Taking Questions on the Creation

[AV1611VET]

As I showed in an earlier post, the list from Genesis appears to show the appearance of life forms and items sometimes in the wrong order by a significant amount.

Thatmaturgy, please answer this:

If you could find a way to grow, say, an Oak tree in a laboratory w/o the sun, would you do it?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Blabla. Really Michael, here is what is bothering me. Again it just doesn't answer the question in any way. As all your other posts, it just tries to search for a way to avoid answering it.

Why am I never encountering these scientists? I mean, I could put credence to your story above, but why do none of these scientists work at Answer in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research or the Discovery Institute? And why do I never meet them on the forums where I post? They can remain anonymous there. But all I've ever seen in the last 8 or 9 years I've been participating in this discussion in various forums and in person, is people who when you really get down to it have a number of misconceptions about evolution due to bad research or logical fallacies, usually a combination of both.

Why do I never meet these people? I cannot trust you on the answer, because from what you have posted up to now I see no indication to think you could accurately assess whether these people have a good grasp of the theory of evolution. So why do I never meet them, when I have put in effort to search them out?

Or publishing in Nature or Science?

 

[Tomk80]

Or publishing in Nature or Science?

Well, if Michael's ideas of harrassment are true, they wouldn't be able to do that. I'm entirely willing to give him that, even though I think he is wrong.

But it defies belief that none of those scientists could find a position at AiG, IRC or the DI, or that none would be willing to take up such a position. It defies belief that none of those scientists would show up on forums, if not this one, than at least the creationist forums I've visited in the past.

 

[Tiberius]

So lemme get this straight....

You answer only ONE of the issues I raised and ignore the rest of them.

And the only response you provide isn't any kind of argument or evidence, merely a claim that you just arbitrarily decided to assume something.

You've gotta give me more than that if you want to actually answer my questions. You DO want to answer them, don't you?

Come on AV, don't just ignore things you don't like!

I have asked you why God made the universe in such a way that it appears that it has been around for billions of years longer than it has been, and you did not answer.

I have asked you why God didn't just make the universe billions of years ago and avoid this whole need for the universe to look like it has been here for longer than it has been, and you have not answered.

And what on earth makes Ussher's claim so accurate?

 

[Breckmin]

They all have families Tom. And there are many other organizations other than the ones you listed. Just one of several which is old earth is the ACG.
~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

So why do I never meet them, when I have put in effort to search them out?

If what they believe is tantamount to fiction in your eyes, then I guess, why are you searching them out?

Because they all have families, there is a tendency to stay out of the
lime light so to speak.

I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll look up names with PhD's for you who I don't
know, and pm them to you?

Fair enough?
~Michael

 

[Tomk80]

If what they believe is tantamount to fiction in your eyes, then I guess, why are you searching them out?

Interest.

Because they all have families, there is a tendency to stay out of the lime light so to speak.

Again, as I already mentioned, they don't need to go into the lime light. I post here under an alias, they can do the same.

I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll look up names with PhD's for you who I don't know, and pm them to you?

Fair enough?
~Michael

I saw it. Thanks. I'll stress one thing here again. I don't care about the PhD's. I want them to know the stuff they are criticizing, not a caricature of it.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Thatmaturgy, please answer this:

If you could find a way to grow, say, an Oak tree in a laboratory w/o the sun, would you do it?

What does that have to do with anything?

Answer: Yes, sure. I most assuredly would.

Do we really have to start down the line of yet another religious person's opaque word games?

Why don't you guys just state your point and defend it?

Why must you couch these "mysterious questions" causing everyone to have to try to figure out your strategy two steps down the line?

Why can't you guys just be open and up-front for once in a discussion that involves science?

Who cares if I would want to grow an oak tree without sunlight??? That has absolutely no bearing on the discussion at hand.

-sigh-

 

[Tomk80]

They all have families Tom.

And? Why can scientists with families who understand the theory of evolution and accept it post on forums, as well as creationists who do not understand the theory of evolution, while creationist scientists who actually understand the theory of evolution but don't agree with it are not able to post on anonymous forums?

