Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[Astrid]

Could they send a couple of fresh creationists over
from somewhere?

 

[SelfSim]

Could they send a couple of fresh creationists over from somewhere?

Oh stale ones will have to do .. (and that has to be a total made up guess, what's more!? .. 'Cause I can't test for freshies .. can I?)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Could they send a couple of fresh creationists over
from somewhere?

At least fresh creationists (new members) would be a reasonable cause for needing to repeat the same arguments.

 

[Astrid]

At least fresh creationists (new members) would be a reasonable cause for needing to repeat the same arguments.

My Vainglorious Quest is for the reasonable creationist
who is capable of sensible talk.
I had to send the current batch to ig city.

 

[sjastro]

Could they send a couple of fresh creationists over
from somewhere?

Are frozen creationists allowable instead?
Or is that cheating?

 

[Astrid]

Are frozen creationists allowable instead?
Or is that cheating?

Anything would be a improvement

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't guess .. Why not try to form a testable hypothesis and actually see if you can objectively demonstrate overlaps?

Are you kidding?

That sounds like the joke that goes:

God was once approached by a scientist who said, “Listen God, we’ve decided we don’t need you anymore. These days we can clone people, transplant organs and do all sorts of things that used to be considered miraculous.”

God replied, “Don’t need me huh? How about we put your theory to the test. Why don’t we have a competition to see who can make a human being, say, a male human being.”

The scientist agrees, so God declares they should do it like he did in the good old days when he created Adam.

“Fine” says the scientist as he bends down to scoop up a handful of dirt.”

“Whoa!” says God, shaking his head in disapproval. “Not so fast. You get your own dirt.”

 

[SelfSim]

Are you kidding?

That sounds like the joke that goes: .. {etc}

Well, in order to 'get' the joke, the teller and the person listening would have to have something in common, eh?

If they didn't, then it wouldn't be a joke, eh?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, in order to 'get' the joke, the teller and the person listening would have to have something in common, eh?

If they didn't, then it wouldn't be a joke, eh?

Are you suggesting Shannon entropy might be in play here?

If so, I came up with this formula: ΔHBIBLE=Ø

 

[SelfSim]

Are you suggesting Shannon entropy might be in play here?

Hmm .. now let's see Claude Shannon authored the paper which introduced that theoretical concept, in 1943. He was a person .. (a mathematician), y'know .. just like Creationists and scientists are people who come up with concepts.

There ya go .. yet another objective test passed with flying colours, thus demonstrating an element in common between the concepts of creationism and science!

 

[disciple Clint]

The unedited copies of Josephus are available for viewing in museum.
And copies are available from public libraries.
The original Josephus refers to several men named Jesus. One being Jesus Bar Rabi. Another being Jesus Ben Pantros.

Ok.... So how does this help?
Its not as though you are presenting a new claim. And the claims you ARE presenting are both long refuted.
The second by reading the actual text of Josephus. Rather than the abridged and edited version YOU are relying upon.

I am still waiting for your evidence to support your statement that my post was in error regarding the Shroud of Turin and Josephus.

The unedited copies of Josephus are available for viewing in museum.
And copies are available from public libraries.

Saying that your evidence is available in a museum or library is much like saying the dog ate my homework. Can you provide evidence or not?

 

[Speedwell]

I am still waiting for your evidence to support your statement that my post was in error regarding the Shroud of Turin and Josephus.

Saying that your evidence is available in a museum or library is much like saying the dog ate my homework. Can you provide evidence or not?

Nobody cares, Clint. This discussion isn't about the existence of God or Jesus or the truth of the Christian faith--it's about creationism and evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nobody cares, Clint. This discussion isn't about the existence of God or Jesus or the truth of the Christian faith--it's about creationism and evolution.

Creationism sans God, Jesus Christ, and the truth of the Christian faith.

What more could a modern scholar ask for!?

 

[disciple Clint]

Nobody cares, Clint. This discussion isn't about the existence of God or Jesus or the truth of the Christian faith--it's about creationism and evolution.

do you speak for everyone now? I am going to follow up on the posts I made and the replies I received, sorry if that conflicts with the way you think things should be done.

 

[Astrid]

do you speak for everyone now? I am going to follow up on the posts I made and the replies I received, sorry if that conflicts with the way you think things should be done.

Post away. Nobody cares.

 

[AV1611VET]

Post away. Nobody cares.

They may not care, but they do.

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

I don't care how much a person thinks he's immune to that "still small voice" inside his heart ... he isn't.

 

[Speedwell]

do you speak for everyone now? I am going to follow up on the posts I made and the replies I received, sorry if that conflicts with the way you think things should be done.

Post away, but nobody is going to expend any effort to obtain copies of Josephus for you that you are to lazy to get for yourself in order to refute a point that nobody cares whether you make it or not. Some of us already believe in God and Jesus and the truth of the Christian faith and others do not. That's not what the discussion is about. If we all agreed (for purposes of argument, anyway) about the existence of God, Jesus and the truth of the Christian faith, then would you be willing to join the discussion of creationism v. evolution?

 

[Speedwell]

Creationism sans God, Jesus Christ, and the truth of the Christian faith.

What more could a modern scholar ask for!?

I think it's the other way around. I think that the existence of God, Jesus and the truth of the Christian faith without creationism is what creationists get their noses out of joint about.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think it's the other way around. I think that the existence of God, Jesus and the truth of the Christian faith without creationism is what creationists get their noses out of joint about.

But I ended my post with, "What more could a modern scholar ask for?"

You're turning it around, but then you're changing the players.

 

[Astrid]

I think it's the other way around. I think that the existence of God, Jesus and the truth of the Christian faith without creationism is what creationists get their noses out of joint about.

Creationism is a statement of personal infallibility.

Not only in matters pf physics history human and natural,
chemistry, all aspects of biology, geology, and no doubt
a few more fields of study, knowing more than any scientist,
But,
Also infallible in matters of Bible- reading.

Curiously, every creationist seems to have a different version of it,
so a maximum of one creationist will hold the lofty
status above described, the Infallible arbiter of questions
in all matters of science and religion. (IAOQIAMOSAR).