is creation outside of science's scope?

[ExpatChristian]

Forgive me Lord for I have sinned. I enthusiastically agree would be a honest statement.

 

[Mallon]

Obviously you are set in your opinions and have no intention of re-examining them.

So again I ask, why bother???

 

[archaeologist]

Obviously you are set in your opinions and have no intention of re-examining them

when one has the truth one does not re-examine his views. i do not need to re-examine my views as God has led me to the truth and one forsakes the world's thinking to get to it, thus evolution is gone

Because I (and Dr. Fausset) are right, all these other options are possible.

you are not right, faussett was not allowing evolution to be a part of creation, the other options are not possible. more from faussett;

The facts of
observation confirm Genesis, and prove that these never could have been
developed by natural or sexual selection, or the struggle for life out of​

530​

lower organizations. Man’s moral and intellectual superiority, while he is
physically inferior, distinguishes his creation from that of all below him.
(Condensed from Ackland’s Story of Creation.) Unless one abnormal
variety in a species furnished both a male and a female of the new kind, the
new species would cease. Even if both were produced simultaneously,
unless intermixture with the original species were secured, hybrids would
result, and these do not propagate. No trace in all the strata of geology​

occurs of intermediate links between species

 

[gluadys]

when one has the truth one does not re-examine his views. i do not need to re-examine my views as God has led me to the truth and one forsakes the world's thinking to get to it, thus evolution is gone

I take it then that God leads different people to different conclusions.

you are not right, faussett was not allowing evolution to be a part of creation, the other options are not possible. more from faussett;

The question you posed in this thread was not about evolution, though. It was about whether creation is beyond the scope of science. In response to that question Dr. Fausset rightly notes that it is indeed beyond the scope of science IF by "creation" one means:

Creation, in the strict sense of the first origination of being out of nothing,

This is the point he and I agree on. This says nothing at all against the scientific capacity to study any part of creation other than the first origination of being out of nothing.

As for his views on evolution, this statement indicates that he was very mistaken about how evolution operates. His incorrect views on evolution led to the incorrect conclusion that it is not possible.

Unless one abnormal variety in a species furnished both a male and a female of the new kind, the
new species would cease. Even if both were produced simultaneously, unless intermixture with the original species were secured, hybrids would result, and these do not propagate.

All this statement is false. Evolution does not require new kinds, a male and female of new kinds much less the simultaneous and independent appearance of these individuals, nor is it hindered by hybridization and sterile progeny. Such a sweepingly erroneous view of evolution means his objections to evolution are groundless. He has swept away a straw man, not evolution as it really is.

 

[archaeologist]

I take it then that God leads different people to different conclusions.

not at all but that still doesn't open the door for you to be right. check evolution's source.

As for his views on evolution, this statement indicates that he was very mistaken about how evolution operates. His incorrect views on evolution led to the incorrect conclusion that it is not possible

yes yes, only evolutionists understand evolution. what arrogance. you forget that evolution has no divine origin so anyone can bend it to whatever they want to and claim no one understands the theory except them.

which is a fatal error for the theory, it is always changing thus it can never be the truth.

All this statement is false

no,he is correct evolution is in error. please prove there is something called evolution and that it is ultimately responsible for all things without inferrence, allusions, empty statements using credible sources, scholars and links.

there is no such item, you don't even have the ancient world on your side.

 

[KerrMetric]

Unless one abnormal variety in a species furnished both a male and a female of the new kind, the new species would cease.

What a complete load of rubbish. Whoever uttered that crap needs to get back to school. I wouldn't call ignorance a sin but it's in the neighbourhood. Whatever your views on evolution how on earth can you side with someone who evidently would have trouble putting their pants on in the morning.

When I see statements like the above quote I really wonder how the person functions in an intellectual manner. It's just so so wrong on a basic level of understanding that they should shut up about the subject.

