If there is "no evidence" for evolution...

[Aman777]

Oh, they viewed your interpretation as entirely alien to their beliefs, and it is. Similar in some aspects, maybe, but different to the point that they don't actually match up anywhere.

Thanks. I was told what they believed but I forgot since it "adds to" what is actually written in Scripture.

Rev 22:18 ¶ For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

 

[Aman777]

This is the only reasonable conclusion.

False. The other conclusion is that someone is listening to the ancient superstitious thoughts of people who lived thousands of years before Science. IOW, it's the Hebrew view of the creation from thousands of years ago. Scripture tells us that they have NONE understanding and that ONLY the people of the last days have the "increased knowledge" to understand God's Holy Word. Dan 12:4

 

[Aman777]

And "doing science", means doing research and publishing your findings in appropriate journals.

Beware the words of those who would deceive you. Doing Science means publishing your findings in "scientific journals" which requires that you reject God's Truth since the Godless scientists who do the peer reviews have vowed NOT to accept them. IOW, Don't waste your time. Unless your view is Godless, they will reject it as nothing but "religion". They speak with forked tongues.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Beware the words of those who would deceive you.

Like the words from the "creation scientists".

Doing Science means publishing your findings in "scientific journals" which requires that you reject God's Truth

There is no such requirement in science.
The only requirement in science is: make sure you can support your claims with rational evidence.

That's it.

Don't blame science that your supernatural claims can't be supported with rational evidence....

since the Godless scientists who do the peer reviews have vowed NOT to accept them.

1. plenty of scientists (both publishers as well as reviewers) are religious.

2. the only "vow" they adhere to, is that rational evidence is required in support of claims / hypothesis.

IOW, Don't waste your time. Unless your view is Godless, they will reject it as nothing but "religion". They speak with forked tongues.

Nope.

I'll correct your statement:

unless your view is supported by rational evidence, they will reject your view as unscientific.

 

[Speedwell]

Beware the words of those who would deceive you. Doing Science means publishing your findings in "scientific journals" which requires that you reject God's Truth since the Godless scientists who do the peer reviews have vowed NOT to accept them. IOW, Don't waste your time. Unless your view is Godless, they will reject it as nothing but "religion". They speak with forked tongues.

What slanderous filth that is.

 

[Jimmy D]

Beware the words of those who would deceive you.

Hmmm.

Doing Science means publishing your findings in "scientific journals"

TRUE

which requires that you reject God's Truth

LIE

since the Godless scientists who do the peer reviews

LIE

have vowed NOT to accept them.

LIE

IOW, Don't waste your time. Unless your view is Godless,

LIE

they will reject it as nothing but "religion". They speak with forked tongues.

Don't you find it troubling that you find it necessary to lie about your fellow Christians and question their commitment just to support you frankly ludicrous theology?

Until you find that space travelling ark under Lake Van I think we can all dismiss your ramblings as delusional... and that's being kind.

 

[bhsmte]

Hmmm.



TRUE



LIE



LIE



LIE



LIE



Don't you find it troubling that you find it necessary to lie about your fellow Christians and question their commitment just to support you frankly ludicrous theology?

Until you find that space travelling ark under Lake Van I think we can all dismiss your ramblings as delusional... and that's being kind.

Great summary.

 

[Aman777]

Until you find that space travelling ark under Lake Van I think we can all dismiss your ramblings as delusional... and that's being kind.

When the discovery is announced, there will be many here who tell the crazy story that some Creationist told them where to find Adam's firmament before it was found. In such a fashion will the whole world learn of God's Truth.

Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of My Spirit upon ALL flesh:

God's Spirit of Truth will be spread by an army of former unbelievers, atheists and agnostics, just before Jesus returns. Amen?

 

[Brobear]

There are literally tons upon tons of evidence of evolution. The ages are written in the earth's layers. However, I certainly do not see this as an argument against our Heavenly Father who is God the Creator. Evolution is merely the method used by God. One wonderful day in Paradise, all will be revealed.

