What was the #1 MOST SIGNIFICANT DISCOVERY of "creation science" ?

[KWCrazy]

Absolute not! That totally denies the Hebrew concept of a 24 hour day STARTING at sundown and ending with the following sundown!

Frankly, it doesn't make a bit of difference if you consider a day dawn to dawn, dusk to dusk or noon to noon. It's a single rotation of the earth, period. Blustering about nothingness does not make a cogent argument. Again, it's a distinction without a difference.

 

[KWCrazy]

2) Of course most YOM's in the Old Testament deal with a 24 hour day! It is a history book of a PEOPLE, the Children of Israel. So of course the YOMs being discussed are 24 hour days. But in Genesis 1, NO PEOPLE are involved until YOM #6. It is talking about THE HISTORY OF THE EARTH AND EVEN THE UNIVERSE! So we would EXPECT YOM to have a different definition there.

What a complete total misrepresentation of what is stated. In every single instance in the Old Testament, which was, incidentally, from the same God. when Yo is used with a numerical identifier it refers to a single day. Likewise, "in the days of Noah" deals with a time frame and is identifiied as such. Despite the fact that EVERY SINGLE TIME the Bible uses the verbiage a certain way it means the same thing, you are completely ignoring not only the quantifying number, but also the later stated confirmation in Exodus 20:11 that the creation took six days and God rested on the seventh. You are using language uses from outside of the text to distort the clear language from inside the text, and of course you have no supporting Bible verses to buoy your contentions. Your complete distortion of the Scriptures is more closely related to the ramblings of atheists than that of a true Biblical scholar, so you can stow your pontifications because you really aren't impressing anyone. Also, when you are listing actions in a given time frame if there were differences in that time frame any author would indicate such. If there were long eons between the time periods listed, they would not have been listed as days. Moreover, they would not have had the sxame equivolency. The narration does not change with the addition of people to the subject matter. The narration is determined by the verbiage used.

So KW's copy-and-paste verbiage not only defies common sense, it is insulting to readers! By his reasoning, we should throw away all but the FIRST definition for each word in an English dictionary---because the definitions after the first one are in some cases rarely used!

Nice childish tantrum, but it fails to address the salient fact that God very specifically states that in six days He created the world. I will note that you subsequently must deny that the flood was global, because you're acceptance of the Scriptures is limited to its conformity to your true religion; Darwinism. Where God disagrees with Darwinism, you accuse God of lying and distort the Scriptures to conform with your belief.

I feel like I'm tutoring KW in a remedial Bible class. I'm not being paid to tutor and it has become tiresome.

I feel like I'm addressing a false prophet; one that was forewarned about in the Scriptures. If the truth was in your words you would back them with Scriptures and not the doctrine of man or distortions of linguistics. Your arguments are no different from that of atheists. Is there anything in the Scriptures which you do not dispute?

 

[Loudmouth]

You asked for the best evidence. You can't get better than the word of God.

Those are claims, not evidence. If you don't understand the difference between evidence and a claim then science is going to be a tough place for you.

 

[KWCrazy]

Those are claims, not evidence. If you don't understand the difference between evidence and a claim then science is going to be a tough place for you.

I was asked what was the best evidence, and I stated that the best evidence was the word of God. For me, there IS NO better evidence than the word of God. I was not asked for the best PHYSICAL evidence. If you don't understand what that means, perhaps you should return to kindergarten and start your education over.

See, two can play that game.

 

[OllieFranz]

Originally Posted by KWCrazy

[/size]
In a world governed by the laws of science no miracles are possible because by definition miracles violate those laws.​

No. You botched that one majorly. Just because God sets up natural processes to operate within his creation according to various of his "laws" does NOT AT ALL mean that God's miracles some how "violates" his own laws! You need some major remedial Sunday School work on that.

Actually, most miracles do not violate the laws of nature, except for a moment of discontinuity.

When Jesus turned the water into wine, everything, including the water, followed the laws of nature before the miracle, and everything, including the wine followed the laws of nature after the miracle.

