about merely evolution, but science in a larger sense considering YECists object to more than just the unifying theory of biology. Scientists do use a different framework: the scientific method. Creationists do not.

Thus, what Mechanical Bliss is essentially saying is that because creationists use different underlying assumptions and come to different conclusions about the origin of the evidence, then they must be liars and therefore dishonest.

Their only relevant underlying assumption here is that YECism is true no matter what and any evidence that contradicts YECism can be ignored. That is dishonest.

The whole debate is a philosophical one - not science vs creation - rather philosophy vs philosophy. It is a battle of interpretations! As proven above in previous post.

No, it's not; it's a scientific debate. YECism can be easily disproved by science.

Tocis, and you were saying that creationists are wilfully ignorant and arrogant? A prime example is Mechanical Bliss (an evolutionist). Ignores what I said without providing any evidence what so ever and continues to say the usual unfounded rhetoric.

I'm not trying to be mean to you Mechanical Bliss, you just so happened to be the first person to do what I predicted and knew many evolutionists would do, and as such I am using you as an example to illustrate the point I was making in my previous post.

This is just a gigantic, mindless flame. You are in no position to be slinging mud on this forum, especially given that you are a newbie and you criticize others for unfounded assertions when you propagate them yourself.

Perhaps you should get off that high horse and start addressing the facts rather than propagating the same persecution complex-derived rhetoric the regulars here have seen time and again.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Scientists use assumptions based on faith in their radiometric dating methods as well.

In other words you do not understand the development of radiometric dating methods.

These assumptions (e.g. constant decay rate, how much daughter element was initally there and how much of the elements have been subtracted or added to the system) are based on their underlying beliefs.

So scientists did not make observations of decays per unit time?

So scientists did not try to affect decay rates with extreme temperatures, pressures, etc. only to find that no terrestrial conditions or processes affect them?

So scientists did not perform various tests like XRD on igneous rocks to determine their chemistry?

So scientists did not observe the chemistry of newly formed rocks?

So scientists have not examined the reactive properties of elements such as the noble gases?

It's not about underlying beliefs, it's about observation. The only way your statement could be true if the above questions could only be answered with a "no" and that's clearly not the case.

The assumptions used in radiometric dating are conclusions based upon other data. They are not blindly assumed.

That must be setting off some alarm bells in your head as to their validity. Radiometric dating methods are a classic example of the good old circular reasoning, i.e. using old age assumptions to prove that the Earth is billions of years old.

The notion of an old earth is not an assumption, it is a conclusion from the evidence. Radiometric dating is the very quantitative measurement that has given us the conclusion that the earth is billions of years old. You are using the typical creationist tactic of confusing assumptions with conclusions in order to cloud the issue by trying to argue from rhetoric.

Radiometric dating does work quite well, however:

1. We can predict the K-Ar ages of the Hawaiian Islands from what we know about plate tectonics. Interestingly enough, the K-Ar dates match the predicted ages with remarkable accuracy. I have outlined this in further detail already: http://www.christianforums.com/t50891

2. Radiometric dates can be cross referenced with other methods that involve different nuclide systems, and thus, different decay constants, different proportions of parental decay, and different methods of measurement to procure a date. When used on the same feature, they agree with remarkable accuracy as well: http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm

Those are only two examples, and they are simply impossible to achieve if radiometric dating were as flawed as you need it to be. The relationship between the data simply would not exist if they didn't work, and of course scientists wouldn't use them.

 

[Joe Atheist]

With every passing day, I find it harder and harder to keep myself from feeling nothing but utter hate and contempt for all of christianity. While I know that it's not fair, while I know that most christians are okay, while I know that it's only some fanatics who taint the whole religion,...

I tend to agree with you. From a PR point of view, creationists do for Christianity what terrorists do for Islam.

 

[tocis]

...Also, I don't believe in the use of PRATTs as it proves nothing. It would be wise for evolutionists to explain or give a link to an explaination rather than just say "PRATT"...

The sad irony in your long posting is that you do use several PRATTs yourself.
And as for "us evolutionists" just saying "PRATT", as far as I can tell, in most cases a number of us actually have explained in quite some detail why the PRATT presented is false, only to see the creationist regurgitate it some days or weeks later. Care to show me any human being with unlimited patience?