 

[doubtingmerle]

When the discovery is announced, there will be many here who tell the crazy story that some Creationist told them where to find Adam's firmament before it was found. In such a fashion will the whole world learn of God's Truth.

Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of My Spirit upon ALL flesh:

God's Spirit of Truth will be spread by an army of former unbelievers, atheists and agnostics, just before Jesus returns. Amen?

Deal.

If you find a large spaceship that Adam arrived in which years later sunk in Lake Van I will give you credit.

In the meantime I will be laughing.

 

[eleos1954]

There are no "creation scientists", because there is no such thing as "creation science".
There is just "science".

Creationists calling themselves scientists, doesn't make them scientists.
Doing science, makes you a scientist.

And "doing science", means doing research and publishing your findings in appropriate journals.

Not a single creationist does that on the topic of creation.
And no, organizing their own journals where they can all agree with eachother and completely circumvent that actual scientific channels and the harsh scientific scrutiny that all other actual scientists must face, does not count.

********

Definition of Science:
In science, a fact is a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means), also called empirical evidence

Considering all things needed to happen for life to begin on planet earth "science" can not provide "repeatable evidence". That is why it is a theory. Nor, is there "repeatable evidence" from a creator aspect either. Both are theories. People choose what they believe.

There have been many scientific articles/journals/studies supporting creation verses evolution. Both sides "data" is collected analyzed and interpreted. Who is actually correct? No one knows. It is a matter of the interpretation of the "data" collected.

Age of the earth - creation.com

For one, No one can estimate the age of the earth. There are theories in an attempt to do so ... however either way evolution or creation can not be scientifically proven because it can not be duplicated. They are both theories and will remain so.

You and I, and most others have limited information, that is, most of us do not have actual scientific credentials .... have no intense study in it.

All have various "reasons" why they believe what they believe.

You believe in evolution, that's fine .... I believe in creation, also fine.

Something to consider though ..... if evolution is correct .... does one have life after earthly death? ..... if creation via Almighty God is correct .... there is .... and eternal life for those who believe in Jesus.

Eternity ..... think about it.

I am however curious about something.

Atheists being defined as lacking belief in the existence of God or gods
why do atheists participate in christian forums?

 

[Speedwell]

Something to consider though ..... if evolution is correct .... does one have life after earthly death? ..... if creation via Almighty God is correct .... there is .... and eternal life for those who believe in Jesus.

there is eternal life for those who believe in Jesus whether evolution is correct or not.

Atheists being defined as lacking belief in the existence of God or gods
why do atheists participate in christian forums?

For the same reason that non-creationist Christians and other theists participate. This forum is not about theism vs. atheism, it's about creationists vs. everybody else.

 

[Aman777]

Deal.

If you find a large spaceship that Adam arrived in which years later sunk in Lake Van I will give you credit.

In the meantime I will be laughing.

Adam's firmament was not a spaceship. It was more like a submarine, a large miles wide, self-sufficient, enclosed world/biosphere. It was made in the midst or middle of water, with water above and below it. Gen 1:6-8 For the newbies, that means it was totally surrounded and immersed 2 Pet 3:6 in the water of the Multiverse. Adam's firmament sank in Lake Van, Turkey 11,000 years ago awaiting discovery.

The Scoffers of the last days before Jesus returns will NOT believe that Adam's entire earth was dissolved in the flood Isa 24:19 AND that the present Cosmos will be burned. ll Peter 3:3-7 Are YOU a Scoffer of the last days? If so, your laughter is soon to end. God Bless you

 

[Jjmcubbin]

********

Definition of Science:
In science, a fact is a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means), also called empirical evidence

Considering all things needed to happen for life to begin on planet earth "science" can not provide "repeatable evidence". That is why it is a theory. Nor, is there "repeatable evidence" from a creator aspect either. Both are theories. People choose what they believe.