And there are many other organizations other than the ones you listed. Just one of several which is old earth is the ACG.
~Michael

The ACG, as far as I can gather, is more in the direction of theistic evolution, although individual members may disagree here. They don't make a clear statement on this, although they give some articles supporting the theory of evolution. They supported the original Kansas Science Standards for one thing, while opposing the alternative where the theory of evolution was left out.

 

[agentorange20]

The complexity of the pebble should have been enough to demonstrate
something, BUT the video makes a strawman out of God in the first
place by putting an old man with a beard in the clouds.

The video was intended to define creationists and their stupidity, I will now show one of hovind, since he is your hero. Though lets not forget here, regardless of what god hypothetically looks like the notion of a pebble creating god is equally as absurd as a life creating god or sun creating god. That was the point since you missed it.

[SIZE=-1]www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw80oduQckM[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]

 

[agentorange20]

There is a lot of them. But one, I wouldn't want to you to bother the one's who are in professions.

Fine, don't list them since you can't. All you'd really have to do is, ya know, cite some of their work, you wouldn't have to hand out email addresses.

And, two, many of them are teaching in Christian Colleges and I wouldn't want you to bother them either.

More excuses? Quit with the paranoid dillusions already, I swear. Put up or shut up already, sheeessh.

I just don't believe in name dropping and drawing attention to them here).

Na, you're not name dropping b/c you can't, otherwise you would have gleefully listed them to support your claim.

I'm sorry, but they would not spend the time to engage in futile debate, but they DO fully understand DET.

Back it up, cite it, source it already.

 

[agentorange20]

Because they all have families, there is a tendency to stay out of the
lime light so to speak.

Yeah, and other reputable scientists who do accept evolution and other science which don't conform to typical creationist stuff and do publish in Cell, Science, Nature and other scientifically peer reviewed articles don't have families? Ummmkaaaay pal.

I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll look up names with PhD's for you who I don't know, and pm them to you?

Look up name? I thought you said you knew them, or had knowledge of them immediately....why would you need to research and compile a list of something you said you already have?

NO, put them up here, this is a forum for a reason. We should ALL be able to call you on your BS collectively. You wanting to PM him a list is basically tacitly admitting that much of your list is sub-par at best and composed of a bunch of wannabees and that you're not willing to expose yourself any further.

 

[Caduceus]

Sadly and quite astonishingly there ARE qualified scientists who believe some of these dotty ideas re: creationism and a young earth.

The following British site
http://bcseweb.org.uk/ is dedicated to keeping Creationism out of the British science classroom. It lists those working in science within Britain who hold reputable qualifications from accredited universities who are of the Religious/Creationist/YEC persuasion.
http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/WhoIsWho

One such character, Andy McIntosh, is based at Leeds University in the North of England and in 2006 the university published a disclaimer regarding his 'extra curricular' activities on its website.

However, as BCSE points out while the list looks impressively long it should be remembered that this is a mere fraction of the number of science based Ph.Ds being awarded around the world each year.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thatmaturgy, please answer this:

If you could find a way to grow, say, an Oak tree in a laboratory w/o the sun, would you do it?

Answer: Yes, sure. I most assuredly would.

And I believe God would too. Growing an Oak tree outside is ho-hum; growing an Oak tree w/o the sun is Creation.

 

[Split Rock]

I would like to see a source for point # 7.

As far as points 2,3, and 4. There are a number of people who know just
as much about science (PhD's in multiple areas) who would agree with him. Perhaps it bothers you that they have access the same information
you have and yet "choose" to disagree with you because they are
interpreting data with a different set of assumptions.

Just because they dismiss D.E.T. (Darwinian Evolutionary Theory) does
not make them ignorant, they recognize the role of common ancestry
within genera and the principle of natural selection as a part of creation.
They just do not extrapolate these processes to conclude universal
common ancestry.
~Michael

I was referring only to Kent Hovind, not these other PhD's you refuse to mention by name. Not every creationist with a PhD is as ignorant as Hovind is, and I never claimed they were. Also, see Agentorange20's post (#450) for a classic series of examples of Hovind's ignorance of basic theories in Biology.