As you wrote so much more, for the moment I'll limit myself to what I wrote above, and a reference to your supposition (?) that my faith doesn't have a "love your neighbor..." doctrine...

...of course the choice of words is different, but if you ask me, the following quote from my "scripture" pretty much means the same as the biblical Golden Rule:

...
To a friend a man a friend shall prove
And gifts with gifts requite;
But man shall mocking with mockery answer
And fraud with falsehood meet.
...

 

[tocis]

...Creation scientists are true scientists who do real science...

Strange then that I never get to see the proper science of creationists, only the nonsense...

...read this for example:

The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

This constitutes a flat rejection of the scientific method because the result of their "research" is presupposed. What a surprise, thus, that they keep "proving" that the bible is literal truth...

It's not very different with ICR:

The Bible consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.

In other words, whenever one of these groups publishes some "research" results, what they really say is:
"All the data we accepted because they fit our dogma prove our dogma true!".

Do you understand why no decent scientist can take these people seriously?

Don't even get me started on hoovie and gasbag ("Drs." Hovind and Gastrich) and the other nutcases...

 

[tocis]

Evolutionists, of all people, should be the last ones to make such accusing comments. Need I bring up all of the frauds that has been committed in the name of evolution to prove it? Ernst Haeckal, various so-called ape men, peppered moths, .........

More PRATTs.

You write in a more or less friendly style, but so far the content of your postings was as worthless as that of any other creationist's postings. Some more of that and I'll simply spare myself the effort of reading more of your postings. Aaaah, the wonderful power of the ignore list...

 

[tocis]

How on Earth did you come to this conclusion [that I know nothing about evolution]?

...

Evolution is a theory designed to for all practical purposes detail and explain the origin of the evidence of the present. For example, where did the first life come from?

Providing the evidence he asks for in the very same posting...

Okay, that does it. Friendly or not, enjoy your stay in my ignore list.

 

[gluadys]

How on Earth did you come to this conclusion?

Pretty easy. I read what you wrote.

Evolution is a theory designed to for all practical purposes detail and explain the origin of the evidence of the present. For example, where did the first life come from? Lifeless chemicals on Earth. Where did the planet Earth come from? And if we keep on asking where, you'll get to the big bang inflation of singularity in 4D. You only look at a small part of the picture, while I stand back and look at the grand scheme of things.

Case in point. The theory of evolution deals only with biology, and within biology it deals with the history of life on earth, not with how life originated.

So nothing in the paragraph above touches on the theory of evolution. A person who is unaware of this fact is correctly described as knowing nothing about the theory of evolution.

They assumed factors that would make the evidence conform to their belief in evolutionism (i.e. big bang and it's timescale). I'll let you decide whether or not that is wrong, but I personally think it's a little embarrassing.

Ever learn in math class how to estimate the answer to a problem?

Do you understand how NASA figures out when a satellite or space probe needs a course correction and by how much?

When scientists are first beginning an investigation, they often need to estimate the weight of various relevant factors. Then they run their model based on these estimates and compare the results with reality. This helps them determine to what extent their estimates are faulty so that they can correct them and develop a model that more closely matches reality.

I don't see anything embarrassing about that. Why do you?

And once again, I ask you how do you come to that conclusion? If you're referring to the quote, that wasn't mine as I made clear, it was a quote from Dr Richard L. Mauger who has his Ph.D in geology; at the time he was the Associate Professor of Geology, East Carolina University. For some reason, I've got that sneaking suspicion that he knows a hell of a lot more than you on the topic. Either way, you're not ridiculing me, it's your evolutionary brother who is copping it...

I'll deal with your other post shortly. By the way, your last post in particular is quite weak...

I wasn't referring to the content of the quote so much as the fact you are laying the groundwork for eliminating all evidence of age. Typical creationist evasion of the fact that scientists have no interest in using dating methods that don't work. And by "work" I don't mean "agree with their agenda" I mean "agree with the evidence".

If radiometry (or dendrochronolgy, or ice cores, or any other measure) consistently gave unpredictable and unreliable dates, it would not be used in scientific work.

