Once again, CREATIONISTS!

[Allister]

All you have to do is humor me. Just pretend I did it. It's nothing more than a hypothetical. Don't worry about testing it; just tell me what evidence you would use to convince your friend I did this.

There is no evidence that I could use to convince a friend that this apple was created ex nihilo.

What on earth [pardon the pun] is a "sign of embedded age?" Age is age; and embedded age, as I have defined it here, is maturity without history.

Let me rephrase it.

The universe, however, when created by God, which, I assume, wasn't a copy, should not have any sign of age, history, or whatever, if it was created ex nihilo.

In Genesis 1, the universe either contained history or embedded age, not both. It's one or the other.

Again, let me rephrase...

If the universe does contain signs of age and history, which it clearly does, we must ask why.

Originally Posted by Allister
The only answer i can think of is that God wished to show age therefore deceiving us.

I totally disagree.

why?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Event A = creatio ex nihilo = no evidence.
Event B = creatio ex nihilo = no evidence.

What don't you understand?

If I read your post right, you're saying I'm saying it this way:

Event A = creatio ex nihilo = no evidence.
Event B = no evidence - therefore = creatio ex nihilo.

Correct me please if I'm wrong.

Are you not?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you not?

What???

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

And I ask for evidence outside evolutionist circles and get none.

What do you mean by evolutionist circles? Since all of science accepts the overwhelming evidence for an ancient earth, against a global flood and for evolution is it going to be pretty difficult to get you scientific evidence that does not come from what you might consider evolutionist circles. However, we can and do provide you lots evidence that is valid and not directly false or grossly misinterpreted like the nonsense on YEC sites. If you would like some evidence for an ancient earth and local flood provided by creationists go to Answers in Creation.

And numbers do not count. In pagan Rome the majority of people living were pagans. That did not make Christians turn from Christianity. The lions didn't even change their minds, it would seem. So were the pagans right because that is what their society expected? It would appear not.

What are you going on about? Science turned from a young earth, global flood and special creation because of evidence not because of numbers.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since all of science accepts the overwhelming evidence for ... evolution ...

Au contraire --- from here:

When asked to name a “real modern scientist” who believes in creation, we might start with Henry Morris. Of course, evolutionists will immediately object, claiming he isn’t a real scientist. Why? Because he believes in creation. From an evolutionist’s point of view, anyone who believes in creation can’t be a real scientist. Therefore, scientists like Henry Morris, John Morris, Larry Vardiman, Steve Austin, and Duane Gish can be discounted immediately because they work for the Institute for Creation Research. Likewise, evolutionists won’t acknowledge Michael Behe, Andrew Snelling, Donald deYoung, and Kurt Wise, regardless of their academic credentials, because their creationist leanings are well-known.

 

[FishFace]

The OP asked for evidence outside of scripture and PRATTS. No such evidence exists. Most creationists won't acknowledge that but AV uses his version of the Omphalos Hypothesis to try to explain why there is no evidence.

What does this have to do with the OP?

I think it's fair enough to assume the OP wanted to see whether you could give any reason for believing creationism. If there's no evidence then you might still have a reason.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think it's fair enough to assume the OP wanted to see whether you could give any reason for believing creationism.

​

 

[Contracelsus]

Au contraire --- from here:

When asked to name a “real modern scientist” who believes in creation, we might start with Henry Morris.

I get all of my biology information from Hydraulic Engineers.

Maybe he shoulda just stuck with the global flood stuff.

Of course, evolutionists will immediately object, claiming he isn’t a real scientist. Why? Because he believes in creation.

So if a scientist holds distinctly non scientific views (like Morris's belief that "that the craters of the moon were caused by a cosmic battle between the forces of Satan and the armies of the archangel Michael."

-least that what this article sez:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Morris)

Then are we allowed to tell him he isn't acting like a scientist (since he has no data to support that pretty funny guess)?

I mean you gotta give it to him. That is pretty funny.

 

[Loudmouth]

deleted

 

[Contracelsus]

​

Why do you believe that picture?

 

[Loudmouth]

​

The map is not the territory.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Au contraire --- from here:

When asked to name a “real modern scientist” who believes in creation, we might start with Henry Morris. Of course, evolutionists will immediately object, claiming he isn’t a real scientist. Why? Because he believes in creation. From an evolutionist’s point of view, anyone who believes in creation can’t be a real scientist.

