Taking Questions on the Creation

[AV1611VET]

Repeating the question asked by Nathan and so sneakily cut out by AV:
So do you now admit that your ideas about the age of the earth are unbiblical?

Non-Biblical --- I have said more than once that I go with what science says about the age of the earth --- since it doesn't contradict the Bible - (because It doesn't document the age of the earth).

 

[AV1611VET]

Thaumaturgy seems really hacked off by AV these days (to be honest, I'm not entirely surprised), but that doesn't mean he's shooting random ad hominems at him. What he says about AV is certainly very relevant to the position AV expresses on this very forum.

I'm entitled to my opinions and, believe me, I get just as upset at you guys as you guys get upset at me.

You see me giving my opinion about science, but you don't know what it's like to come here and see someone give their opinion about Jesus Christ.

By way of example, what I saw Mythunderstood call Jesus recently threw me into a temper tantrum.

In short, I don't blaspheme science like you guys do my Saviour. I may deny science, but I also hold science up to a Higher Standard, and call scientists a gift from God. I don't see the same amount of respect from you guys.

Just the opposite.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Was this meant as name calling?
~Michael

Not as such. I apologize if you were offended.

It is indeed an extremely frustrating thing for a member with, say, one post to their name who comes in confident that they can rock the world with their PRATTs. (A PRATT is a point refuted a thousand times.)

Here, you've criticized our responses to AV completely ignorant if the long history with this poster. n00b emphasizes your misplaced enthusiasm.

 

[Naraoia]

I'm entitled to my opinions and, believe me, I get just as upset at you guys as you guys get upset at me.

Which also doesn't surprise me.

You see me giving my opinion about science, but you don't know what it's like to come here and see someone give their opinion about Jesus Christ.

I usually try to avoid offending people's faith. Let me know if I don't succeed. (Don't expect me to pamper exceedingly stupid ideas just because they are religious, though...)

In short, I don't blaspheme science like you guys do my Saviour.

Is it even possible to "blaspheme" something that isn't sacred? (Yes, I mean science)

I may deny science, but I also hold science up to a Higher Standard, and call scientists a gift from God.

That's where the problem lies. It's doublethink. You may call scientists a gift from God and you may even believe that (I have no reason to think you don't), but at the same time you keep telling science to take a hike.

You don't seem to realise that is inconsistent. If you accept that science can lead to valid conclusions and then say that the same methods don't lead to valid conclusions in some selected cases you are contradicting yourself. (Unless you can point out flaws in the methods as applied to those cases)

And, since you know so little about science, your declaring some decent science Wrong because you don't like the conclusions comes across as blood-boiling arrogance. Not to mention those stupid posts about Pluto, Thalidomide and whatever else you keep bringing up as if they made science somehow bad.

(And I think I'll step out of this discussion while I still have my courtesy fairly intact)

 

[thaumaturgy]

Why is the focus on AV rather than the position that AV holds to.

Breckmin, indeed I am bordering on ad hominem in regards to AV1611VET. But, indeed, if you had followed the mass of his posts over the past year you'll see him claim:

"Science can take a hike"
"Physical evidence can take a hike"
When something disagrees with the KJV it is 'wrong'.

AV1611VET is ignorant of the science he debates against and he will proudly refuse to learn it.

He has set the tone and he gets the response he demands. I am merely following Luke 6:31. He has asked that I treat his "points" in the way he treats mine and others.

He cares not about science but will gladly tell us it can "take a hike". Debate against science requires at least an interest in learning science.

I have learned religion having been religious, so I expect him to learn science in debating science.

You will, if you search my posts over the last couple of years, note that I usually provided huge amounts of information and data on the geologic, chemical and scientific sides. I am a PhD geochemist.

But that isn't important to AV. He cares not one whit.

So I stopped caring to address his "position" until he learns a bit about mine.

I rather hoped his position would be more, shall we say, Christian in that respect (cf Luke 6:31)

This is my first post here in this thread, and I haven't read anything
AV has written, but my question is "How come AV" is the subject

And that is your problem. You are unfamiliar with AV's posting style and you are unfamiliar with the mass of data I've personally provided over the past year+ on this board.