There have been many scientific articles/journals/studies supporting creation verses evolution. Both sides "data" is collected analyzed and interpreted. Who is actually correct? No one knows. It is a matter of the interpretation of the "data" collected.

Age of the earth - creation.com

For one, No one can estimate the age of the earth. There are theories in an attempt to do so ... however either way evolution or creation can not be scientifically proven because it can not be duplicated. They are both theories and will remain so.

You and I, and most others have limited information, that is, most of us do not have actual scientific credentials .... have no intense study in it.

All have various "reasons" why they believe what they believe.

You believe in evolution, that's fine .... I believe in creation, also fine.

Something to consider though ..... if evolution is correct .... does one have life after earthly death? ..... if creation via Almighty God is correct .... there is .... and eternal life for those who believe in Jesus.

Eternity ..... think about it.

I am however curious about something.

Atheists being defined as lacking belief in the existence of God or gods
why do atheists participate in christian forums?

Sir, I think you are unaware of what a scientific theory is. To illustrate, here are some other scientific theories:
Molecular Orbital Theory
Sliding Filament Theory
Gravitational Theory
A theory is the highest scientific acceptance a thing can ever get.
And, here are some theories in the layman's sense of the word:
Flat Earth Theory
A conspiracy theory
Creationist Theory
I have not seen one paper that supports creationism that has been accepted by the scientific community, or even published in peer-reviewed journals.

I come to this site to pass time. And to debate, of course.

 

[doubtingmerle]

your laughter is soon to end. God Bless you

Oh good. I was afraid I would laugh until I got the hiccups.

 

[xianghua]

As you well know, life on Earth is much more complex than a car. And natural processes cannot make a car. It is impossible.

Many do not see such blind spot in thinking life on Earth evolved by natural processes. How it is impossible.

It is fossils in the rock record sequenced immature to more complex life forms they lean up. By faith in such they stand. They know not that God would make scientific evidence lead one to error without Him. It is the rock record and science they have turned to and Exalt. They want others to do the same.

From speculation that the rock record shows evolution of life over time they stand. Yet the rock record only shows Kinds. The rock record - with billions of fossils found - shows zero transition fossils - as you pointed out earlier.

They have placed faith in something that they have no evidence to support. The way natural history would have happened before God over time is ignored by modern man. The Way He would have things deposited, particularly life forms He Created, over eons of time they set aside.

God shows in the rock record His Ways of Creating, which is Creating immature life forms first, and a sequence of Creating more complex life forms over time. There would be zero transition fossils in the rock record in His Way of Creating Earth. Many stumble at this very point - the Creator and His Ways of Creating.

They also miss the essential point that He chose to make the Earth have an Apparent Mature Age, when He Created the world less than 10,000 years ago. Many stumble at how the Earth looked like after Creation Week. Even how Genesis list Earth's Creation process.

thanks. as a general note- english isnt my native so i may not understand some words here and there but i think that i get some of your points.

 

[doubtingmerle]

eleos,

We have heard this many times, that all we have are various equally valid views. Unfortunately for you, young earth creationism has been submitted to science for evaluation, and has not come out well. If I knew your specific views, we could discuss the flaws science claims are in your views. Can you answer two questions, please?

1) How old do you think the earth is?
2) How did all those fossils end up in the ground in the order they appear?​

People choose what they believe.

I choose to believe the process of science. You?

There have been many scientific articles/journals/studies supporting creation verses evolution.

I will call you on that claim. Can you please point me to an accepted scientific journal article that concludes that your creationism is true?

Both sides "data" is collected analyzed and interpreted. Who is actually correct? No one knows. It is a matter of the interpretation of the "data" collected.

The data show that all dinosaur fossils are found in layers that date over 60 million years old. All humans are found in layers that date to less than 2 million. Please give me your interpretation of these data.

Age of the earth - creation.com

Lots of interesting arguments, but are they valid? I don't care for arguments that are not valid.

