Nothing changes in this forum.

[Red Sky at Morning]

What do you make of the intellectual dishonesty of creationist scientists?


Of course - who cannot see that making some app or whatever you claim to do is EXACTLY like the creation of living things from dust of the ground! It is so obvious!



Probably because your arguments were bunk.


And there we go...

Such a sloppy, shallow canard - its longevity must have something to do with the prideful condescension that we see in so many creationists.

You claim a biology degree, yet think Georgia Purdom is a source of unbiased, truthful, accurate information.


Interesting.

Allahu Akbar!!!

Oops - wrong forum!

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Just for fun...

I noticed this clip entitled "creationist walks into an evolutionist thread"...

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Ok - I'll leave you be...

In so many ways, this kind of debate is like trench warfare! Perhaps a different thread might help you break out of the lines? Have any of you investigated fulfilled Bible prophecy or confirmed miracles? Both these topics manage to shoot scientific materialism in the knees...

 

[pitabread]

Have any of you investigated fulfilled Bible prophecy or confirmed miracles? Both these topics manage to shoot scientific materialism in the knees...

Yes, and in that respect I find that Biblical literalists usually have lower standards of evidence re: prophecy and/or miracles than they do for scientific inquiry.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Yes, and in that respect I find that Biblical literalists usually have lower standards of evidence re: prophecy and/or miracles than they do for scientific inquiry.

OK...

How about this (you would need to watch the clip to fully appreciate it)...

The story of Duane Miller

Duane Miller’s greatest enjoyment came from preaching at his small church and singing songs of worship. It wasn’t just his livelihood to lead a Baptist congregation in Brenham, Texas; it was his passion, his calling, and his source of joy and satisfaction. When he awoke with the flu one Sunday morning, his throat was like sandpaper and his voice would “catch” on words. Each syllable was painful to speak. The flu soon disappeared, but his windpipe remained ablaze and his voice reduced to a raspy whisper. His throat felt constricted, as if someone were choking him. For all practical purposes, Miller’s voice was gone. No longer able to preach, he resigned from his pastorate. He eventually landed a government job researching records—a position he then lost because his inability to speak meant he couldn’t testify in court about his findings. Insurance stopped covering his treatments, and he faced thousands of dollars in medical bills. “For the first time in my life, I felt utterly useless. My income, my future, my health, my sense of well-being, all were suddenly beyond my control. It was a terrifying and humbling experience,” he said. Over three years, he was examined by sixty-three physicians. His case was even scrutinized by a Swiss symposium of the world’s leading throat specialists. The diagnosis: the flu virus destroyed the nerves of his vocal cords, rendering them limp. When Miller asked about his prognosis for recovery, a doctor told him, “Zero.” Despite Miller’s protestations, his former Sunday school class at First Baptist Church of Houston prevailed on him to speak. A special microphone was used to amplify Miller’s soft, hoarse, croaky voice—and the class agreed to endure the grating sound because of their love for him and his teaching. Ironically, his text was Psalm 103, where the third verse reads, God “heals all your diseases.” Miller said later, “With my tongue, I was saying, ‘I still believe that God heals,’ but in my heart, I was screaming, ‘But why not me, Lord?’” He went on to the next verse, which says the Lord “redeems your life from the pit.” He told the class, “I have had and you have had in times past pit experiences.” As soon as he said the word pit, the choking sensation disappeared. “Now, for the first time in three years, I could breathe freely,” he recalled. “I heard a gasp from the crowd, and that’s when I, too, realized my voice had come back. I could hear myself!” His stunned audience began to clap and cheer, shout and laugh; his wife, Joylene, broke down in tears. “I don’t understand this right now,” Miller stammered—with a fresh, new voice. The dramatic moment of Miller’s recovery had been captured on audiotape, which went viral. Subsequent doctor examinations showed his throat looks like it never had any problems; in fact, against all odds, even the scar tissue has disappeared. Said one physician, “Even if I could explain how you got your voice back by coincidence—which I can’t—I could never explain what happened to the scar tissue.” Today, Miller is pastor of Pinnacle Church, serving the Cedar Creek Lake area of Texas. Ironically, he also hosts a daily program on a Dallas radio station—yes, using his voice to tell others about the God who he is convinced still performs miracles. “You see, God didn’t just restore my life,” he said. “He amplified it.”3 At his website, you can listen to the tape of when his voice came back.4 Then ask, “Is this a supernatural act of God? Or is it better explained as some sort of spontaneous remission that only coincidentally occurred while he was quoting the Bible on healing?”

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

I won't reply too much more as my phone keeps posting up duplicates.

Those who want answers will go and find them, those who don't will probably be hers saying much the same thing a year from now.

 

[Speedwell]

Ok - I'll leave you be...

In so many ways, this kind of debate is like trench warfare! Perhaps a different thread might help you break out of the lines? Have any of you investigated fulfilled Bible prophecy or confirmed miracles? Both these topics manage to shoot scientific materialism in the knees...

A red herring. Despite the presence of many atheists in this forum, the discussions are not really about theism versus atheism, but about about biblical literalism versus all other beliefs, theist and atheist alike. Scientific materialism is methodological materialism, which makes no ontological claims about the existence of God or the supernatural. It is not the same as the metaphysical materialism of the atheists.

 

[pmxcsed]

Allahu Akbar!!!

Oops - wrong forum!

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

A red herring. Despite the presence of many atheists in this forum, the discussions are not really about theism versus atheism, but about about biblical literalism versus all other beliefs, theist and atheist alike. Scientific materialism is methodological materialism, which makes no ontological claims about the existence of God or the supernatural. It is not the same as the metaphysical materialism of the atheists.