I highly recommend, before you label my posts fully ad hominem that you do your background research.

Can you not change your own position on common descent with
modification? Or do commonalities HAVE TO equal relatedness?

I am an atheist, I don't believe in the supernatural. But I have many friends who are Christians and scientists and many are more "theistic evolutionists". Ergo I am more than comfortable with their points.

AV is usually merely playing word games to allow for a hyperliteral read on the Bible.

I have no "bandwidth" for that approach and I grow tired of his "aggressive ignorance".

Again, I highly recommend you take some time to read up on the background then deposit your "two cents".

Is there no option to examine data and come to conclusions apart
from AV's uses of evidences or lack of uses of scientific interpretations?

Use the SEARCH function at the top of this page and go back over the past couple of years of posts from my to see the science I've presented. I need not do this for you. You will note that when I present a point I endeavor to always provide an external link and reference because for me the most important aspect is that when I make a claim there is some external point of reference that can be assessed by the reader, in the event I have made an error.

Again, do your homework.

No where did I see you quote where AV said he rejected all evidence.

SEARCH "Physical evidence can take a hike" and using the "AV1611VET" user option in the advanced search.

ALSO, note his tagline: "Science can take a hike". It is on every one of his posts.

My only observation was that the post was more about AV, and
not about any alleged evidences for creationism.

Because AV has elevated his "ignorance" of the requisite science to the top of the discussion. It is his "virtue" in this regard. Again, read his posts thoroughly on this forum.

I hope I've made you think a second time.
~Michael

Michael, I guarantee you I have put more thought into my posts on AV and in contrast to AV than you can imagine. It is my obsession and I don't easily resort to the kind of agression in this debate that you see of late. AV has remained aggressively ignorant and proud of his ignorance and his debate style rankles me.

Please do you your homework before you suggest I think a "second time".

(Also: note at the bottom of most of my posts it has a little "editted by Thaumaturgy" note, because I spend a lot of time crafting and re-drafting my responses to folks like AV. A "second thought"? NO, try 3,4, 5,6, 10 additional thoughts in my posts.)

Thanks.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV1611VET is ignorant of the science he debates against and he will proudly refuse to learn it.

What science I debate against, Thaumaturgy? I thought I made it plain here that I do not debate science.

When I take questions on the Creation, which I have clearly stated (and proven) has no science behind it, and people like you jump on here and start shoving science down my throat, I'm not going to take it lightly.

Believe me, you don't want to engage me in a scientific discussion on anything, as all you'll get are, "beats me", blank stares, crickets chirping, and shrugs of the shoulder.

I defy you to find one thread in which I've ever debated science; one radio program, one TV appearance, one Q & A in a lecture hall, one anything.

 

[Freodin]

I'm entitled to my opinions and, believe me, I get just as upset at you guys as you guys get upset at me.

You see me giving my opinion about science, but you don't know what it's like to come here and see someone give their opinion about Jesus Christ.

By way of example, what I saw Mythunderstood call Jesus recently threw me into a temper tantrum.

In short, I don't blaspheme science like you guys do my Saviour. I may deny science, but I also hold science up to a Higher Standard, and call scientists a gift from God. I don't see the same amount of respect from you guys.

Just the opposite.

We all respect Jesus very much... we just hold him to a higher standard than you.

 

[thaumaturgy]

What science I debate against, Thaumaturgy? I thought I made it plain here that I do not debate science.

Dont' be confused, AV, I know it is easy to be so.

When you offer to "answer questions on Creation" and that entails the early history of the earth, you are indeed debating science, EVEN WHEN YOU DESPERATELY WANT IT NOT TO BE SO.

you go so far as to say "science has nothing to do with 'creation'". It ain't so.

What you are offering to do is not offer "answers", just opinions based on your unique interpretation of the information and specifically with the caveat that you will ignore the physical data available to everyone.

Ergo: you are debating science. You just dislike science (presumably because you are incapable of understanding it? I don't know.) So you try to keep science away from the discussion.

