New Creationist theory on how life spread out after the flood.

[OllieFranz]

A document covering then current events or then recent events, an ancient document can be considered historically reliable, after allowing for chauvinistic boasting (There was one famous battle between Egypt and Assyria which ended in a standstill. Since it occured far enough from the capitals of both empires, it was reported in both cases as a decisive victory over the other.).

When it reports on then-historical events, it becomes less verifiable, and often provably less accurate. When it extends into then-legendary times, it often becomes impossible to verify.

This is true of the Bible, just as much as any other ancient document. The events in 1 Kings and 2 Kings are mostly verifiable. That in Exodus and Joshua is harder to verify. Genesis, especially the pre-Abrahamic chapters, is nearly impossible to verify.

 

[EternalDragon]

Excuse me for asking you to support your claims. Please, continue pulling things from your digestive tract. And be sure to wash your hands when you're done.

You ask and then when presented with it (most scientific evidence) you complain about the source. The problem here is not with the evidence. It is a spiritual problem.

Disguising your vulgarity is not fooling anyone.

 

[lasthero]

You haven't presented scientific evidence. You've presented lies from liars.

And I'm not trying to fool you. You do an excellent job of fooling yourself.

 

[Strathos]

I thought one of the problems with ANCIENT egypt, and I mean ANCIENT is they never had records? I thought they came later?

Nah, there are records of the dynasties of the Pharaohs even back to almost 3000 BC.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Where did you demonstrate that it is history?



You mean those books that are written by men?



Science has shown that the Earth is old, there was no recent global flood, and that species evolved from a common ancestor.

Science books are written by men, are you now saying we can't trust them?
What Christians say is that the biblical writings were INSPIRED by God, NOT personally written by him. This has been explained several times before, yet you still raise this silly argument. Can it finally stop now?

 

[nuttypiglet]

Why would the blind man be forced to do so? Why couldn't the blind man determine for himself if I gave him the proper rules and if the apparatus is operating correctly?

[qutoe]Your apparatus, your rules, your method of interpreting the results, and your trustworthiness. The blind man has to put his faith in you and your methods.

No, he doesn't.



Please show evidence that the universe is being affected by God.



The same way that we show sighted people that the Sun produces photons with wavelengths outside our very narrow range of vision.



He knows as well as we do. The telescope is pointing towards a very strong producer of photons.

[/COLOR][/COLOR]

We didn't know the cause of photons for thousands of years even though we were sighted. It took instruments that went beyond our ability to see in order to figure out that mystery.



Radiowaves ARE photons, and the photons from the sun exist right here on Earth.



The same way you would prove it to a sighted person.



By presenting empirical evidence. Where is it?



They don't have retinas that work. Are you really this dense?[/QUOTE]

This made me giggle. You ask for proof that God affects the Universe. How funny. Every physicist will agree that the fine tuning of the Universe is way beyond coincidence, which is why they had to quickly come up with a fairy tale to give an explanation, the MULTIVERSE. So, let me ask you, PROVE we are a Universe among MANY.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Science books are written by men, are you now saying we can't trust them?
What Christians say is that the biblical writings were INSPIRED by God, NOT personally written by him. This has been explained several times before, yet you still raise this silly argument. Can it finally stop now?

So these books were written by men who claim that because they were inspired by God, they should not be questioned.

btw, nuttypiglet, before we go any further, I should let you know that God has inspired me to speak. Are you ready to listen?

 

[AceHero]

There is debate among creationists as to whether the earth is 7,000 years old or billions of years old or somewhere in between. The fact is, it doesn't really matter how old the earth is or how old the stars are. The important point we agree on, which is that it was all created by an intelligent God. Pointing to YEC beliefs as evidence of the fallacy of creation in general is a straw man argument.

Unfortunately, creationists refuse to stop there.

There's just not enough information. And the fact that it's such a hugely political issue makes it incredibly susceptible to tampering, as we've seen with climategate and other UN sanctioned "studies".

