- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,722
- 52,529
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Because that's the nature of ex nihilo Creation. It was a one-time occurrence --- an act of God.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'll ask you again: Why would anyone bother believing in a model that has no evidence and makes absolutely no predictions? You have made Creationism into a useless story.
Except God did not document that he "embedded" age. That's your invention.Is He now? A deceiver wouldn't document what He did, when He did it, and how He did it, would He?
Except God did not document that he "embedded" age. That's your invention.
I would like to disagree; models are made to not be broken. An ideal model is identical to what it simulates, ie is never broken. When we make a model and the model is found to be wrong, we revise the model to take this into account.So be it --- models are made to be broken.
Yes, it wouldn't, that's the idea, those are other ways for the apple to come to be that aren't ex nihilo. Even in my desert scenario those could all be alternate explainations . Ex nihilo is still possible, even a likely hypothesis as the situation and conditions in which it's done get stricter, harsher and more rigorous. The reverse is true, of course; the evidence for it being ex nihilo decreases the more likely it is that there is some other reason for the apple's existence, ie taking it from the kitchen while no one was looking.But then it wouldn't be ex nihilo, would it?
I'd like to see creatio ex nihilo address; not creatio ex materia.
No, then the Bible is either wrong or wasn't meant to be taken literally on issues of age.Then He's not a deceiver, is He?
No, then the Bible is either wrong or wasn't meant to be taken literally on issues of age.
I would like to disagree; models are made to not be broken. An ideal model is identical to what it simulates, ie is never broken. When we make a model and the model is found to be wrong, we revise the model to take this into account.
Yes, it wouldn't, that's the idea, those are other ways for the apple to come to be that aren't ex nihilo. Even in my desert scenario those could all be alternate explainations . Ex nihilo is still possible, even a likely hypothesis as the situation and conditions in which it's done get stricter, harsher and more rigorous. The reverse is true, of course; the evidence for it being ex nihilo decreases the more likely it is that there is some other reason for the apple's existence, ie taking it from the kitchen while no one was looking.
There is no evidence for ex nihilo creation of the universe 6,000 years ago because it didn't happen so I was not admiting anything, just stating a fact. There are threads asking for it because many other YECs claim there is evidence for there falsified hypothesis.That thread got you (plural) to admit there's no evidence for ex nihilo creation.
Thus why would there be a thread asking for it?
Evolutionists are so scared of exposure that each time I post about how Darwin is disproved by DNA..fossils.. mutations etc they get the evidence deleted
& this isn't just google links - it opens up & prints details:-
Now how mutations disprove Darwin:-
ProgettoCosmo - Thermodynamics disproves Darwin
Information for macroevolution does not exist in nature, or better, it cannot be given by Darwinian evolution. The environment selects individuals and rewards the fittest but it does not give sufficient information for the huge transformations involved in the biological novelties of species. Evolutionists have asked whether in their evolutionary process (mutations + selection) information increases. In which of the two factors might the information generator be found? Remember information is what reduces uncertainty. R.Dawkins, an evolution authority, answers this question:
«Mutation is not an increment in the true informative content, but it is rather the contrary, since mutation, in the analogy of Shannon, contributes to increase the previous uncertainty. But now let's consider the natural selection, which reduces the previous uncertainty and then, supplies an informative contribution to the genetic pool [...] If the natural selection supplies information to the genic pool, what sort of information is? It is information about surviving»[15].
Hence mutations do not provide information and natural selection supplies only information for survival. But to supply the modest information to survive to a reptile is the same thing of providing the immense CSI (Complex Specified Information) necessary " to transform it in ... a bird? Sure it is not.
Analogously to give alms to a beggar, perhaps will allow him to survive today, but it does not transform him miraculously in a ... king. The same way that alms are not enough to avoid many people die of hunger, information " on surviving has not been enough to avoid that the 99% of animal species died out in the course of geological era instead of evolving.
Darwinians emphasize that, of its two parts, mutations and selection, mutations are random but selection is an algorithm, i.e. a law. If there were only random mutations there would be nothing to pretend: chance is impotent to design. To say, as Dawkins said above, that mutations do not create information is practically the same thing. But it is due to natural selection if evolution would work.
Mutations are only the engine that produces the variations in input to the selection algorithm, that acts as a post-processor. For first we must note that this engine is inefficient (in order to stimulate macroevolution), since the variations it generates can help at the most microevolution.
