My two favorite arguments for creation

[nyjbarnes]

Some links of interest:

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
http://members.aol.com/zimlechem/Science.html

You're signature gives me a headache because it's so big ...

 

[Ryal Kane]

Logic - If all of us were ignorant who would be the one to point it out? It is not nasty, not unfounded, and my intention was not to offend you. Hopefully, unless you provoke venom, you won't get it from me. :crosself:

I can kind of see the rational behind this notion but it presupposes that all are ignoratn and that ignorance cannot be overcome.
It would be like saying, Invisible Brain Spiders on our heads make it impossible for anyone to detect the Invisible Brain Spiders. No one can see Brain Spiders therefore, everyone must have a Brain Spider on their head.


Also the statement " Science abounded, ignorance follows." is rather disingenuous, easily appearing to say that wherever science goes, it takes ignorance.

Ryal Kane

 

[w81minit]

You've hit it on the head. The "problem" with science is that it illuminates/exposes our ignorance, since as I said, every answer raises a dozen more questions. The more we learn, the more we find out we don't know.

It can be traumatic, even painful, but then again, growing up always is.

"Modern science has been a voyage into the unknown, with a lesson in humility waiting at every stop. Many passengers would rather have stayed home." -- Carl Sagan.

I want to relish your response for a moment. There are some in this forum that demanded evidence of such a claim. Without trying to implicate you in this as though we conspired to it - Please forgive me - I thought my point was proven through their demands.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I want to relish your response for a moment. There are some in this forum that demanded evidence of such a claim. Without trying to implicate you in this as though we conspired to it - Please forgive me - I thought my point was proven through their demands.

Well, it's not so much your idea, but the way you phrased it. You have to understand, we get a lot of creationists around here spouting "Man's knowledge is foolishness to God; put down the textbook and pick up a Bible!" or something to that effect.

Looks like some in the forum thought you were giving more of the same.

 

[gladiatrix]

Some links of interest:
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

Let's examine a couple of the claim made on Angeldove's site:

From Statements Consistent With Paleontology
Dinosaurs are referred to in several Bible books. The book of Job describes two dinosaurs. One is described in chapter 40 starting at verse 15, and the other in chapter 41 starting at verse 1. We think you will agree that 1½ chapters about dinosaurs is a lot—since most people do not even realize that they are mentioned in the Bible.

Problem is that the evidence shows that all the dinosaurs were extinct long before Job's time. Do you have any SCIENTIFIC evidence that supports the existence of dinosaurs in Job's time (do you even have any evidence that such a person as Job ever existed?).


Now let's take another one (just to show you how much people have to twist the meaning to make the claim that the Bible makes accurate "scientific predictions")

The Bible also says that each star is unique.

1 Corinthians 15:41
There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.

All stars look alike to the naked eye.* Even when seen through a telescope, they seem to be just points of light. However, analysis of their light spectra reveals that each is unique and different from all others.[1] (*Note: We understand that people can perceive some slight difference in color and apparent brightness when looking at stars with the naked eye, but we would not expect a person living in the first century A.D. to claim they differ from one another.)

The problem here is that the from the context of the verse, it is plain that the ancients considered the sun and moon to be "stars". The only "star" here is our sun, so an obvious error in the Bible here is to regard the moon as a "star" (I guess the author of the site hopes we will not see that the comparision is really between the sun and moon). The comparison is between the sun and the moon, here NOT a comparison of our sun to other stars in the galaxy.

The rest of the so-called "scientific predictions" listed here turn almost entirely on often outrageously stretching the meaning of ancient Biblical passages to "fit" the present-day knowledge. Very tiresome.

Some links of interest:
http://members.aol.com/zimlechem/Science.html

This is a rehash of the "Long/Lost Day" hoax. Like many Christian myths and urban legends, this one has been REFUTED. This preposterous story (NASA's "long day") even made it onto Answers in Genesis's DO NOT USE list!(AIG's arguments NOT to use against evolution list)

My apologies if this has already been pointed out...I haven't read ever page of this thread...

 

[Dexx]

The lack of any eyewitness accounts. The Gospels don't even claim to be eyewitness accounts.

An eyewitness account of the life of Christ, written during the time he was alive, would be a huge historical find. No one has found anything like that.

The apostle John was an eye witness. As was Matthew. They wrote their accounts. Luke scribed for Paul and Mark scribed for Peter. Seems like plenty of eye witness accounts to me, even if they were penned 30 years later.

 

[USincognito]

The apostle John was an eye witness. As was Matthew. They wrote their accounts. Luke scribed for Paul and Mark scribed for Peter. Seems like plenty of eye witness accounts to me, even if they were penned 30 years later.

Attribution does not necessarily mean authorship.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The apostle John was an eye witness. As was Matthew. They wrote their accounts. Luke scribed for Paul and Mark scribed for Peter. Seems like plenty of eye witness accounts to me, even if they were penned 30 years later.

Did they now? Or were their names just tacked on to these accounts by the early church?