Moon light - the word of God vs falsely so called science

[BeyondET]

What's a creation scientist?

A pseudoscientist

 

[sjastro]

Your Moon light - the word of God vs falsely so called science post is noise employing word games and denials while the number of separate responses to my post which amounts to 12 is a clear indication of Gish gallop tactics a method historically favoured by creationists.

I am going to focus on two aspects of your post.
Firstly is your tagline of “creation science archaeology” which is an oxymoron as the first word is based on blind faith while the second and third words involve the acquisition of evidence which may contradict blind faith.
If a so called ‘creation scientist’ looks for evidence to support their faith at the expense of everything else they are not practicing science at all.

For the purposes of this post let’s assume creation science is a valid science with the emphasis on evidence and Genesis is literal and not a metaphorical account.
Point out the evidence this ‘divine light’ produced on day 1 existed and what methods have 'creation scientists' used to differentiate this type of light from the light produced by the sun and stars on day 4.
In anticipation of a zero response or an answer devoid of relevance, I can therefore conclude your account of the creation week is metaphorical and not literal.

Secondly there is this part of your post.

You mentioned the Epic of Gilgamesh. I stated that it is similar to the recountings of many cultures of a global flood.

I did not use any of them as an example of historical archeology. I used creation science archeology for validity of Genesis.

I have not admitted any such thing. You apparently wish I had.

I have been continuous througout that the creation scientist archeology has found evidence for a global flood as the Bible states it.

This is pure baloney, you were asked to supply archaeological evidence which supports Genesis to which you responded "The Sumerian King list [dating at 2100BC] that gives the first mention of a great flood".
This is the Epic of Gilgamesh so don't give me this rubbish of not admitting to such a thing.

Furthermore not only have you provided zero evidence for the validity of Genesis but you don't know what you are talking about as the evidence of a global flood or lack of it falls in the field of geology not archaeology.

 

[rturner76]

What's a creation scientist?

I'll jump in here.....

In my understanding, creation science does not seek to learn the truth through experimentation and observation using the scientific method. Creation science seeks to discern factual information based on Bible history.

Am I close?

 

[Shemjaza]

Just because you ignore or discredit them doesn't make them non existent.

It was an actual request for this evidence.

Do you deny that atheists have had official debates with creation scientists?

I have limited respect for the medium of debate... it doesn't allow for actual checking and demonstration of assertions. While the truth is a great help in winning a debate, skill at debating is more important.

I am not a creation scientist but I've heard and seen the archeology that proves there was.

Then what is this archaeology that proves it?

Such are the topics that creation scientists have addressed with evidence to counter the atheist.

That's the claim, I'd be very curious as to an example... because resorting to miracles is my universal experience of creationist defending "evidence" that is counter to the observable universe.

 

[Ophiolite]

I am stating that the global flood of Noah is literal. I am saying that the archeology of creation scientists is evidence, therefore I am stating that it is not fiction.

But that is contradicted by your statement "Without a central authorized record of any event for people to look to, over time and distance the actual facts become lost and are replaced." And that is not a generic statement, for you specify in the next sentence that you are referencing the flood. "However, the main fact remains.. that there was a large flood."
So, the actual facts have been lost. Implicitly, the details have been lost. So the details that are there, forty days and forty nights, the birds sent out in search of land, these have replaced the original facts. That is what you are saying.
Conclusion: either you are recognising the flood story as a work of fiction, or you don't write very well. If the latter, do you wish to have another go at that post so we can understand what you do mean?

As to your assertion that "there was a large flood", do you mean a large global flood? As others have pointed out, there is zero evidence for that and a multiplicity of contrary evidence. Or do you mean that one of the details that got replaced was "local" with "global"?

 

[Astrophile]

The flood of Noah is only acknowledged in terms that atheists are comfortable to address it.

You mean 'geologists', not 'atheists'.

 

[dlamberth]

Usually the "creation scientists" are busy faking biology.

And geology.

 

[Astrid]

And geology.