Why do you assume that measuring techniques are not checked out for reliability before they are accepted as providing useful information? Why not go back to scientific journals published in the 1920s and 1930s when scientists themselves were asking "Is radiometry reliable?" and see what sort of questions they were raising and what tests they were doing before they were convinced they could use dates based on these measures? I guarantee you, there is no possible reason for not using radiometry raised by creationists that was not raised and answered by scientists before it became acceptable to use radiometry in scientific work.

For you to assume that scientists are not concerned about the accuracy of the tools they use again shows that you do not know what you are talking about. And that you are willing to give creedance to baseless slurs against scientists on the basis of your own ignorance.

 

[nvxplorer]

I have an idea for a creationist diet plan.

"Go ahead. Hop on that scale. It's not accurate anyway."

 

[gluadys]

What you so far do not understand is that it is an embrace of only physical evidence that is religious!

No, dad, the embrace of only physical evidence is scientific.
The embrace of the metaphysical is religious.

A person can be both scientific and religious, as the two are not antithetical. But importing the metaphysical into the scientific destroys science.

 

[Elduran]

More PRATTs.

You write in a more or less friendly style, but so far the content of your postings was as worthless as that of any other creationist's postings. Some more of that and I'll simply spare myself the effort of reading more of your postings. Aaaah, the wonderful power of the ignore list...

I actually asked him to elaborate on those example, stating why he thought that apemen and peppered moths were fakes, and why he thinks that modern embryology is at all dependent on Haekel's drawings (the faking of which scientists are well aware of), but no answer...

 

[gluadys]

The Bible itself predicts that because of the Great Flood that there should be many, many fossils burried in sedimentary rock all over the Earth - and that is what we find.

No it doesn't. You are making this up. If the bible predicted fossils, people would have been looking for them long before Darwin as evidence for the flood. Also they would not have been as shocked as they were about there being so many extinct species. Especially pre-Adamic extinctions. Prior to fossils being identified as extinct species, it never occurred to Christians that God's creations could become extinct, except possibly by human hands. They assumed that Noah really had saved a pair of every created species.

But pre-Darwinian creationists were a lot more respectful of science than modern creationists. They were willing to change their interpretation of Genesis to accommodate the facts of science. So they changed from assuming that Noah had saved every species and attributed extinctions to the flood. And the more progressive creationists of the time accepted scientific estimates of the age of the earth, so inventing Old Earth Creationism, which accepted pre-Adamic as well as pre-Flood extinction.

These were changes in the interpretation of Genesis. To assert that the bible actually predicts fossils is reversing history. Nothing in the biblical text predicts fossils at all.


The fossil record shows a lot more than that organisms were covered with sediment. It is very specific about which fossils are found in which sediments. The stratigraphic pattern of fossil placement cannot be explained by a flood.

Unfortunately, I never did high school biology - I've always prefered physics myself.

So I was right about you knowing nothing about evolution.

Micro-evolution deals with observation from the present, but macro-evolution in the sense that Darwin talked about deals with the origin of the evidence in the present. Here on the Creation/evolution forum we are talking about the origin of the evidence, hence an unobservable and untestable as well as an unrepeatable event. Please stick to the origin of evidence definition as the micro-evolution is not being debated here.

more evidence that you do not know the theory of evolution. To borrow someone else's analogy, micro-evolution is to macro-evolution as millimetres are to kilometres. You can't get the second without the first; and you can't prevent the first adding up to the second.

Technically, in science, macro-evolution refers to the range of evolution at or above the species level. So macro-evolution includes speciation, and we have many examples of observed speciation. Therefore, by definition, we have observed macro-evolution.

And please, when we are discussing science, do use scientific terms as scientists use them. Your personal definitions, (and creationist definitions) are mere expressions of science-phobia.

Reference:
* The Revised Quote Book

Reference:
The Quote Mine Project: or Lies, Damn Lies and Quote Mines

It is a good idea to check out any quote against this before using it on these forums.

In any case, quotes are not scientific evidence. They only express personal opinions.

 

[habeas]

The difference of course being that scientists actually use all of the available evidence and creationists throw out what they don't like and twist what they can to fit a preconceived, fixed conclusion.