May as well debate the merits of Christianity by demanding the Bible not be involved.

When I take questions on the Creation, which I have clearly stated (and proven) has no science behind it,

Oh, you've "proven" this? How? Using your "Unfalsifiability Apple Challenges"?



So mark "logic" up as yet another thing you need to learn along with science.

and people like you jump on here and start shoving science down my throat, I'm not going to take it lightly.

Because you can't!

That's the funniest thing about it! In a discussion of "creation" (earth's early history) you can't handle 50% of the debate!

So you deny it and run away.

take it lightly? YOU CAN'T TAKE IT ALL!

Yet look how the puppy whines when people don't memorize his unique little hyper-legalistic pharisee interpretations of the unique tiny sub-group of Christianity that he belongs to!

Ironic.

Believe me, you don't want to engage me in a scientific discussion on anything, as all you'll get are, "beats me", blank stares, crickets chirping, and shrugs of the shoulder.

Yet you will assume your "interpretation" of the Bible somehow trumps the physical evidence. You tell physical evidence to take a hike.

YET YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE!!!

Why should anyone anywhere care about what you say?

I would even question your grasp of "Christianity" if you treat the rest of reality this way.

But I won't go that far.

I defy you to find one thread in which I've ever debated science; one radio program, one TV appearance, one Q & A in a lecture hall, one anything.

Then don't tell us you are going "answer" questions on "Creation" on the CREVO DEBATE FORUM unless you are up to the challenge of explaining that

YOUR ANSWERS ARE WORTH NEXT TO NOTHING BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO DENY THE VAST MAJORITY OF DATA THAT SPEAKS AGAINST YOUR "ANSWERS".

I will acquiesce that you started off telling us all this was just going to be your "opinion". But then that's all you ever offer.

You entered into a debate with science the very second you dropped the OP here to "answer questions" about creation.

YOU don't get to claim "Creation has nothing to do with science". Unfortunately Science has stepped in and proven that Science does have quite a lot to say about the early earth's history as described in Genesis. And often that history is wrong in Genesis. As I showed in an earlier post.

YOU may no be debating science, but that doesn't mean science can't tell you you are mistaken.

Here, let's try this:

I will make the claim "Jesus likely never existed" And I'm going to demand that absolutely NO INFORMATION FROM THE BIBLE BE ALLOWED because the Bible wasn't written by Jesus ergo has nothing to do with Jesus' reality. I'm just going to stick with the questions around the possible later-added forgeries in Josephus' accounts and the stunning lack of contemporary information pointing to a literal, physical Jesus. Remember, we can't consider the Bible at all. I unilaterally decree the Bible off limits in the discussion.

Will you join me in such a debate? How _reasonable_ is that debate?

Do you see how this works now?

 

[AV1611VET]

When you offer to "answer questions on Creation" and that entails the early history of the earth, you are indeed debating science, EVEN WHEN YOU DESPERATELY WANT IT NOT TO BE SO.

Baloney --- what "early history of the earth" are you talking about?

Let me remind you --- Embedded Age = maturity without history.

QV please.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Baloney --- what "early history of the earth" are you talking about?

Let me remind you --- Embedded Age = maturity without history.

QV please.

Do you never read anyone's posts? Honestly, I don't know why people like myself even bother to talk to you?

Do you get the whole "unfalsifiability" criterion thing?

Did you see it in my post?

Your whole "only god can embed age" claim is ridiculous ad hockery of the worst kind!

HOW DO YOU KNOW only God can "embed age"?

I know! Because it helps you control the debate by removing critical issues you can't understand or handle from the discussion.

Let's modify my claim from the previous post:

I will claim there was never even the concept of Jesus. I want to remove from the table All REFERENCES that mention Jesus' name; the Bible, Josephus, all Church documents, all writings by Christians.

Now, do you think this will be a reasonable argument?

Because that is a precise analogue to what you want this discussion to be.

I just want to spout off and I don't want to deal with any facts that might get in my way so I unilaterally remove points of discussion.