For instance: One could argue that the temperature outside rose 5 degrees in the last 5 hours, therefore it will be hot as blazes next week. Can you see what is wrong with this argument? Can you understand that posting non-valid arguments won't resolve things? Can you think of a way of determining if your arguments are valid? I can.

For one, No one can estimate the age of the earth.

I can.

...evolution or creation can not be scientifically proven because it can not be duplicated. They are both theories and will remain so.

A murder cannot be duplicated either.

But I still think OJ was guilty.

You and I, and most others have limited information, that is, most of us do not have actual scientific credentials .... have no intense study in it.

Actually there are credentialed scientists here, and there are scholars in other fields that know the subject well enough to be qualified to answer questions.

Got a question for us?

All have various "reasons" why they believe what they believe.

You have "reasons".

I have reasons.

See the difference?

You believe in evolution, that's fine .... I believe in creation, also fine.

I believe in a spherical earth, fine. Joe believes in a flat earth, also fine? Is that what you are implying?

I am however curious about something.

Atheists being defined as lacking belief in the existence of God or gods
why do atheists participate in christian forums?

If we did not, would you be asking why we always stick to ourselves and never talk to you?

 

[xianghua]

I suppose I should have said it differently, a flagellum is not a man-made motor. It is similar to a man-made motor.

but its still a motor. right?

 

[Aman777]

1. A theory is the highest scientific acceptance a thing can ever get.
And, here are some theories in the layman's sense of the word:
2. Flat Earth Theory

1. Doesn't matter if it is a False Theory. It's based on known facts and what the majority of scientists believe. The best example is the False ToE since it's the easiest to refute. Changing the name from descent with modification within kinds to magical "evolution" and force teaching the ToE as fact, to our children, is blasphemy. We are not the descendants of the common ancestor of Apes as the ToE falsely teaches.
2. Adam's Earth was a Flat Earth. It was only 22.5 feet to the top of it's highest mountains Gen 7:20 and it had ONE River which split into four Rivers and watered the small, flat Earth of Adam. Gen 2:10 Texas alone, has thousands of Rivers and they don't all come from the same source. You have confused Adam's Earth, which was totally destroyed in the flood, with the present Earth which will be burned. More study is indicated. Read ll Peter 3:3-7

 

[eleos1954]

Sir, I think you are unaware of what a scientific theory is. To illustrate, here are some other scientific theories:
Molecular Orbital Theory
Sliding Filament Theory
Gravitational Theory
A theory is the highest scientific acceptance a thing can ever get.
And, here are some theories in the layman's sense of the word:
Flat Earth Theory
A conspiracy theory
Creationist Theory
I have not seen one paper that supports creationism that has been accepted by the scientific community, or even published in peer-reviewed journals.

I come to this site to pass time. And to debate, of course.

In the context of evolution.

So the definition of science can only be those who believe in evolution? "True scientists" can only be those theories that support evolution? So a person who believes in creation and studies scientifically in support of creation can not be a scientist and considered credible?

A couple renown scientists who believed in creation were Albert Einstein and Sir Issaic Newton ... are they not recognized by the scientific community? Yes

Definition of Science -
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Are creation scientists not capable of "
observation and experiment? Of course they are and also in the same scientific fields as you referenced.

They are .... and they have .... it's about intepretation from data from experiments performed. Who is right? No one knows. The data (facts) are inconclusive from both. It takes faith (complete trust) to believe either one and neither one can definitively be proven.

Are we to dismiss ANY science that is put forth by those who believe in creation? Or is it just the science that is related to evolution. Well ... no.

Definition of Interpretation -
the action of explaining the meaning of something.

From a biblical perspective, the beliefs are formulated by prophesy and fulfillment of prophesy and many historical events that have happened that were predicted in the Bible have been verified many times and with great detail. Mathematically ... when the "odds" are calculated it becomes way too great to simply ignore. Archeology also is something very interesting.

In the end people choose to believe what they believe based on what they feel comfortable putting their faith (trust) in. Many beliefs about many things. Each of us formulate our own beliefs and we personally develop them and we each own them.