Once again, CREATIONISTS!

[Contracelsus]

Notice God's name on it?

[bible]Isaiah 57:15[/bible]

Nifty.

I didn't know that "Holy" was a name.

Cool.

I think I'll rename my 1st born Holy. Unfortunately my last name is Moley, so it might not work so good for her.

 

[Loudmouth]

But you don't see me saying "all of science accepts the overwhelming evidence for evolution," either.

For most people 99.9+% is close enough to all.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is Science and there are indvidual scientists. There are some indviduals with training in science who do not accept evolution. As far as I have seen they reject it for religious reasons. There is an even smaller group who rejects the scientific consensus that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that the flood of Noah could not have been global again for purely religious reasons. Kurt Wise even admits the only support for YEC is scriptural. There is no actual science that challenges the old earth, non global flood or evolution from common ancestors as the explanation for the diversity of life on earth, only a list of PRATTS from creationists who claim to be doing "creation science". Or is there is some science that supports creationism? If so let's see it. So far we have seen nothing but Bible references and PRATTS.

You don't need to explain it to me, FB. Methinks you made a faux pas. And I'm a nice guy and won't even ask you to retract it.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

It never was.

Then... then why are you trying to promote it as a superior, more correct scientific theory???

 

[Phred]

What you've just described here is called creatio ex materia --- not creatio ex nihilo.

No sir. You create an apple out of nothing, you must organize the matter into that apple. It doesn't do it by itself. The act of creation is very detailed... especially when we're talking about a facsimile of an actual apple down to its molecular structure. So the evidence of such a thing is in the doing. Tell me how it's done and therein lies the evidence. If you can't describe the process then you didn't really do it.

 

[AV1611VET]

No sir. You create an apple out of nothing, you must organize the matter into that apple.

What matter?

Do you know the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then... then why are you trying to promote it as a superior, more correct scientific theory???

I just said it was not a scientific theory --- unless you consider ex nihilo to be scientific.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

No sir. You create an apple out of nothing, you must organize the matter into that apple. It doesn't do it by itself. The act of creation is very detailed... especially when we're talking about a facsimile of an actual apple down to its molecular structure. So the evidence of such a thing is in the doing. Tell me how it's done and therein lies the evidence. If you can't describe the process then you didn't really do it.

as I said some months ago... AV's argument is really all rather moot until such time as he, or anyone, actually produces an ex nihilo apple

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I just said it was not a scientific theory --- unless you consider ex nihilo to be scientific.

well then just what the heck are we debating?

Evolutionary biology and Big Bang cosmology are the LEADING SCIENTIFIC THEORIES... the ones MOST SUPPORTED BY AVAILABLE EVIDENCE...

Would you agree?

 

[Vene]

What matter?

He's talking about the matter created to make up your apple. He wants to know how the atoms were arranged and how the bonds formed.

 

[AV1611VET]

as I said some months ago... AV's argument is really all rather moot until such time as he, or anyone, actually produces an ex nihilo apple

As I pointed out to MrGoodBytes, even if it was videotaped, it wouldn't matter; as you could come back with, "show me the earth was created in this way."

 

[AV1611VET]

He's talking about the matter created to make up your apple. He wants to know how the atoms were arranged and how the bonds formed.

I don't know --- why? Whatever it took to make a bona fide apple.

 

[AV1611VET]

well then just what the heck are we debating?

The OP wants to know if we can come up with an argument for creationism, and I'm saying, "No, we can't," since Creation was a one-time act of God that left no evidence behind.

Evolutionary biology and Big Bang cosmology are the LEADING SCIENTIFIC THEORIES... the ones MOST SUPPORTED BY AVAILABLE EVIDENCE...

Would you agree?

Where the interpretation of any evidence disagrees with Scripture --- the interpretation is wrong.

 

[Vene]

I don't know --- why? Whatever it took to make a bona fide apple.

So then applying this to the universe, wouldn't it appear that the universe underwent the big bang, various nuclear reactions, abiogenesis, and evolution? And since it basically did when Yahweh formed the universe, wouldn't it make sense to follow those models because we humans are able to exploit them for our own purpose?

Or have you lost me again?

 

[AV1611VET]

So then applying this to the universe wouldn't it appear that the universe underwent the big bang, various nuclear reactions, abiogenesis, and evolution? And since it basically did when Yahweh formed the universe, wouldn't it make sense to follow those models because we humans are able to exploit them for our own purpose?

Or have you lost me again?

I stopped answering posts that call God by that name, Vene.

I used to, but not anymore --- (unless I edit the name in my reply).

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I just said it was not a scientific theory --- unless you consider ex nihilo to be scientific.

Since it is not a scientific theory there can be no science that supports it. So when I said that all of science supports an old earth with no global flood either I was correct or you are wrong now. The fact that a few individual scientists support the same non scientific model that you do does not mean that there is any actual science that supports that non scientific model. There can't be since it is not scientific. Thank you for demonstrating that I am right and you were wrong.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The OP wants to know if we can come up with an argument for creationism, and I'm saying, "No, we can't," since Creation was a one-time act of God that left no evidence behind.



Where the interpretation of any evidence disagrees with Scripture --- the interpretation is wrong.

that wasn't the question.

Would you agree that all available evidence points to billions of years of Creation, or not?

 

[AV1611VET]

that wasn't the question.

Would you agree that all available evidence points to billions of years of Creation, or not?

Absolutely not --- are you saying that Creation is still in-progress?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Absolutely not --- are you saying that Creation is still in-progress?

Yes, Creation is still in process, as evidenced by Hawking energy...

But please, if the available scientific evidence does NOT point to billions of years worth of Creation (and evolution) what DOES all the available scientific evidence point to?

 

[Nathan Poe]

The OP wants to know if we can come up with an argument for creationism, and I'm saying, "No, we can't," since Creation was a one-time act of God that left no evidence behind.

So, without evidence of any kind, what's the difference between a one-time event and a no-time event? None.

Where the interpretation of any evidence disagrees with Scripture --- the interpretation is wrong.

What about where the interpretation of evidence disagrees with the interpretation of Scripture? Or do you worship Scripture too much to attempt to interpret it?