Dinosaurs on the Ark: How It Was Possible

[renniks]

Incorrect. You could not even show that any scientists disagree with it.

Actually I gave you several, so quit whining.

 

[renniks]

I dont.

Hmm. Must have been someone with a similar name.

 

[renniks]

I am simply out the pointing out the obvious but not necessarily for you but much more so for lurkers who minds have not yet solidified in an anti-evolution direction.

So, what you are saying is that a creationist can't also be a scientist? Wow.

 

[HitchSlap]

Paul warns that embracing evolution can lead to atheism.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

I prefer to think he was predicting the rise of Trumpers.

 

[HitchSlap]

So, what you are saying is that a creationist can't also be a scientist? Wow.

Of course they can’t. Creationism is close minded, and starts with an answer, then looks for facts to support their conclusions. The exact opposite of science.

 

[renniks]

Of course they can’t. Creationism is close minded, and starts with an answer, then looks for facts to support their conclusions. The exact opposite of science.

Anyone who can do the lab work and understand the experiments can be a scientist. What you believe about creation has nothing to do with it.

And the same can be said about any secular scientists. They start with the exception that the model of evolution is true, and go from there.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationism is close minded, and starts with an answer, then looks for facts to support their conclusions. The exact opposite of science.

Ya ... I heard first that Christopher Columbus discovered America, then I got the details later.

 

[AV1611VET]

Anyone who can do the lab work and understand the experiments can be a scientist. What you believe about creation has nothing to do with it.

And the same can be said about any secular scientists. They start with the exception that the model of evolution is true, and go from there.

Science runs on the idea that the journey is more important than the destination.

In some exceptions, where they focus more on the destination than the journey, we get events like the Challenger, the Florida Footbridge collapse, the Titanic, and other messy things to clean up -- just because they either overlooked some teeny-tiny thing, or just plain outright ignored warnings to the contrary by their fellow peers.

 

[Frank Robert]

So, what you are saying is that a creationist can't also be a scientist? Wow.

I never claimed that creationist can not be a scientist, some creationists like Todd Wood and Michael Behe affirm there is solid evidence for evolution. I recall that Kenneth Miller said that in the final analysis he was a IDist which is similar to what theologian Thomas Aquinas taught about God being the intelligent guide of natural things toward their ends.

My main objection to creationist apologetic criticism of science is that is not science and it is misleading.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Tell us that you don't know what Romans 1:22 means without telling us that you don't know what Romans 1:22 means.

-CryptoLutheran

Ah yes, the Dunning-Kreuger effect.

 

[Frank Robert]

Anyone who can do the lab work and understand the experiments can be a scientist.

To be a good scientist you need to be able to follow the evidence and not be frighten that you will be eternally damned if you affirm it.

And the same can be said about any secular scientists. They start with the exception that the model of evolution is true, and go from there.

You are confused. Scientists do not affirm evolution because they expect it, they affirm evolution because there is consilliance of evidence from many different scientific fields. If the evidence is weak and there is valid disagreements, scientists may hold to their positions but they will change when there is solid evidence for the opposing theory. For example, since the time of Darwin the theory that birds are avian dinosaurs has been disputed but the inflow of fossils from China providing overwhelming evidence for avian dinosaurs has left few doubters.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Cute.

Did you want a serious answer? Okay, yes, God speaks through the Scriptures to His Church--but the Word He speaks is Jesus Christ. God does not change the meaning of what is written and then tell that to us so that we can misquote passages from the Bible to give whatever we want to say an air of religiosity. As though it were a spiritual thing to take a passage entirely out of context in order to "own" the opposition in a debate.

St. Paul in Romans 1:22 speaks of the futility of trying to find God in power, men behold God's power and wisdom in creation, but do not recognize Him. It is why he writes to the Corinthians in his first epistle to them that the wisdom of this world is foolishness, and God chose the foolish things of this world to confound the wise; the cross is folly, but to those who are being saved Christ is the power and wisdom of God.

Men seek God in power, and they miss Him. Because we cannot find the hidden God--God shrouded behind the veil of His power and mystery. In order that God may be encountered He reveals Himself, He comes to us--not in power, not in glory, not in wisdom, but in weakness, humility, and foolishness: Jesus Christ.

Therefore it is not the wisdom of the wise in seeking God in glory and power that is of any value, for that results in the worship of power--as idols--but it ignores the One Himself whose wisdom and power are on display. He has therefore not to meet us in power, but in weakness; not in wisdom, but in folly. That He might show forth His grace to us, having said to the same Apostle, "My grace is sufficient for you, My strength is made manifest in weakness."