Scientists and creationists simply do not use the same evidence. It's not simply a matter of interpretation here, it's a matter of intellectual honesty.

LORD HAVE MERCY, HOW NAIVE CAN YOU GET?!!! YOU REALLY THINK THAT EVOLUTIONISTS HAVE NOT "THROWN OUT" THE INCONVENIENT EVIDENCE, OR THAT "SCIENTISTS DON'T DO THIS?" HOW MANY DAYS AGO WERE YOU BORN?

 

[notto]

LORD HAVE MERCY, HOW NAIVE CAN YOU GET?!!! YOU REALLY THINK THAT EVOLUTIONISTS HAVE NOT "THROWN OUT" THE INCONVENIENT EVIDENCE, OR THAT "SCIENTISTS DON'T DO THIS?" HOW MANY DAYS AGO WERE YOU BORN?

Your accusations are baseless without evidence.

 

[Elduran]

LORD HAVE MERCY, HOW NAIVE CAN YOU GET?!!! YOU REALLY THINK THAT EVOLUTIONISTS HAVE NOT "THROWN OUT" THE INCONVENIENT EVIDENCE, OR THAT "SCIENTISTS DON'T DO THIS?" HOW MANY DAYS AGO WERE YOU BORN?

Ooh, more baseless accusations about scientists being part of an evil conspiricy to teach what they know to be false...

It's getting old. Evidence: put up or shut up.

 

[gluadys]

Well at least one person is nice, thanks.

You're welcome.

Atheists aren't stupid. ... But they know why He came to Earth. Ah huh! They can now move in to destroy that reason; and this is what Bozarth was commenting on.

Then he is mistaken as to why Jesus came to earth. I wonder where he got that mistaken information from?

Okay, why are we sinners?

Because we sin.

When Adam rebelled against God, all human beings, represented by Adam, effectively said that they wanted life without God.

So you are agreeing that Adam is typological rather than historical? This is what I was saying. Adam=humanity. We are each and every one an Adam. And we follow the typological pattern of human existence described in Gen. 2 of turning away from God.

Therefore, take away Adam and his sin, then no one is sinners and who needs to be redeemed?

Come on. You can't seriously think that if Adam did not succumb to temptation that means that nobody anywhere or anytime would not have. If you are speaking of individuals, whichever individual first sinned would introduce sin to the world. It would not have to be the one called Adam.

On the other hand, your sentence makes perfect logic if Adam is typological. If humans are not sinners, they do not need redemption, and so no redemption would be provided. However, it is obvious that humans are sinners, so redemption is necessary and provided by God's grace.

If you say that Adam is merely figurative and not a real character, then all human beings (i.e. we are Adam's descendants) sin in the likeness of someone who never existed. That makes absolutely no sense! Surely, just surely you have to start seeing how illogical your position is...

Are we not all in the likeness of sinful humanity?

Your appeal to majority or consensus is fallicious and very weak. There have been many times all throughout the Bible where the majority are proven wrong or are destroyed while the minority who do God's will survive.

My references to the majority of Christians was not made to say they are right. Rather to say that a definition of Christian belief which excludes their beliefs is a bad definition of Christian belief. "Creation" cannot be equated with "a literal reading of Genesis" because that is not how most Christians think of creation. Now whether their thinking is right or wrong is a different question.

On a forum such as this it is. Evolution is the banner under which compromising Christians stand, while "literalists" stand under the creation banner. Unless of course, you're willing to jump ships?

Better read the forum rules before you imply again that non-literalist Christians are compromising Christians. FYI non-literalist Christians also "stand under the creation banner". Creation is a belief held by all Christians, however they interpret Genesis.

Hmm, how strange you missed the words "in the case of Genesis". Go back and read it again. I am only talking about and made it very clear that I was only talking about with reference to Genesis. Thus, your argument is still illogical and false.

Since I referred to "Christians who do not accept a literal reading of Genesis" I wonder why you think I missed what you said.