Big words make a persuasive wrapping for small ideas. If God can see the future, if he can heal a body, he can create ex nihilo.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

A red herring. Despite the presence of many atheists in this forum, the discussions are not really about theism versus atheism, but about about biblical literalism versus all other beliefs, theist and atheist alike. Scientific materialism is methodological materialism, which makes no ontological claims about the existence of God or the supernatural. It is not the same as the metaphysical materialism of the atheists.

Big words make a persuasive wrapping for small ideas. If God can see the future, if he chan heal a body, he can create ex nihilo.

 

[Speedwell]

Big words make a persuasive wrapping for small ideas. If God can see the future, if he chan heal a body, he can create ex nihilo.

Sure He can. But how he did it is the question.

 

[Albion]

It is? Most Christians I know who also believe in Creation as an act of God do not feel it necessary to affirm any particular method or blueprint used by the Almighty.

 

[Speedwell]

It is? Most Christians I know who also believe in Creation as an act of God do not feel it necessary to affirm any particular method or blueprint used by the Almighty.

Correct. So why should it be necessary for a Christian to strenuously deny the findings of science, to paint them as lies from the pit of Hell, because they conflict with YECism?

 

[Tom 1]

I've been participating in here for a long time now. And nothing changes. Religionists continue to assert that Science/Evolution/whathaveyou is false. Why? Because. They insist that the Bible is literally true, mostly true, true if you read it correctly, true if you interpret it correctly, true but I'm not reading it correctly... you get the idea. They insist that science is a religion. They make assertions six ways from Sunday that Science says, "this" and then go on to disprove "this" when "this" isn't something that was ever stated in any scientific endeavor... ever. They show proof that Adam and Eve, Noah, ... all the gang from the Bible were real and did things that are evidenced in some place, some thing, some way... all of which show that the Theory of Evolution is false. Oh, and of course the "theory" is just a "theory"... that's one of my favorites.

For what it's worth, science is a method, not a capital letter thing. It's just a way that we can use to examine our universe. If what we find conflicts with what you believe then you might want to re-examine what you believe. The evidence that we have found tells us that we have evolved over time. We did not just "poof" into existence. There is NO evidence of special creation. As much as creationists with their websites and museums work to try and mislead you. There isn't any evidence that any creatures came into existence in any way other than evolution. We see fossils of creatures that don't exist anymore. Where did they go? We see creatures today that weren't here in the past. Where did they come from? We don't see creatures just popping into existence. It simply does not happen. So if every creature that exists had parents. And the parents had parents... then those parents/////parents must at some point have been different if there are no fossils of these creatures in the past.

Understand. No parents ever had a child they did not recognize. Do you get that? No dog ever gave birth to a cat. That's one thing that creationists constantly barrage people with. It's incorrect, impossible and false. Change is gradual. Slow. It happens over time and between generations. You die with the genes you were born with. Again, something that creationists don't seem to understand. No creature mutates spontaneously in midlife. All of this, all of it is dependent on life already existing. When you start to talk about how life came into being that's not part of the Theory of Evolution. Arguing that the Theory is false because life couldn't come from non-life... who cares? That's irrelevant. It's an entirely different theory. Then there are the folks who like to argue about where the planets came from. That's not even biology. Irrelevant! Evolution is about how one species can become another species. That's all.

I'm sure in another ten years things in here will be exactly the same. People will still be making unfounded claims, still be creating strawmen and still be ignorant of facts on so many levels. It's a shame. Even the Pope accepts evolution. He says that if God chose to create the world this way then who is he to question it? You all could learn something from this Pope.

Well, everyone has their own paradigm, or way of thinking at least. I don’t think many people significantly change their ideas based on short online discussions.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You keep asking for someone to clear it up yet when someone actually does you just ignore it.

Hello? I asked for "proof" not what anyone here thinks is evidence

You seem to have a little trouble paying attention so I'll leave you with that.

 

[Kenny'sID]

.

 

[rjs330]

What makes you think so? Nothing in evolution requires a large jump.


The change from 'sliming around in the primordial ooze' to 'flying around the skies on eagles wings' (I'll accept the poetic license) was a slow progression of billions of tiny changes in populations, that took at least 3.7 billion years (that's deep time).

Just because the differences between ancestors and their remote descendants are significant, and differences between distantly related species are significant, it doesn't imply any large leaps, any more than a picture of you as a baby and a picture of you as an adult imply you leapt straight from infancy to adulthood.

I know what evolution states. That's our point. No one is claiming evolution makes claims of sudden gigantic leaps. Yet the leaps are gigantic but done over such a long period of time that it cannot be observed or tested or validated. All evolution has is gigantic leaps with no way to show the long process and no evidence of the long process of those major changes.

I'm guessing then you would prescibe to the idea that man may one day be able to jump the Mississippi River should the right evolution occur. Or more likely we would be able to process stuff in our brains at the speed of a computer.

 

[tas8831]

I just wanted to say why I reject the Theory.

Because you were raised a creationist?

Can't have anything to do with science, given your posts thus far.

 

[rjs330]

Correct. So why should it be necessary for a Christian to strenuously deny the findings of science, to paint them as lies from the pit of Hell, because they conflict with YECism?

They conflict with what God said himself. They also conflict with observation. They also conflict with logic. They also conflict with scientific principle of observation, testing and verification.

The "findings" of science when it comes to this topic are nothing more than speculation and assumption. There is not one shred of evidence that can be pointed at that shows such a thing that is claimed is possible. It cannot be tested, observed or verified.

 

[tas8831]

Big words make a persuasive wrapping for small ideas. If God can see the future, if he chan heal a body, he can create ex nihilo.

Question begging.

No classes in rhetoric or logic at university?