 

[archaeologist]

What a complete load of rubbish

not at all. evolution doesn't cover all the aspects for survival, i wonder where all the different species got their food from...ahhh yes, it evolved before the species was orginated , how just like scripture.

there are so many holes in evolution that it isn't even viable let alone credible

 

[KerrMetric]

not at all.

Yes - at all. The quote you used was garbage.

evolution doesn't cover all the aspects for survival, i wonder where all the different species got their food from...

Is this a joke?

there are so many holes in evolution that it isn't even viable let alone credible

It seems there are far more holes in knowledge. Let me guess, no biology related education? Right?

 

[archaeologist]

when you provide something credible from credible scholars with references and links then i will respond.

your word means nothing and your criticism is way off base. but i hear that is the standard m.o. here.

 

[gluadys]

which is a fatal error for the theory, it is always changing thus it can never be the truth.

It is much more fatal to refuse to examine one's ideas and correct those which are faulty. Unlike you, scientists don't assume they already have 100% comprehension of the truth and are prepared to revise their theories when shown a better one. I consider that a virtue, not a fault.

please prove there is something called evolution and that it is ultimately responsible for all things without inferrence, allusions, empty statements using credible sources, scholars and links.

Evolution can be observed and is observed. Everything in your challenge after the word "evolution" is a straw man and the best thing to do with strawmen is to burn them. Evolution is not "ultimately responsible for all things". So there is no burden on me or anyone to try and prove that.

Are you willing to improve your understanding of evolution so that you can stop making ridiculous accusations about it?

 

[Assyrian]

Are you willing to improve your understanding of evolution so that you can stop making ridiculous accusations about it?

How can he?

when one has the truth one does not re-examine his views.

 

[archaeologist]

It is much more fatal to refuse to examine one's ideas and correct those which are faulty

so you are saying the Bible and God are faulty? how can one be the light to the world, as Jesus said, if one continually changes their view? in the real world, those that keep changing their views lose credibility and reliability.

God does not change nor does Hs word, if he did then he would be a hypocrite and millions wold have died for nothing.

Unlike you, scientists don't assume they already have 100% comprehension of the truth and are prepared to revise their theories when shown a better one. I consider that a virtue, not a fault.

thenyou need to re-examine what you consider a virtue for it is not in line with God or Paul, who said 'i have runthe race and finished the course...' one does not finish the course if they are consatantly changing what they think or believe.

the other thing you need toconsider is that God revealed Himself and His work to the world through the Bible, NO ONE has the authority or the permission to change what God wrote.

He said He created it, without evolution, then He created it and no matter what science says. that is what will be preached because God does not change, His word does not change and if it did, then it could be trashed and no hope for mankind would be found anywhere as all evolutionists think death ends it all---another direct contrast to God's word.

Evolution can be observed and is observed

NO! it is credited. what is observed is the results of creation and the fall of man. secular science has no motivationto prove the Bible true so why credit God when they do not believe in Him?

Everything in your challenge after the word "evolution" is a straw man and the best thing to do with strawmen is to burn them

is that a threat? iguess i will have to report it as such as that is what i took it as. this is why TE's do not have the truth, they do not act according to scripture.

So there is no burden on me or anyone to try and prove that.

you deny scripture, the burdenof proof is upon you. your failure to address the issue means you can't prove it thus it is a false position.

Are you willing to improve your understanding of evolution so that you can stop making ridiculous accusations about it?

i do not need to improve my understanding of evolution. it is false, denies God, comes from the devil and is to be shunned and removed from all walks of the christian life, and believers are not to adopt or adapt its thinking as they are wrong, false, not true, all of which is not of God.

it was composed by a secular man who lost his faith and disbelieved God. that says it all right there.

 

[gluadys]

so you are saying the Bible and God are faulty?

You are doing it again, archie. You are taking a statement I made about humans (including you) and misrepresenting it as a statement about God. And you wonder why I keep getting this impression that you think you are God.

