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

[Hans Blaster]

If you consider the truth that the data and evidence in science point to existence of God to be false or non existent, then you are anti science.

What are you talking about?

 

[dlamberth]

As I said, Science today has been hijacked by atheistic and materialistic naturalism - yet owes its very existence to those who believed in God.

That science does not speak one way or another about God, I don't see how it's being highjacked by atheist. A person can worship the God of their choice and still be a scientist. They can even be a scientist that studies some aspect of evolution and still see God in that process. All science does is open the windows into the process. That's all it should be doing.

 

[NBB]

You can experience God and be sure of him the same a scientist is sure about 1 + 1 = 2, but evolution is not 1+1 at all.

 

[SelfSim]

If you consider the truth that the data and evidence in science point to existence of God to be false or non existent, then you are anti science.

That's just outright silliness. The existence of God is objectively untestable .. so if the conclusion formed from the data of some test was an untestable God, then it wasn't objectively tested via the scientific method, was it?

 

[NBB]

That's just outright silliness. The existence of God is objectively untestable .. so if the conclusion formed from the data of some test was an untestable God, then it wasn't objectively tested via the scientific method, was it?

You can test and experience God as a person and be sure of him, scientists are persons too, so science is made of personal experiences, without the talent etc of scientists there would be no science.

 

[SelfSim]

You can test and experience God as a person and be sure of him, scientists are persons too,

You equate God with human scientists and then claim both as being 'persons'?

How do you distinguish 'a delusion' then?

.. so science is made of personal experiences, without the talent etc of scientists there would be no science.

Experience is one way of giving meaning to our knowledge .. so is objective testing.
The difference is that other like thinking scientific minds can repeat objective tests and agree on the results (whether they like 'em or not) .. I can't repeat your precise personal experiences and then, I don't have to necessarily agree on those if I so choose, do I?
Ie: different people think in different ways even about the same experiences.

 

[AV1611VET]

How does academia misrepresent those? Please be specific.

I've been here since 2006, and I've seen well-educated people bring up that triad more than once as an example of the failures of Christianity.

QV the date of this post: Post 878

 

[dlamberth]

You can experience God and be sure of him the same a scientist is sure about 1 + 1 = 2, but evolution is not 1+1 at all.

Evolution is a process of change. It’s not an equation.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You can experience God and be sure of him the same a scientist is sure about 1 + 1 = 2, but evolution is not 1+1 at all.

1+1=2 is arithmetic which is part of mathematics. Mathematics is not science and science is not used to demonstrate the correctness of arithmetic.

(Science isn't arithmetic, ergo evolution isn't arithmetic.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

I've been here since 2006, and I've seen well-educated people bring up that triad more than once as an example of the failures of Christianity.

QV the date of this post: Post 878

Though I wasn't around for your "post 878", I have read *many* of your posts in the last ~5 years including many of your odd, off-topic obsessions. I don't recall these:

"Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials"

being part of them. None of these are important to the truth or falseness of Christianity, nor more importantly to this forum, the truth or falseness of creationism. What they are is a stark illustration of the horrors of Christian theocracy, but everyone is against all theocracy here, right?

 

[Mr Laurier]

When it happened seems obvious, it’s when Darwin published his bogus theory of evolution.

Which is?

 

[disciple Clint]

So you want all the books, copied out diligently for you.

not at all, use whatever evidence you can find, an article from a reliable source confirming your statement would be fine and easy for you to obtain if you are correct in your statement.

 

[chad kincham]

Which is?

The simplistic tripe that gradualism leads to vertical evolution of lower animals into higher life forms via natural selection, wherein he wrongly assumed that the lateral evolution he observed can continue until vertical evolution occurs.

Of course that’s impossible, and the modern synthesis added mutation to natural selection as the hoped-for mechanism that could drive macro evolution.

 

[Shemjaza]

All these guys are human beings.

"A" is a garden variety Chimpanzee.

 

[Mr Laurier]

The simplistic tripe that gradualism leads to vertical evolution of lower animals into higher life forms via natural selection, wherein he wrongly assumed that the lateral evolution he observed can continue until vertical evolution occurs.

Of course that’s impossible, and the modern synthesis added mutation to natural selection as the hoped-for mechanism that could drive macro evolution.

So your personal failure to understand basic evolutionary biology. And the fancifull story you made up to cover for that failure.
Got it.

 

[Mr Laurier]

not at all, use whatever evidence you can find, an article from a reliable source confirming your statement would be fine and easy for you to obtain if you are correct in your statement.

ok
New forensic tests suggest Shroud of Turin is fake
and
Scientists prove Turin Shroud not genuine (again)
and
Forensic research (once again) suggests the Shroud of Turin is fake
Will those be enough?

 

[disciple Clint]

ok
New forensic tests suggest Shroud of Turin is fake
and
Scientists prove Turin Shroud not genuine (again)
and
Forensic research (once again) suggests the Shroud of Turin is fake
Will those be enough?

Yes, even though the are all duplicates of the same test.

 

[Shemjaza]

The simplistic tripe that gradualism leads to vertical evolution of lower animals into higher life forms via natural selection, wherein he wrongly assumed that the lateral evolution he observed can continue until vertical evolution occurs.

Of course that’s impossible, and the modern synthesis added mutation to natural selection as the hoped-for mechanism that could drive macro evolution.

I think you are using some weird definitions.

What is "vertical evolution" and "lateral evolution" in your mind?

Do you just mean:
micro evolution: evolution at the species level
macro evolution: evolution beyond the species level

 

[Mr Laurier]

Yes, even though the are all duplicates of the same test.

I think the problem is that you will never accept any evidence that exposes the Turin Shroud as a fraud, no matter the test, or the evidence.
You have latched into this one scrap of linen, and tied your whole faith to it.
This places you in an awkward position.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have latched into this one scrap of linen, and tied your whole faith to it.

Kind like Nebraska Man, isn't it?

One tooth suddenly becomes a whole tribe of subhumans under sunny skies down by the river with goofy expressions on their faces.