And and and

 

[AV1611VET]

And and and

Can you give me a valid sentence with the word "and" in it that appears five times consecutively?

 

[Kylie]

Can you give me a valid sentence with the word "and" in it that appears five times consecutively?

On the sign that says "FISH AND CHIPS," I'd like you to paint a little fish between FISH and AND and AND and CHIPS.

 

[Kylie]

On the sign that says "FISH AND CHIPS," I'd like you to paint a little fish between FISH and AND and AND and CHIPS.

In the above post, I used capitalisation to distinguish which of the "ands" were the ones written on the sign and which were not. Therefore, I did not have to use any punctuation marks between "FISH" and "and," and "and" and "AND," and "AND" and "and," and "and" and "AND," and "AND" and "and," and "and" and "CHIPS."

That's twenty one ANDS in a row.

 

[Kylie]

In the above post, I used capitalisation to distinguish which of the "ands" were the ones written on the sign and which were not. Therefore, I did not have to use any punctuation marks between "FISH" and "and," and "and" and "AND," and "AND" and "and," and "and" and "AND," and "AND" and "and," and "and" and "CHIPS."

That's twenty one ANDS in a row.

And in that post, I did include punctuation between and and "and," and...

No. I'm not going through that again.

 

[Astrid]

In the above post, I used capitalisation to distinguish which of the "ands" were the ones written on the sign and which were not. Therefore, I did not have to use any punctuation marks between "FISH" and "and," and "and" and "AND," and "AND" and "and," and "and" and "AND," and "AND" and "and," and "and" and "CHIPS."

That's twenty one ANDS in a row.

I can beat that with any word or combo of words.

 

[AV1611VET]

I can beat that with any word or combo of words.

Okay.

Beat it with the words: "Not To Scale."

 

[T.i.m.o.t.h.y.]

You mean 'geologists', not 'atheists'.

In my general statement the general term of atheist suffices. Any subset like geologist or astronomist can designate themselves according to their particular expertise.

Much like anyone may call people who believe the Bible, Christians, not knowing or bothering to make a distinction between the particular denomination an individual Christian may identify themselves by.

 

[essentialsaltes]

In my general statement the general term of atheist suffices. Any subset like geologist or astronomist can designate themselves according to their particular expertise.

It does not suffice. Not all geologists are atheists. They are not a subset of atheists. Nor are haberdashers or lighthouse keepers for that matter.

 

[T.i.m.o.t.h.y.]

I will not be answering those different persons who've posted to me. I am not a marathon poster like others may be. I am not one who can make multiple replies to several different posters in one sitting. Everyone posts as they have time and according to the level of interest in the topic.

I've responded as much as I care to according to the title of the thread and OP opening topic but as the flow drifted from that into an area that I prefer not to discuss, so I'm removing myself for now from any further postings on this thread.

 

[T.i.m.o.t.h.y.]

It does not suffice. Not all geologists are atheists. They are not a subset of atheists. Nor are haberdashers or lighthouse keepers for that matter.

It will have to suffice, regardless if someone would demand otherwise.

I was speaking of the general distinction of difference between atheist versus creation scientists.

You added your own descriptives that are beyond what I would think of any scientists to be. I will not have my words nitpicked at when I've clearly used generalizations that should suffice as tolerable to everyone.

 

[Shemjaza]

It will have to suffice, regardless if someone would demand otherwise.

I was speaking of the general distinction of difference between atheist versus creation scientists.

You added your own descriptives that are beyond what I would think of any scientists to be. I will not have my words nitpicked at when I've clearly used generalizations that should suffice as tolerable to everyone.

It's not nit picking... it's calling out mistakes or lies.

You bear false witness when you label your fellow Christians "atheists" simply for an education in science.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It will have to suffice, regardless if someone would demand otherwise.

Nobody's demanding anything, just pointing out some obvious facts.

There are Hindu geologists and Jewish geologists and Christian geologists and Muslim geologists and atheist geologists.

All but a handful agree the earth is billions of years old. That doesn't make them atheists.