Sorry, but you can't do that.

Who cares what you think about what God can or can't do or what can "only be done by God" as you decree?

So far you've convinced me that I should never believe a thing you claim because you've told me that science and physical evidence can both, in your opinion, take a hike.

Therefore I have no reason whatsoever to assume anything you claim is anything more than you personal gut feeling/wish.

Ergo, by your own words, for me, you have eliminated any value from your claims going forward on anything. If you wish to communicate a point to me, you will have to meet me half-way and acquiesce that maybe I'm not just typing random letters here.

Do you understand my point yet? Do you?

(PROPHECY: You see, AV, I'm a prophet. I prophecy this will all go whizzing over your head and you won't even get the major points, let alone the details. Prove me wrong.)

 

[AV1611VET]

HOW DO YOU KNOW only God can "embed age"?

Because it was an act of omnipotence.

Again --- QV please.

Who cares what you think about what God can or can't do or what can "only be done by God" as you decree?

I do --- this is my thread --- and my opinions.

And as I have said before, when science can do this ---

And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

--- then, and only then, will I start to wonder just how close science can get to God.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Because it was an act of omnipotence.

Behold the prophecy of Thaumaturgy is proven TRUE!

AV, you don't get it. You simply don't get it. I am kind of shocked for someone of your stated intelligence. You don't get it. I am shaking my head in disbelief.

Let's try this again:

"How do you know it is an 'act of omnipotence'?"

Can you show me an "act of omnipotence" such that we can test it somehow?

You keep making more claims with no evidence and not even a hint that you care about evidence for your claim.

EVEN the old Church fathers cared about "logic". You don't seem to even give a hang about that.

Again --- QV please.I do --- this is my thread --- and my opinions.

Are you a child? Are you like some 3rd grader who got on the Intarnets during recess? It is no more your "thread" than it is MY internet.

That's kind of why we all have access to it. It is a FORUM.

Now I know you don't understand big words or even smaller words often. But do please, ask teacher to look up "Forum" for you. Then look to see it says "Forum" at the top of this page!

And as I have said before, when science can do this ------ then, and only then, will I start to wonder just how close science can get to God.

Oh well, you want to discuss that event? Let's do it "AV-Style" (Remember Luke 6:31)

I will discuss this event so long as we mutually agree the Bible is not to be brought up in any way in relation to this event.

That's exactly what you are doing in this discussion.

Now let me answer the big question (which will just be my opinion) on this event with the flaming chariots:

"It never happened"

How do I know? Because I see no evidence that it was ever recorded anywhere! And of course that's just my opinion. But it is my answer to the question of whether it was real or not.

You see, the Bible isn't part of this discussion because I said so. How do I know this is correct? Because I said so.

Please, don't make yourself look purposefully obtuse. If you don't understand the point, then please, ask teacher or the minister to explain it to you.

In the meantime, remember there are OTHER PEOPLE on the big internets!

Don't be confused. This isn't YOUR thread .

PROPHECY #2 (Going for 100% fulfillment):

"AV will now post a '/thread' post!"

(Prophecy Concordance and Explanation: Anytime AV gets overwhelmed and feels he's no longer in charge of things he posts "/thread" and moves on in hopes of dominating something somewhere. Unfortunately he tends to post in a "religion and science discussion forum)

 

[Breckmin]

Not as such. I apologize if you were offended.

It is indeed an extremely frustrating thing for a member with, say, one post to their name who comes in confident that they can rock the world with their PRATTs. (A PRATT is a point refuted a thousand times.)

Here, you've criticized our responses to AV completely ignorant if the long history with this poster. n00b emphasizes your misplaced enthusiasm.

I don't get offended at name calling anyway. I usually have fun with
it and explain that it is nothing more than the product of being lazy
due to frustration. "A lazy mind trying to express itself." I understand
you were not trying to do that, so I hope you will understand that
I am not saying you have a lazy mind...in calling me n00b.