So you're trying to make me believe that Newton didn't actually do any science? Are you trying to make be believe that James Joule, Thompson, Kelvin, Keepler, Galileo, among many, many others,

Always interesting that creationist have to go to pre-Darwinist scientist to find creationists who do real science.

and more recently Dr Gitt, Dr Austin, Dr Batten, Dr Humphreys, Dr Jeremy Walter, Dr John Kramer,

Of the three names familiar to me (Gitt, Austin, Humphreys) I have seen their creationist work and it is not science. They may have published scientific work in other fields, but not based on creationism.

I will have to check out the others.

For example, Dr Jeremy Walter is a mechanical engineer who was in 1975 a recipient of a prestigious National Science Foundation Fellowship, funding graduate study at the institution of his choice. At ARL, Dr Walter has been the leader for a number of undersea propulsion development projects for the US Navy. His research involves multi-disciplinary development and testing of advanced air-indepdent engines and thermal power systems for various autonomous undersea vehicles.

Engineering (other than genetic engineering) has nothing to do with evolution and most engineers know no more about evolution than you do. Can't remember who said it, but it is very apropos; "There is no one more ignorant than an expert speaking of something he is not an expert in."

Models of science are subject to change for BOTH creationists and evolutionists. But, the BELIEFS that these models are built on are NOT.

Scientific models are not constructed on the basis of religious or philosophical beliefs. They are constructed on the basis of scientific hypotheses about observed evidence in order to test the hypothesis.

The example of the no third stage SNRs in our galaxy is one, this proves that the universe is a lot younger than the billions of years evolutionists give it. For if it were really that old, we should expect to observe many second and third stage SNRs, the fact is, well, we don't.

I see someone has already answered this.

The fact that there is no enough helium in the atmosphere for Earth to be the billions of years old it is given by evolutionists. Let me explain, helium is formed during radioactive alpha-decay in rock minerals. It rapidly escapes and enters the atmosphere much faster than it can escape Earth's gravity. Even if God had created the world with no helium to begin with, the small amount in the atmosphere would have taken at most around two million years to accumulate. That is, there is not even enough time for biological evolution to happen.

As mentioned you did not include the evidence of how helium escapes the atmosphere. This is a longstanding PRATT as it was refuted decades ago.

If you read tocis' original post you'd know what the point is; unless I misread it which may be a possibility.

tocis' post does not tell me what your point is. I would like to hear your point in your own words.

As a result of being created in the image of God, humans are a truine being. You being a Christian, I shouldn't have to explain the concept of "triune" to you. As such, humans are made up of three parts: body, spirit and soul. My question to you and any other TEs out there is how can a spirit evolve and when did it first start happening? What are the transitional forms of a "spirit in evolution".

Whether spirit evolves or not is an unanswerable question since we cannot identify spirit in genes or in bones. We can say for certain, however, that the physical form of humanity is a product of biological evolution. I don't know why this is a problem for creationists.

Also, the phrase "image" means that we resemble something. In all three ways we resemble Jesus/God/Holy Spirit. However, according to evolutionism we should continue to evolve and thus, Jesus/God/Holy Spirit can't have a set image.

God is a Spirit without bodily form. How does a changing bodily form affect our spiritual likeness to our creator since God has no physical body on which to model a physical human form?

I think you mean "spirit" as opposed to "soul". Man became, according to Genesis, a living "soul" when God's Spirit filled man's body and the man started to live. Two different things.

The term used in the famous Brazilian trial on the question was "soul". Check out the biography of Bartolome de las Casas, the brilliant and compassionate bishop who affirmed that the South American natives did indeed have souls.

But all evolutionists are being consistent with their faith when they do evil acts as "good" becomes as meaningless as "evil'.

Again more ignorance of evolution. Evolution describes the behaviour of living organisms. It does not pass moral judgment on them because evolution is science, not religion or philosophy.

And as any philosopher will tell you, you cannot derive an ought from an is. To describe what is does not mean morally endorsing what is.

Furthermore, if you think evolution only describes predatory and competitive behaviours, you have much more to learn about evolution.

If you would like to elaborate on that I'd be most greatful.

Better, I'll give you a whole library to explore:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1161676-the-ce-thread-archive.html

Links to threads about Noah's flood are in post 2

Also check out any postings by Glen Morton in the Quiet thread up in the sticky area. His home page is also well worth reading on the topic of the flood and on creationism generally.