There's plenty of information, and the fact that it's politicized has nothing to do with the actual research done by actual scientists documented in actual scientific papers. If you have some problem with the methodology, you can find these papers and pick them apart yourself, if you have the acumen for it. If not, your doubts are unfounded.

It's political only because denialists make it so.

Yes, I agree, he did have some fallacious beliefs. It is his science that we are discussing, not his flaws.

And to assume that creation is true is the opposite of science. Science makes no assumptions ahead of time as to what is true or not, it only follows the evidence. Even Newtons's science shows that our solar system is billions of years old. and yet YEC's deny this. Therefore they deny Newton's physics.

One problem is people keep moving the goalposts.

One definition of creationism is that God created it all. It makes little to no assumptions of the steps that occurred.

Another, the one most people use is the ones who through a poor reading so scripture propose God did it in 6 days that occurred about 6000 years ago.

Rather large difference.

That's why I try not to refer to myself as a creationist even though I believe that there is a creator who brought the universe into being. I don't want people to assume that I think the earth is less than 10,000 years old or that we've only had rain for a few thousand years.

You can't be serious?

Most if not all christians have no problem with science?

This site is a prime example of how inaccurate that statement is!

I thought this forum was about evolution vs creationism,
not creationism vs science.

Creationism is against science.

I'll leave this place forever before that happens.

And stop bragging about your 2.7 million "posts"? I doubt it.

Wow, I didn't notice that until you mentioned it. I joined not long after him. Evidently I've had better things to do over the past seven years.

Sorry, but made up stories do not falsify scientific theories.

but you believe the made up story of evolution and feel it counts

What would it take for you to accept evolution as true? Does it have to be written down in the Bible to be so?

 

[nuttypiglet]

So these books were written by men who claim that because they were inspired by God, they should not be questioned.

btw, nuttypiglet, before we go any further, I should let you know that God has inspired me to speak. Are you ready to listen?

I know God hasn't inspired you to speak. Like I said, science books are inspired and written by men and they are full of lies.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Unfortunately, creationists refuse to stop there.



It's political only because denialists make it so.



That's why I try not to refer to myself as a creationist even though I believe that there is a creator who brought the universe into being. I don't want people to assume that I think the earth is less than 10,000 years old or that we've only had rain for a few thousand years.



Creationism is against science.



Wow, I didn't notice that until you mentioned it. I joined not long after him. Evidently I've had better things to do over the past seven years.



What would it take for you to accept evolution as true? Does it have to be written down in the Bible to be so?

evidence

 

[nuttypiglet]

Why would the blind man be forced to do so? Why couldn't the blind man determine for himself if I gave him the proper rules and if the apparatus is operating correctly?

[qutoe]Your apparatus, your rules, your method of interpreting the results, and your trustworthiness. The blind man has to put his faith in you and your methods.

No, he doesn't.



Please show evidence that the universe is being affected by God.



The same way that we show sighted people that the Sun produces photons with wavelengths outside our very narrow range of vision.



He knows as well as we do. The telescope is pointing towards a very strong producer of photons.

[/COLOR][/COLOR]

We didn't know the cause of photons for thousands of years even though we were sighted. It took instruments that went beyond our ability to see in order to figure out that mystery.



Radiowaves ARE photons, and the photons from the sun exist right here on Earth.



The same way you would prove it to a sighted person.



By presenting empirical evidence. Where is it?



They don't have retinas that work. Are you really this dense?[/QUOTE]

Don't you see the point? really? without someone presenting the case (YOU) the blind person would never have those things revealed. This is where God comes into those people who are blind, he reveals things to them. If a person is born blind and you show them nothing of science, how long do you think it would be before they discover photons?

 

[EternalDragon]

Nothing, absolutely nothing because they want to believe the Bible is true, evolution flies in the face of creationism so it must be fought tooth and nail, their beliefs must come first no matter what life and their eyes tell them.

What life and my eyes tell me and what science tells me is that Natural Selection helped species to adapt to their environment quickly. This leads to small and large variation in species. It also tells me that birds always remain birds and apes always remain apes. Apes don't turn into men and dinosaurs do not turn into birds.

