Once again, CREATIONISTS!

[Contracelsus]

No --- it would have to be dated. The difference is that an atheist would conclude that it grew that old, and a Creationist would believe it was made that old.

Notice that the two agree on the age, it's just how it got that age that is in question.

There's no reason science and Scripture cannot walk hand-in-hand.

That works out real good for the religious person because they get to hold hands with a dreamy scientist who can actually do stuff and explain stuff, but the scientist has to hold hands with someone who wants to have their ideas accepted even without them being able to explain the ideas or do anything with their knowledge.

Seems like scientists get the short end of that stick.

No --- I wouldn't know litmus paper if it turned blue on me.

Acid chases the blues away, as the science people say.

 

[FishFace]

Because every time someone would ask me for evidence, I would post this as a response:

Until finally even I got tired of doing that.
​

But as we have seen, you can't be bothered to defend your claim that the Bible is 100% accurate.

 

[MattTheAgnostic]

The "apple thing" is to get them to admit there's no evidence.

That way when someone says, "Show me evidence for creation," we can say, "Didn't you just say there is none?"

But there is evidence, the Bible. Why are you trying to convince them there isn't any again?

 

[Vene]

Here's the way Henry Morris puts it:

• Evolution = continuing natural processes
• Creation = completed supernatural processes

/end Henry Morris

"Scientists" view what they see in the light of 'continuing natural processes', and I assume it points them in the wrong direction.

Are you suggesting that all natural processes have stopped?

 

[AV1611VET]

Seems like scientists get the short end of that stick.

I totally disagree with that. There's no reason why you and I couldn't work side-by-side in a scientific endeavor and do excellent work. Or beliefs shouldn't hinder us one bit.

I've asked more than once for someone to show me one task that a Creationist cannot perform in a laboratory because of his beliefs, that an Evolutionist could perform because of his beliefs.

Acid chases the blues away, as the science people say.

That's good! I have trouble remembering which side of 7.0 acids and bases are on the pH scale.

 

[Split Rock]

I totally disagree with that. There's no reason why you and I couldn't work side-by-side in a scientific endeavor and do excellent work.

But what are you offering to cover your end? Your interpretation of scripture, that disagrees with other Christians? How exactly will that help?

Or beliefs shouldn't hinder us one bit.

Agreed, if one does not allow one's beliefs to cloud his/her conclusions.

I've asked more than once for someone to show me one task that a Creationist cannot perform in a laboratory because of his beliefs, that an Evolutionist could perform because of his beliefs.

And we have asked you to show us how Creationism can actually contribute to such tasks. You have responded that it cannot. We already know that different people with many different beliefs can do science and all get the same results and come to the same conclusions. That is one reason why science works, and creationism does not. Therefore, what exactly is your point?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you suggesting that all natural processes have stopped?

Here's what Morris said, in the context:

• The Biblical account of creation is ridiculed by atheists, patronized by liberals, and often allegorized even by conservatives. The fact is, however, that it is God's own account of creation, corroborated by Jesus Christ (Mark 10:6-8), who was there.
• We are well advised to take the Genesis account of creation seriously and literally, for God is able to say what he means and will someday hold us accountable for believing what He says. Furthermore, the account is reasonable and logical, fully in accord with all true science and history. The following chain of logic, while not compelling belief on the part of those who refuse to believe, at least demonstrates the reasonableness of Biblical creation.
• It is axiomatic that there are only two possible basic models of the origin of the universe, of the earth, of animate life, of human life, and of all the basic systems of the cosmos. These are, in simplest terms, evolution or creation. Either the origin of things can be understood in terms of continuing natural processes, or they cannot. If they cannot, then we must resort to completed supernatural processes to explain the origin of at least the basic systems of the cosmos. Evolution and creation thus exhaust the possibilities, as far a origins are concerned.
• This necessarily means that if we can demonstrate to be false (falsify) either model of origins, than the other must be true. There is no other option. One way to demonstrate evolution to be false is to determine if evolution is occurring today since evolution is supposedly explained by present process.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Oh, AV, about those amazing prophecies....

"In the Protestant world, the thought of leading the Hebrews back in the land of their forefathers is deeply ingrained, and there exists a strong interest in the fulfillment of the ancient prophecies..."

- Herbert Samuel, High Commissioner of Palestine from 1920 to 1925, in a memorandum to the cabinet in January 1915, listing reasons for the creation of an independent Jewish state.

 

[Contracelsus]

I've asked more than once for someone to show me one task that a Creationist cannot perform in a laboratory because of his beliefs, that an Evolutionist could perform because of his beliefs.

Creation science for one.

The creationist would propose that "God did this" and there wouldn't be any way for the evolutionist to verify the proposal.

That's good! I have trouble remembering which side of 7.0 acids and bases are on the pH scale.

STUPID MEMORY DEVICE:

When I was in chemistry class I liked to think of the pH scale like a concrete foundation, a "base" if you like, and acid dissolves out under the "base", so the base values were the "upper" pH values and acid the "lower" pH values.