I had no enthusiasm posting in so called "defense" of AV. I just find
what is being said about him and "his position" difficult to believe since
there is so much evidence which can be "interpreted" to support the
Genesis account, that he would deny these scientific evidences as
well. I would think "on topic" would be positive data which supports
either some creation model or the Darwinian construct, and not what
one individual is doing or believes.

~Michael

 

[Bombila]

I don't get offended at name calling anyway. I usually have fun with
it and explain that it is nothing more than the product of being lazy
due to frustration. "A lazy mind trying to express itself." I understand
you were not trying to do that, so I hope you will understand that
I am not saying you have a lazy mind...in calling me n00b.

I had no enthusiasm posting in so called "defense" of AV. I just find
what is being said about him and "his position" difficult to believe since
there is so much evidence which can be "interpreted" to support the
Genesis account, that he would deny these scientific evidences as
well. I would think "on topic" would be positive data which supports
either some creation model or the Darwinian construct, and not what
one individual is doing or believes.

~Michael

We have only a very tiny 'stable' of creationists who post here, and they are mostly remarkable for each having an entirely different set of theories stemming from their belief in a literal Genesis. Almost all of them have given up any pretense that there is any evidence outside Biblical inerrancy that supports the Genesis account, because, as has been pointed out, all of those so-called evidences are PRATTs.

If you have something new, by all means present it, but you might want to take a look at AIG's page of 'what arguments not to use' beforehand.

 

[Breckmin]

We have only a very tiny 'stable' of creationists who post here, and they are mostly remarkable for each having an entirely different set of theories stemming from their belief in a literal Genesis. Almost all of them have given up any pretense that there is any evidence outside Biblical inerrancy that supports the Genesis account, because, as has been pointed out, all of those so-called evidences are PRATTs.

If you have something new, by all means present it, but you might want to take a look at AIG's page of 'what arguments not to use' beforehand.

The infrastructure for creationism are still in their beginning stages just
as a Darwinian interpretation of science was in the late 19th Century.

I don't know when this will change, but there are all kinds of theories
involving mtDNA halogroup lineages or geometric reversal or Lorentz
force and Maxwell equations which remain unpublished. I don't intend
to publish them here.

That fact remains that there ARE alleged evidences for creation.

When someone thinks they have debunked them, often they missed,
due to a lack of knowledge about creationism, the other explanations
which makes the theory still viable.

There is no contradiction between true science and the Torah, and
conventional interpretations do not have a monopoly science itself.

In the fields of micro biology and genetics we see the clear need
for a Creator as a result of current positive data. You can start
with the schematic complex information present in RNA and DNA
which is a blue print for biological existence. You can look at
the "quote unquote" negative data involving abiogenesis and
see clearly that we can not reconstruct a living cell or recreate
life in any way. This is often a starting point for those who
come out of the deception of common decent with modification
as theory for an origin for all species.

(semantics IOW)
Evolution is just speciation and mutation... Common ancestry,
speciation, and natural selection are all part of the creative
processes that God used to make variety which are falsely
taken and induced to be an origin for all species.

~Michael

 

[agentorange20]

Evolution is just speciation and mutation... Common ancestry,
speciation, and natural selection are all part of the creative
processes that God used to make variety which are falsely
taken and induced to be an origin for all species.

Hmmmm, so you accept the notions of common ancestry and evolution for all species (us humans included) then, or not?

2nd question, what are your views on human chromosome 2 fusion and ERV's?

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution is just speciation and mutation... Common ancestry,
speciation, and natural selection are all part of the creative
processes that God used to make variety which are falsely
taken and induced to be an origin for all species.

Death is a very integral part of evolution --- and God calls death His "enemy."

The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

 

[paug]

The ERV thing has been asked before, too. Still haven't heard a viable, feasible, credible explanation as to how it's to be explained. Evolution explains it rather nicely.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Death is a very integral part of evolution --- and God calls death His "enemy."

That was Paul's letter to the church in Corinth -- not God's.

 

[pgp_protector]

That was Paul's letter to the church in Corinth -- not God's.

Yes but according to some, God "grabbed" Paul's hand and directed him what to write word for word. dot for dot, tittle for tittle.