Stop reacting to everything I say about you as if it were an attack on God. Don't you realize that is a form of idolatry, setting yourself in the place of God?

thenyou need to re-examine what you consider a virtue for it is not in line with God or Paul, who said 'i have runthe race and finished the course...' one does not finish the course if they are consatantly changing what they think or believe.

It is very appropriate to change what one thinks or believes when one discovers that the thought or belief is wrong.


What did Jesus preach in Galilee? Was it not "Repent, for the kingdom of God is near"? Do you know what "repent" means? It means "turn around, change direction". And why should we change direction? Because we are going the wrong way.

So it is very biblical and a virtue to change one's mind, one's direction, one's thoughts and beliefs when shown that they are incorrect. Scientists know they don't have everything correct, so they stand ready to change when correction is necessary.

He said He created it, without evolution,

Please show me a scripture where the words "without evolution" appear in the text.

is that a threat? iguess i will have to report it as such as that is what i took it as.

hardly a personal threat. Are you not familiar with this term as descriptive of a logical fallacy? http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

you deny scripture, the burdenof proof is upon you. your failure to address the issue means you can't prove it thus it is a false position.

What I denied was your straw man.

i do not need to improve my understanding of evolution.

Coming from you, archie, that is very funny indeed.

 

[archaeologist]

you have lost all credibility with me so answering you would just be a waste of time.

you do not understand theology and it isn't idolatry as you misrepresent what i say and said. i am not going to waste my time being distracted by your childish attempts to derail the thread.

the burden of proof is on you as you disagree with the Bible. when you realize that evolution does not exist then you will have to revamp your whole thinking. are you ready to do that?

your choice but it is not me that has to change their thinking, i side with God and the Bible.

p.s.-- where i come from it is a threat.

 

[archaeologist]

this thread is about cretion being outside the scope of science---still waiting for rebuttals on the quotes i posted.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

you have lost all credibility with me so answering you would just be a waste of time.

you do not understand theology and it isn't idolatry as you misrepresent what i say and said. i am not going to waste my time being distracted by your childish attempts to derail the thread.

the burden of proof is on you as you disagree with the Bible. when you realize that evolution does not exist then you will have to revamp your whole thinking. are you ready to do that?

your choice but it is not me that has to change their thinking, i side with God and the Bible.

p.s.-- where i come from it is a threat.

Many would say that losing credibility in your eyes is a compliment.

 

[gluadys]

the burden of proof is on you as you disagree with the Bible.

I agree with the Bible, archie. It is all the extras you want to put in it that I don't agree with.

when you realize that evolution does not exist then you will have to revamp your whole thinking. are you ready to do that?

I would have no problem with that at all. All I need is a scientific falsification of evolution.

p.s.-- where i come from it is a threat.

Well then, you have learned something about figurative speech. And I have learned to stay away from your neighbourhood. I wouldn't want to get hurt by someone who fears straw men.

 

[archaeologist]

I agree with the Bible, archie. It is all the extras you want to put in it that I don't agree with.

i do not add in extras. combining a secular construct with the Bible is adding in, i am not doing that but those who look to science, to evolution over scriptures has added in.

All I need is a scientific falsification of evolution

another non-God criteria. that is not what God says is needed. you have to make a choice by faith not be science. if you wait for science , not only will you have to wait a long time but you will not be using faith, which God says pleases Him.

Well then, you have learned something about figurative speech

not at all. you are just back-peddling 'cause you got caught making a threat. no matter how you slice, without a sincere apology, you are just making excuses for threatening someone.

 

[Melethiel]

archie, a "strawman" is a logical construct often used in debate. "burning strawmen" is a common figure of speech, which refers to breaking down this logical construct.

 

[archaeologist]

archie, a "strawman" is a logical construct often used in debate. "burning strawmen" is a common figure of speech, which refers to breaking down this logical construct

please do not assume i do not know anything; where i come from such 'constructs' are best left unsaid and more respectful terminology is used.