Or maybe because he was a hydraulic engineer who stopped doing anything even resembling science when he became a professional creationst, or maybe because his claims that the fossil record was the result of hydrodynamic sorting is total nonsense or maybe because he wrote

"The only way we can determine the true age of the earth is for God to tell us what it is. And since he has told us, very plainly, in the Holy Scriptures that it is several thousand years of age, and no more, that ought to settle all basic questions of terrestrial chronology." (The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, p. 94) "
which is about as far from a scientific attitude as one could get. Of course the fact that he theorized that the craters on the moon are the result of a battle between Satan and the Angels which is also a very non scientific hypothesis might have something to do with it.

Therefore, scientists like Henry Morris, John Morris, Larry Vardiman, Steve Austin, and Duane Gish can be discounted immediately because they work for the Institute for Creation Research.

I have read papers by all of these people. Austin (aka Stewart Nevins who was writing YEC literature before Austin claims to have been converted to castrophisim) has written some papers that are actual science when he stays away from YEC but his flood geology papers are total nonsense. You can find my critique of Snelling and Austin's claims about the Coconino Sandstones HERE. There is also a demolition of his Grand Canyon dating nonsense HERE.
Duane (bullfrog protein) Gish left science for debating long ago. (BTW I personally know someone who kicked his butt in a debate.)

Likewise, evolutionists won’t acknowledge Michael Behe,

Behe's work on histones is fine and interesting. I used to work on histones long ago. His claims on irreduceble complexity have been demolished which is not the same as not acknowledged.

Andrew Snelling,

Which Andrew Snelling? The one who wrote the nonsense on the Coconnino Sandstones or the one who has published old earth data. They are same person but it is hard to tell who the Real Andrew Snelling is.

Donald deYoung,

Tim Thompson demolishes deYoung's nonsense about the recession of the moon HERE.

and Kurt Wise,

I used to respect Kurt Wise as he admits that there is no evidence for a young Earth but then I heard a webcast where he grossly distorted the results of Coe and Prevet on magnetic data from Steen's Mountain. I later found a write up on it HERE.

regardless of their academic credentials, because their creationist leanings are well-known.

Their nonsense is rejected because it is nonsense and not because of what they believe as I hope I have shown above.

 

[AV1611VET]

Their nonsense is rejected because it is nonsense and not because of what they believe as i hope I have shown above.

As long as you know there are scientists out there who reject evolution...

I just didn't want you to get the impression that "all of science accepts the overwhelming evidence for evolution."

 

[AV1611VET]

I get all of my biology information from Hydraulic Engineers.

Do you consider Hydraulic Engineers within the scope of "all of science?"

Then are we allowed to tell him he isn't acting like a scientist (since he has no data to support that pretty funny guess)?

Go right ahead --- he may just think you're not acting like a Christian, either.

 

[Loudmouth]

As long as you know there are scientists out there who reject evolution...

There are scientists who reject heliocentrism. Crackpots are crackpots, and it appears you consider them your peers.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you believe that picture?

Notice God's name on it?

[bible]Isaiah 57:15[/bible]

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you consider Hydraulic Engineers within the scope of "all of science?"

Personally, no I don't. Engineers are engineers. I'm not trying to denigrate the work of engineers, but that's the way I view it. Engineers apply what is already known. Scientists discover new knowledge.

 

[Contracelsus]

Do you consider Hydraulic Engineers within the scope of "all of science?"

After what a band of maurading Hydraulic Engineers did to my family, I'd say no. Torture is to good for 'em!

I still can't look at Darcy's Law and not feel my blood boil in anger.

Go right ahead --- he may just think you're not acting like a Christian, either.

Well, if he's anything like the Hydraulic Engineers who mugged my family in an orgy of thrill kill mania when I was a child, then I simply can't act like a Christian around him.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are scientists who reject heliocentrism. Crackpots are crackpots, and it appears you consider them your peers.

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

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

As long as you know there are scientists out there who reject evolution...

I just didn't want you to get the impression that "all of science accepts the overwhelming evidence for evolution."

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.