Because the Apostle is not trying to shame the Gentiles in their folly of idol worship, but to preach the Gospel (Romans 1:16-17). He does that by beginning with the common human problem, confusing power with Divinity; and then he moves on to remind his readers that they aren't any better than the Pagans he has spoken about. His readers have no room to judge, they are no better. As the Apostle will eventually say in the third chapter, "All have sinned and fallen short"; for the Law condemns Jew and Gentile alike as sinners. There is no distinction among people, we're all equals under the Law, and the Law has judged us wanting, and not just wanting, but thoroughly guilty of failing to live in accordance with justice--that we love God and love our neighbor as ourselves.

It is from out of this condemnation of the Law that the bright light of the Gospel shines forth, for God does not come to tell the world to pick itself up by its bootstraps, but rather comes to become part of this world in order to heal and redeem it. For "God demonstrates His love for us in that while still sinners Christ died for us" and "What the Law could not do, on account of the weakness of sinful flesh, God did by sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh for sin". In order that "All have been consigned to disobedience, in order that God might have mercy on all."

It is not in wisdom that we meet God, but in the folly of Jesus who suffered in weakness. God meets us not in power, but in weakness. God reveals Himself not in glory, but in humility. And so we preach the message of the cross, in all its foolishness. That we might be a people not of wisdom and power, but a people of the cross, proclaiming the reconciliation of God and man in the peace of Christ.

So, again, your use of Romans 1:22 is not just wrong, it's ironic. You reveal your own folly in reckoning yourself wise.

You want so desperately to troll that you have no scruples in how you wield Scripture--but swing it wildly around you without being aware whatsoever of what it is you have. And you've been doing this for years.

You don't have arguments, you have remarks. You don't use Scripture, you throw it at people indiscriminately without concern or care for what it actually says and means. You introduce your own fictions, and then justify them. When confronted with something that you can't troll your way out of easily, you throw your "____ can take a hike" catchphrase and apparently think you've accomplished something.

You work tirelessly to make a mockery of the Christian faith.

Am I wrong?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Subduction Zone]

Paul warns that embracing evolution can lead to atheism.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

LOL! He was talking about creationism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually I gave you several, so quit whining.

No. That is not true. You only made empty claims that you did not support. One of them appeared to be because what you posted was simply false. I even did your homework for you and posted a link from the search that I did. You could still not find your supposed article.

You have refuted yourself.

 

[AV1611VET]

You work tirelessly to make a mockery of the Christian faith.

Am I wrong?

I sure hope and pray you are.

But while we're crossing swords here, tell me, Crucis:

Is there ONE THING you can think of that science has gotten wrong here because the Bible says otherwise?

Can you name JUST ONE, and back it up with Scripture?

Or is science so right, they don't get anything wrong?

The thing is here, I'm not afraid to take questions put to us that people ask KNOWING the answer is not specifically covered in the Scriptures; and speculating an answer.

And if I take a passage like Romans 1:22 and give it a dual interpretation (i.e., one pertaining to the time it was written, and one pertaining to today), I won't hesitate to do so.

You say I make a mockery of Christianity?

Well you can display that sacred chalice in your avatar, with the cross of Christ over it; but when science comes around barking its bologna and turns that chalice upside down, I don't hear a peep from you.

At least I'll try to defend my faith in the face of science.

And if I have to look stupid doing it, so much the better.

I've exposed a lot of people here who couldn't care less about their precious scientific method when it comes to the Bible.

They can preach their science well, but when someone shows up with Scripture, they won't even try to investigate before they communicate.

No light bulbs, no investigation, absolutely no anything but silly counter-questions, Arab phones, and feature creep.

What are you doing to defend your doctrine against science? besides nothing?

 

[HitchSlap]

Ya ... I heard first that Christopher Columbus discovered America, then I got the details later.

Didn’t realize how old you were.

 

[HitchSlap]

Anyone who can do the lab work and understand the experiments can be a scientist. What you believe about creation has nothing to do with it.

And the same can be said about any secular scientists. They start with the exception that the model of evolution is true, and go from there.

Thanks for making my point.

 

[AV1611VET]

Didn’t realize how old you were.

Or how young Christopher Columbus is?

 

[HitchSlap]

Or how young Christopher Columbus is?

So how old when he discovered the new world?

 

[renniks]

To be a good scientist you need to be able to follow the evidence and not be frighten that you will be eternally damned if you affirm it.

Now you are just being insulting. Get real.