There are non-Christians and non-Christian scientists that have also come to the conclusion that evolution theory is not correct and does not work according to scientific processes.

 

[OllieFranz]

What life and my eyes tell me and what science tells me is that Natural Selection helped species to adapt to their environment quickly. This leads to small and large variation in species. It also tells me that birds always remain birds and apes always remain apes. Apes don't turn into men and dinosaurs do not turn into birds.

That is correct. Dinosaurs did not "turn into" birds and apes did not "turn into" men. Man is still one of the kinds of ape, brother to chimp and bonobo and cousin to gorilla and orangutan.

There are non-Christians and non-Christian scientists that have also come to the conclusion that evolution theory is not correct and does not work according to scientific processes.

I'd be interested if you could point any out. In particular, I'd be interested if you can find one who is neither in the pay of one of the Creationist / ID thinktanks nor on the list because his (evolutionist) work was quote-mined by those thinktanks.

 

[lasthero]

I'd be interested if you could point any out. In particular, I'd be interested if you can find one who is neither in the pay of one of the Creationist / ID thinktanks nor on the list because his (evolutionist) work was quote-mined by those thinktanks.

I think there are actually more Muslim creationists than there are Christian creationists; Christian creationists just tend to be more visible and get more screentime. And I know of a small handful of Jewish creationists. Outside of the Abrahamic religions, though, I'm not aware of any, unless we're counting Raelians and stuff like that.

 

[AV1611VET]

In particular, I'd be interested if you can find one who is neither in the pay of one of the Creationist / ID thinktanks nor on the list because his (evolutionist) work was quote-mined by those thinktanks.

Can he be black?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I know God hasn't inspired you to speak.

You "know"? How can you be sure whom God or hasn't inspired?

You do realize that God can choose to inspire people without first seeking your permission, don't you?

Like I said, science books are inspired and written by men and they are full of lies.

I'm not talking about science books, I'm talking about inspiration. What makes you so sure God is not speaking through me?

 

[florida2]

I know God hasn't inspired you to speak. Like I said, science books are inspired and written by men and they are full of lies.

Oh? What lies might these be that they're full of?

Why would they be full of lies? What would be the point? Why would scientists train for years, work hard for not huge amounts of pay and then just lie about it?

If scientists just lied all the time there would be no discoveries, no breakthroughs - all their work, training and dreams would be for nothing. Why can't anti-science people see this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What life and my eyes tell me and what science tells me is that Natural Selection helped species to adapt to their environment quickly. This leads to small and large variation in species. It also tells me that birds always remain birds and apes always remain apes. Apes don't turn into men and dinosaurs do not turn into birds.

There are non-Christians and non-Christian scientists that have also come to the conclusion that evolution theory is not correct and does not work according to scientific processes.

What do you mean "apes turn into men"? That is a nonsensical statement.

You might as well say "mammals turn into men" or "vertebrates turn into men".

You see we are all apes, you me even AV. We are all mammals. We are all vertebrates, well at least I have a backbone.

Clearly you still do not understand evolution. You cannot debunk a theory that you do not understand. You will keep making laughable mistakes like you just did.

And of course birds are dinosaurs. The big ones all died off in the huge extinction at the end of the cretaceous, but some of the smaller ones survived.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are not 2000 years old that's why, to be believed you must be very very old, the older you are the more believable you become, don't you know nuffink? I have even heard Christians say that they are not Muslims because the Bible is older than the Koran, don't laugh it's true.

And these same people will not understand the irony of the situation when you point out that Judaism is older than Christianity.

 

[nuttypiglet]

That is correct. Dinosaurs did not "turn into" birds and apes did not "turn into" men. Man is still one of the kinds of ape, brother to chimp and bonobo and cousin to gorilla and orangutan.



I'd be interested if you could point any out. In particular, I'd be interested if you can find one who is neither in the pay of one of the Creationist / ID thinktanks nor on the list because his (evolutionist) work was quote-mined by those thinktanks.

Sir Fred Hoyle said "A super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology … The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number of 10 with 40 thousand noughts (zeros) after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of a purposeful intelligence,"