The number one bugger for creationists: C

[Polycarp1]

Duck!

10 blessings to the winner.

Viaduct?

Vhy not a pigeon?

 

[homewardbound]

You know that they are not exclusive (incompatible), do you?

Agreed...I don't know anyone who denies that evolution is true to a degree, and I have no problem believing that there is an evolutionary process that is the product of an Intelligent Designer. I just have trouble believing that the universe is billions of years old and that all life as we know it evolved from single-cell creatures.

 

[homewardbound]

There's a difference between creationism and creation. Creationism requires that you ignore the vast amounts of evidence collected by honest scientists to protect your particular interpretation of the bible. Science has falsified the theory of creationism. Belief in creation requires faith only. Science has nothing to say about God's role in creation.

You make some good points. I certainly don't intend to trivialize the work of honest scientists, but until all the gaps are closed, consider me a contented creationist.

How has science falsified the theory of creationism? If you covered this in a previous post, point me there.

 

[Mistermystery]

You make some good points. I certainly don't intend to trivialize the work of honest scientists, but until all the gaps are closed, consider me a contented creationist.

How has science falsified the theory of creationism? If you covered this in a previous post, point me there.

Science has shown that the Earth is not 6000 years old. That takes care of Yec's. Basic geology, and cosmology are enough to do that. Ice-cores, meteor-craters, various dating techniques, salt levels in the ocean, are a little more in dept, and also negate a young earth.

On the subject of a literal 6 day creation just like the bible says, we've got the problem that the order of things (for instance for whales) is not correct as to what we see. Retroviruses, fossil record, geology, geneology and God knows what else also show us that Creationism is falsified. Note that mos of these falsifications were not done by atheistic-baby-eating-monster, but by Christians who just looked at God's creation.

 

[Polycarp1]

Science has shown that the Earth is not 6000 years old. That takes care of Yec's. Basic geology, and cosmology are enough to do that. Ice-cores, meteor-craters, various dating techniques, salt levels in the ocean, are a little more in dept, and also negate a young earth.

On the subject of a literal 6 day creation just like the bible says, we've got the problem that the order of things (for instance for whales) is not correct as to what we see. Retroviruses, fossil record, geology, geneology and God knows what else also show us that Creationism is falsified. Note that mos of these falsifications were not done by atheistic-baby-eating-monster, but by Christians who just looked at God's creation.

Not quite -- what science has shown is that the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence points to an Earth on which life has existed for better than a billion years, and which is itself about 4.6 billion years old, in a Universe that is somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years old. Epistemologically, you must allow for the "created-old" YEC view -- but what creating in such a way would say about God's character is what rules it out for me. That devious b*st*rd that it paints is not the God whom I know and love.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

You make some good points. I certainly don't intend to trivialize the work of honest scientists, but until all the gaps are closed, consider me a contented creationist.

How has science falsified the theory of creationism? If you covered this in a previous post, point me there.

Hi homewardbound.

From Talk Origins (emphasis mine):


Standard "young-earth" creationism

Creation of separate "kinds" in the order listed in Genesis, in six days, followed by a cataclysmic flood.

The Flood model is completely falsified, since the fossils appear in a different order than can be explained by any conceivable "sorting" model. Note that this is true not just for terrestrial vertebrates, but also for aquatic vertebrates, pollen, coral reefs, rooted trees, and small invertebrates. For example, ichthyosaurs and porpoises are never (not once!) found in the same layers; crabs and trilobites are never found in the same layers; small pterosaurs and equal-sized modern birds and bats are never found in the same layers. In addition, countless geological formations seem to be the result of eons of gradual accumulation of undisturbed sediment, such as multi-layer river channels and deep-sea sediments, and there are no indications of a single worldwide flood. In addition, the Flood Model cannot account for the obvious sorting by subtle anatomical details (easily explained by evolutionary models), or for the phenomenon that lower layers of lava have older radiometric dates. These are only a few of the problems with the Flood Model. See the flood FAQ for further information.

Creation in six "metaphorical" days is also falsified, since the animals appeared in a different order than that listed in Genesis, and over hundreds of millions of years rather than six days.

 

[homewardbound]

Thanks for the reference, Ishmael Borg.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Thanks for the reference, Ishmael Borg.

You're welcome!

 

[Dale]

mhess13 in post #22:
<<
No one is deceiving anyone! You guys are so committed to the evolution LIE that you won't even consider God creating a mature universe.

Listen to yourselves, how is God creating a mature universe any more ridiculous than the "big bang"? >>
*
Christianity has always held that God is pre-existent from eternity, He is from eternity to eternity. Since patience is a moral virtue, God has infinite patience. So, why would God be so impatient as to make it look like a universe was created 15 billion years ago? Wouldn't a God who teaches patience practice what He preaches and simply wait? If God wanted a 15 billion year old universe 15 billion years in the future, wouldn't He be aware of this and act now so that His plans would take place at the right time without deception?
*
Suppose I were to write a religious play, and give the following lines to the Creationist God.
Creationist God: "No, no, I won't wait! I want it, and I want it now, even if I have to lie about it! I'm going to make it look like the universe is billions of years older than it is!"