[SIZE=-1]Hence mutations do not provide information and natural selection supplies ..... until arriving to quantum particles and events for disproving neo-Darwinism. ...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]progettocosmo.altervista.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=85 - Similar pages[/SIZE]
Darwinism; Too Old-Fashioned To Be True - HUMAN EVENTS
New York Times columnist John Tierney recently offered a materialist version of "intelligent design": All of us are actually characters in a computer simulation devised by some technologically advanced future civilization.
Fanciful to the extreme, sure, but the growing number of such theories -- life comes from the past (Mars, when it was theoretically livable) or future (Tierney) -- is one more indication that Darwinism no longer satisfies. Reporters pretending to referee the origin debate used to have it easy: slick evolutionists vs. hick creationists, progress vs. regress.
Now, Darwinism is looking fuddy-duddy, and sophisticated critiques of it are becoming more diverse...
I interviewed Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" and a new book, "The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism.
This Lehigh University biology professor points out that Darwin and his contemporaries knew very little about the cell, which is the foundation of life. Microscopes of that era were too crude to see many critical details. So 19th-century scientists thought the cell was simple protoplasm, like a piece of microscopic Jell-O
Behe explained what has changed: "Now we know that the cell is chock-full of sophisticated nanotechnology, literally machines made from molecules. The same goes for the universe.
In Darwin's era, the universe was thought to be pretty simple. Now we know its basic laws are balanced on a razor's edge to allow for life and that our planet may be the only one in the universe that could support intelligent life. The more we know about nature, the more design we see
We also have data now from a half-century of careful malaria-watching, which -- because malaria reproduce so quickly -- lets us see what happens to thousands of generations of parasites that are under constant attack from man-made drugs. Darwin predicted that random mutation and natural selection would lead to the development of new species, but no new kinds of malaria have emerged, just tiny changes in existing strains.
[SIZE=-1]The mass killer HIV also has provided evidence to disprove Darwin. ... HIV has actually undergone more of certain kinds of mutations than all cells have ...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23046 - Similar pages[/SIZE]
Newsvine - Being Wrong in Science
The history of scientific discovery is littered with failed theories and disproved notions. Great discoveries often overturn seemingly brilliant ideas that may have been held for centuries...
Scientists may have spent their entire life developing a concept only to have it crumble before their very eyes when an onslaught of new evidence and thinking arises. Sometimes the demise of a scientific principle takes longer and the idea is only put to bed decades after the death of those who originally thought it up...
[SIZE=-1]In terms of genetics, it is saying that mutations in the genome are not random in ... was done in attempts to either prove Lamarck or just disprove Darwin. ...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]praetor605.newsvine.com/_news/2006/09/26/376054-being-wrong-in-science - Similar pages[/SIZE]
There is no evidence for ex nihilo creation of the universe 6,000 years ago because it didn't happen so I was not admiting anything, just stating a fact. There are threads asking for it because many other YECs claim there is evidence for there falsified hypothesis.
I am not an atheist and your apple challenge is ridiculous. However it is very amusing that you think your own bogus analogy actually supports our position. You are a laugh a minute.Fine --- then kindly direct them to my Apple Challenge.
Or is it that you spent so much time ridiculing it, that you overlooked the fact that it actually supports what you guys say?
( You atheists are a riot!)
Here we have the fallacy of hasty generalization. Some people who support the old earth and evolution are atheists so all are. It is not an issue of atheists verses Creationists. It is a question of science (old earth and evolution) verses anti-science( young earth with special creation).( You atheists are a riot!)
I am not an atheist...
Here we have the fallacy of hasty generalization. Some people who support the old earth and evolution are atheists so all are.
Why? Because you can't provide evidence for it, even though it did happen?
You're going to stand in front of your friend with an apple and say, "Nevermind, this apple is useless."
Then walk away saying to yourself, "Ex nihilo creation doesn't happen"?
So are you claiming that anyone who doesn't accept that the world was created 6,000 years ago and that there was a global flood 4,500 years ago and that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth walks, looks and talks like an atheist? I guess you have never heard of theist evolution and don't even know that there are millions of members of every major religion who accept the scientific explanation of the world and reject your extreme interpretation of the Bible. You on the other hand make a list of specific claims that brand you specifically as a young earth creationists espousing the Omphalos hypothesis.Like someone is fond of saying --- if it walks like a duck...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?