 

[Caduceus]

Caduceus, don't make the mistake of using some copyrighted book to glean your Theology from, or you'll end up with the wrong perspective of the universe.

Unfortunately you appear to be doing precisely that.

I want you to notice something closely here, please:Now watch ---See something new in 2:1 that isn't in 1:1?

In 2:1, heaven has an ess on the end of it --- meaning it's plural; but in 1:1, Heaven is singular.

I think you are trying to introduce some ‘red herrings’. This is merely from one translation of the Hebrew (KJV).

Below is the Genesis 1.1. text from a selection of English translations.
New American Standard Bible:
1(A)In the beginning (B)God (C)created the heavens and the earth.
NIV:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth
Amplified Bible:
1IN THE beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned, and) created the heavens and the earth.
New Living Translation:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
New KJV:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The Hebrew literally translates as:

earth and the heavens God he created in-beginning.

The point that needs to be heeded is that these accounts are not literal and certainly not historical. This can be quite clearly seen by the differences in the two texts originally mentioned. Further evidence that these two accounts were written at different periods concerns the name of the deity. In Genesis 1 the work of creation is assigned to Elohim. In Genesis 2 the work is assigned to Yahweh – Elohim. It is normally assumed that ‘Elohim and El Shaddai are survivals from a polytheistic past or from a neighbouring polytheistic culture and that they have been assimilated in Israel’s monotheistic religion to become epithets for YHWH. Thus the argument runs, the Hebrew Bible as we know it was created by merging two separate earlier traditions about God, the J, or Yahwist,” strand (Jahwist in German), and the E or “Elohist,” strand; the Yahwist uses YHWH (Adonai), the Elohist uses Elohim. El means “god,”or “true God,” depending on the context. Elohim is the “intensive plural” form of the word, and both terms appear in the Hebrew Bible, translated simply as “God” when referring to the Israelite deity.

These discrepancies are demonstrated in Genesis 15.7 when God appears to Abram
Then he said to him, ‘I am Yawheh who brought you from Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to possess.

However, in Exodus 6. 2-3 this same God tells Moses that:
'I am the Lord. I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them.

So the writer of Genesis tells us that when God spoke to Abraham he announced himself as Yahweh but in Exodus God tells Moses that Abraham didn’t know him by that title. :

Note what Paul says here ---Notice how Paul is making it very clear that seed is singular, not plural?

Even adding an ess on to a word can lead to the wrong interpretation.

This has nothing to do with my original comment. However, we can plainly see here that Paul is torturing the text of the Septuagint to make it fit his own theories.

Genesis 12. 7. in the Septuagint is:
και ωφθη κυριος τω αβραμ και ειπεν αυτω τω σπερματι σου δωσω την γην ταυτην και ωκοδομησεν εκει αβραμ θυσιαστηριον κυριω τω οφθεντι αυτω.
NB σπερματι = seed or offspring. That Paul then tries to reconcile this with his own ideas regarding the importance of the Christ (whom he claims is the one ‘seed&#8217 is precisely that, namely his own ideas.

 

[AV1611VET]

Below is the Genesis 1.1. text from a selection of English translations.

WOW --- have a good day, Caduceus ---

 

[Naraoia]

You have no idea of the hatred that exists toward creationists in
the fields of geology and paleontology or even genetics. They keep
quite because they don't want to get kicked out of school sometimes.

If DET was truly as sound as you say, then there wouldn't be this
insecurity about debating creationism or hatred of those who believe
in creation. I'm not saying you hate me. There ARE those who do
hate creationists, and they make there opinion very well known.

~Michael

And I would bet a large sum on it that the majority doesn't "hate" creationists or feel "insecure" about debating creationism. Of course the minority that hates the most will be loudest about it.

Besides, if creationism really had any place in science, (a) how could the ToE ever replace it so effectively, (b) why do most scientists laugh at creationism?

 

[Naraoia]

Or publishing in Nature or Science?

While we are at journals, why not in Evolution?

 

[Nathan Poe]

And I believe God would too. Growing an Oak tree outside is ho-hum; growing an Oak tree w/o the sun is Creation.

Why?