 

[aeroz19]

1. nyjbarnes
2. homewardbound

So far that's it. Anyone found any others?

 

[challenger]

mhess13 in post #22:
<<
No one is deceiving anyone! You guys are so committed to the evolution LIE that you won't even consider God creating a mature universe.

Listen to yourselves, how is God creating a mature universe any more ridiculous than the "big bang"? >>
*
Christianity has always held that God is pre-existent from eternity, He is from eternity to eternity. Since patience is a moral virtue, God has infinite patience. So, why would God be so impatient as to make it look like a universe was created 15 billion years ago? Wouldn't a God who teaches patience practice what He preaches and simply wait? If God wanted a 15 billion year old universe 15 billion years in the future, wouldn't He be aware of this and act now so that His plans would take place at the right time without deception?
*
Suppose I were to write a religious play, and give the following lines to the Creationist God.
Creationist God: "No, no, I won't wait! I want it, and I want it now, even if I have to lie about it! I'm going to make it look like the universe is billions of years older than it is!"

Well put
<you must spread some rep around before giving it to Dale again>

 

[w81minit]

1. nyjbarnes
2. homewardbound

So far that's it. Anyone found any others?

Gosh, don't put me on that list. I don't want to be. I am closed minded, stubborn, and completely immoveable, unless you can prove me wrong. And it must be a thorough proof with gobs of evidence that superceeds pitiful claims that meander through the obvious.
I would never follow a blind scientist so desperate to get published that he grabbed the tail of an Elephant and proclaimed emphatically that he discovered with 99.99% certainty the true nature of an elephant is that it is short and flexible with a wispy portion at one end.

Instead I would trust the creator of said elephant to describe it perfectly. With poetic language or 2 dimensional vantagepoints - it doesn't matter. What matters is the blind scientist is just as much a creation as the Elephant, and in no position to refute the laws the creator established.

Closed Minded Creationists:
W81minit

Anyone see anyone else?

 

[bluejeans]

Jesus lives!!! Glory to the righteous King!!!!
We'll sing,holy,holy,holy,we'll shout holy,holy,holy are you Lord
Almighty!

 

[Logic]

Jesus lives!!! Glory to the righteous King!!!!
We'll sing,holy,holy,holy,we'll shout holy,holy,holy are you Lord
Almighty!

:crosself:

 

[Jet Black]

1. nyjbarnes
2. homewardbound

So far that's it. Anyone found any others?

pcwilikins. even if he disagrees with evolution, I don't mind, at least he is interested and thinks.

 

[Polycarp1]

Gosh, don't put me on that list. I don't want to be. I am closed minded, stubborn, and completely immoveable, unless you can prove me wrong. And it must be a thorough proof with gobs of evidence that superceeds pitiful claims that meander through the obvious.
I would never follow a blind scientist so desperate to get published that he grabbed the tail of an Elephant and proclaimed emphatically that he discovered with 99.99% certainty the true nature of an elephant is that it is short and flexible with a wispy portion at one end.

Instead I would trust the creator of said elephant to describe it perfectly. With poetic language or 2 dimensional vantagepoints - it doesn't matter. What matters is the blind scientist is just as much a creation as the Elephant, and in no position to refute the laws the creator established.

Closed Minded Creationists:
W81minit

Anyone see anyone else?

Looks like nobody else is gonna say anything nice, so even though I already did, I've gotta again -- I think your perspective is often a bit nutty, but you're someone that's willing to dialogue and consider people's arguments, even if you disagree with them. That counts for something with me.

 

[Mistermystery]

Jesus lives!!! Glory to the righteous King!!!!
We'll sing,holy,holy,holy,we'll shout holy,holy,holy are you Lord
Almighty!

I give this post 2 out of 5 oranges, Needs more obnoxious smilies next time.

 

[homewardbound]

Gosh, don't put me on that list. I don't want to be. I am closed minded, stubborn, and completely immoveable, unless you can prove me wrong. And it must be a thorough proof with gobs of evidence that superceeds pitiful claims that meander through the obvious....

Wow, a small but distinguished list, I see. I do appreciate your frankness, w8!

I find the origin of the universe and the history of the earth fascinating, even if I'm not as astute on the matter as many on this forum. Truth is truth, and when discerning such, I think brother Borg and other evolutionists have a lot of valuable insights. I'm still a creationist at heart, but I'm not going to ignore the other side of the equation just to stay in my comfort zone.

 

[aeroz19]

1. nyjbarnes
2. homewardbound
3. pcwilikins

 

[aeroz19]

Jesus lives!!! Glory to the righteous King!!!!
We'll sing,holy,holy,holy,we'll shout holy,holy,holy are you Lord
Almighty!

\

The very definition of closed mindedness. Plugging up the ears and screaming "I can't hear you."