It's a goofy memory device that has no bearing much on reality but it helps me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, AV, about those amazing prophecies....

"In the Protestant world, the thought of leading the Hebrews back in the land of their forefathers is deeply ingrained, and there exists a strong interest in the fulfillment of the ancient prophecies..."

- Herbert Samuel, High Commissioner of Palestine from 1920 to 1925, in a memorandum to the cabinet in January 1915, listing reasons for the creation of an independent Jewish state.

What about it?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's a goofy memory device that has no bearing much on reality but it helps me.

Thanks! I'll try to remember that.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

What about it?

You think it's irrelevant that the man in charge of what would later become Israel says that the Jews should return because the Protestant world wants the prophecies to be fulfilled?

 

[AV1611VET]

You think it's irrelevant that the man in charge of what would later become Israel says that the Jews should return because the Protestant world wants the prophecies to be fulfilled?

Well I can't answer for Protestants, but I'll ask this: why would Protestants not want that to be fulfilled?

In fact, why would an Atheist not want that fulfilled?

We Christians, for instance, can't wait for our prophecies to come to pass.

When the Rapture occurs and we're gone, are you going to go around saying it was a self-fulfilling prophecy?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Well I can't answer for Protestants, but I'll ask this: why would Protestants not want that to be fulfilled?

In fact, why would an Atheist not want that fulfilled?

We Christians, for instance, can't wait for our prophecies to come to pass.

You didn't get it. This prophecy was fulfilled only because the politicians knew that the people wanted it to be fulfilled.

 

[AV1611VET]

You didn't get it. This prophecy was fulfilled only because the politicians knew that the people wanted it to be fulfilled.

Did the politicians know that the Ottoman Empire would side with Hitler and lose?

And for the second time (this is a good question), should the Rapture occur in your lifetime, are you going to claim it was a self-fulfilled prophecy?

 

[FishFace]

Did the politicians know that the Ottoman Empire would side with Hitler and lose?

And for the second time (this is a good question), should the Rapture occur in your lifetime, are you going to claim it was a self-fulfilled prophecy?

I'm sure you can see that there is a tiny difference between the formation of a new state, and of an actual-factual rapture.

If I tell my friend that I expect he'll go to the pub tomorrow night and, tomorrow night, he tells me, "You know what, since you said I'd go to the pub, I think I will" did I do anything out of the ordinary? Do I have the gift of prophecy?

No. The state of Israel was formed because someone a long time ago said it would be.
Contrast that with what you need to claim (for there to be any interesting powers at work) which is, "Someone a long time ago said Israel would be formed because the state of Israel was going to be formed."

There's no causal link between our knowing that people predicted the rapture and the rapture occurring. There is an explicit link between someone predicting Israel's formation and it actually forming - but the link is the wrong way to establish anything special.

I need to spread some reputation around before giving any to MrGoodBytes again.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Did the politicians know that the Ottoman Empire would side with Hitler and lose?

Palestine was occupied by the British in 1917 and the Ottoman Empire was partitioned five years later. Hitler didn't rise to power until 1933.

And for the second time (this is a good question), should the Rapture occur in your lifetime, are you going to claim it was a self-fulfilled prophecy?

No, because the rapture is beyond the power of any human to influence. The creation of Israel was not, and as we have seen, the people responsible for it knew very well that there was a strong interest in making the prophecy happen.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm sure you can see that there is a tiny difference between the formation of a new state, and of an actual-factual rapture.

If I tell my friend that I expect he'll go to the pub tomorrow night and, tomorrow night, he tells me, "You know what, since you said I'd go to the pub, I think I will" did I do anything out of the ordinary? Do I have the gift of prophecy?

No. The state of Israel was formed because someone a long time ago said it would be.
Contrast that with what you need to claim (for there to be any interesting powers at work) which is, "Someone a long time ago said Israel would be formed because the state of Israel was going to be formed."

There's no causal link between our knowing that people predicted the rapture and the rapture occurring. There is an explicit link between someone predicting Israel's formation and it actually forming - but the link is the wrong way to establish anything special.

I need to spread some reputation around before giving any to MrGoodBytes again.

I didn't even understand this.

 

[AV1611VET]

Palestine was occupied by the British in 1917 and the Ottoman Empire was partitioned five years later. Hitler didn't rise to power until 1933.

Yes --- sorry --- I meant WW1, not WW2.

The creation of Israel was not, and as we have seen, the people responsible for it knew very well that there was a strong interest in making the prophecy happen.

Good --- I'm glad --- aren't you? Don't you think it was about time Israel had their homeland back, Mr United Nations?

 

[Deadbolt]

I didn't even understand this.

You honestly didn't understand that? I highly doubt that. I think the truth is that you won't understand it because it shoots your argument down like a Sidewinder would a 747.
I notice you like to use the term "pwned".
It has just happened to you.