Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Loudmouth]

How do you equate meteorites and the beginning of planet formation?

Planet formation starts when you have solid rocks that start to clump together. That is exactly what meteorites are, things that formed when rock went from liquid to solid and started clumping.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, for biblical creationist, it MUST get lost, there really is no choice for them.

Far too much cognitive dissonance for a biblical creationist to deal with, if they acknowledge science.

I'll say it again:

Creationism stands on its own merits.

 

[bhsmte]

IOW, you ignore the real evidence in preference for things that you imagine.

Relying on what we don't have, would be considered wishful thinking in my book.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'll say it again:

Creationism stands on its own merits.

One of those merits is that it requires God to produce fake evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

I'll say it again:

Creationism stands on its own merits.

Without objective evidence to support it, the merits it would stand on would be a person's need to believe it.

If that suits you, no problem.

 

[AV1611VET]

If we can't trust the Creation to tell us how it was formed, then we can't trust the Word either.

Creationism is not going to tell you how the earth was "formed."

Creationism is going to tell you how the earth came into existence ex nihilo.

It's no wonder you guys don't understand.

 

[Loudmouth]

Creationism is not going to tell you how the earth was "formed."

Creationism is going to tell you how the earth came into existence ex nihilo.

Does that include fake fossils already in the ground?

 

[Oncedeceived]

IOW, you ignore the real evidence in preference for things that you imagine.

Such as?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes. Science is only interpretation of data. There is information that we don't have and Science only provides information on what we do have.

Then science can get lost.

There is no physical data to interpret.

 

[Loudmouth]

Such as?

The age of meteorites.

 

[AV1611VET]

One of those merits is that it requires God to produce fake evidence.

For what?

The "formation" of the earth?

Do you realize where your premise is breaking down?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Creationism is not going to tell you how the earth was "formed."

Creationism is going to tell you how the earth came into existence ex nihilo.

It's no wonder you guys don't understand.

2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

It goes on to explain how the materials present were divided and the earth was "formed". It was unformed and then it was formed. It doesn't say God created the earth whole but it came into being by His actions or process of dividing elements.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The age of meteorites.

I didn't deny anything about that.

 

[Loudmouth]

For what?

The "formation" of the earth?

Do you realize where your premise is breaking down?

They are your premises. You are the one that says radiometric dating measures the embedded age that God put into the Earth when it was formed ex nihilo.

 

[Loudmouth]

I didn't deny anything about that.

So you agree that planet formation started 4.5 billion years ago?

 

[RickG]

Creationism is going to tell you how the earth came into existence ex nihilo.

Or maybe the story about the creation is just that, a story.

It's no wonder you guys don't understand.

The reason most Christians do not view the creation story literal is because the sequence of events are so easily shown to be out of order.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So you agree that planet formation started 4.5 billion years ago?

I believe that the meteorites are dated as they are dated. Have you given any evidence that planet formation began at that time or that we have every possible meteorite available and that they are all the same age? It has been determined that all space, time, matter and energy came into existence at the start of the universe...all matter came into existence at the same time and no new matter is being created.

 

[Jan Volkes]

It certainly can be accomplished. Is there any scientific evidence that the universe came from breaking into two parts from a cosmic egg?

The Universe is here.

Is there any scientific evidence to support for what comes next by the growth of a giant whose limbs eventually form the observable world?

The Universe is here.

Is there any scientific evidence that the universe came into being because a supernatural being spoke it into existence?

The Universe is here.

The universe is here is scientific in what way?

In this way: If Intelligent Design is correct we should see a beginning to our universe.

Example: If Intelligent Design is correct we should see a beginning to our universe. If ID is correct we should see that nothing existed of our universe prior to its existence. How do we test this hypothesis and what experiments do we do to determine if this model is correct? The science of this is to do experiments not unlike those that have already been done. If this model is accurate with the data we discover by experimentation we can determine if ID is supported by the data.

We see a universe so any number of possible creation myths could account for it being here, even yours.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Or maybe the story about the creation is just that, a story.


The reason most Christians do not view the creation story literal is because the sequence of events are so easily shown to be out of order.

How are they "easily shown to be out of order"?

 

[AV1611VET]

2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

Okay, Oncedeceived.

Thank you.

I believe the LORD is convicting me to lighten up on you with this; so, it's been nice chatting.