On the old TV show Bewitched, everything the camera recorded, including Endora turning Larry Tate into a bird followed the laws of nature. Of course, in that case, the camera was turned off while Larry moved out of the picture, and a bird was brought in, while Jesus actually changed the water into wine and did not need to resort to trickery, but the point is the laws of nature themselves were not violated.

In math/computer terms the laws of nature are algorithms/applets while the objects whose behavior they describe are data. Changing the data does not mean changing the algorithm.

That's why it's so frustrating when Creationists accuse other Christians of atheism (in particular of not believing in God the Creator) just because we accept a different set of data than they do. They believe in only one particular interpretation of Genesis. We see several interpretations, and let the evidence of God's Creation itself tell us which one is the right one.

 

[KWCrazy]

Here we see the traditionalists last resort: Pick a random proof-text totally out of context and apply it to ANYONE WHO DOESN'T AGREE WITH KWCrazy on a particular Bible interpretation. Notice that it usually includes the requisite judgment of damnation and even torture.

I never asked you to agree with me, I asked you to agree with the Scriptures. If you post arguments based in the doctrines of God, I can respect differences in opinion regarding what they mean. If your arguments are based in the doctrines of man and in distortions of what words COULD HAVE meant had they been used in a different context, then I do have a problem with it. If you use distortions of the languages to teach something that is contrary to the clear teaching of the Scriptures, then by definition you are teaching falsely.

KW doesn't care that the CONTEXT is about those who DENY "THE LORD THAT BROUGHT THEM."

A false teacher is a false teacher, whether he distorts 10% of the Scriptures or 100%. In fact. the most successful false prophet, Mohammed, used much of the Old Testament to support his false religion.

I'm a born-again, Bible-believing follower of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Does that sound like someone who is DENYING "the Lord that bought them"?

With which passages do you agree, and with which do you disagree? Clearly you deny the basis for the Forth Commandment. Clearly you deny the Great Flood, which Christ Himself affirmed. Clearly you subborinate the word of God to comform with the doctrine of man. What exactly do you believe?

Like the Pharisees of Jesus' day, the scriptures were merely a blunt weapon to be used whenever a choice verse was handy for the convenient enemy of the moment.

You may recall that Jesus answered them using the Scriptures and proved them wrong. I challenge anyone to do the same. If you want to argue the Scriptures, do so with actual verses, not distortions of what words could have been meant if used differently.

KW dishonors the text by IGNORING the context and using it as his personal weapon

Blatant falsehood. If the Scriptures are a weapon to be used against you, you are represnting the wrong side.

KW would do well to consider that God's people are judged by God, not KW.

A teacher is judged by his words. If your words are false, your teaching is false. If your words contradict the words of God, your words are false.

 

[Loudmouth]

I was asked what was the best evidence,

And in response you listed claims, not evidence.

and I stated that the best evidence was the word of God.

Which is not evidence. Those are claims that are being challenged, and the claims we are asking evidence for.

For me, there IS NO better evidence than the word of God.

It's not evidence. Never has been.

 

[OllieFranz]

I was asked what was the best evidence, and I stated that the best evidence was the word of God. For me, there IS NO better evidence than the word of God. I was not asked for the best PHYSICAL evidence. If you don't understand what that means, perhaps you should return to kindergarten and start your education over.

See, two can play that game.

But the OP did not ask for the "best evidence" of the Creation Week as described by YEC.

It asked for the most significant discovery of "Creation Science" (and although she didn't say it explicitly, I'm sure she meant to include "Scientific Creationism," Intelligent Design," and any other past or future names for it. (Or for "them" if you want to continue the masquerade that they are separate movements.) That presupposes that the answer will be something science can examine, in other words, "PHYSICAL evidence."

 

[AV1611VET]

But the OP did not ask for the "best evidence" of the Creation Week as described by YEC.

It asked for the most significant discovery of "Creation Science" (and although she didn't say it explicitly, I'm sure she meant to include "Scientific Creationism," Intelligent Design," and any other past or future names for it. (Or for "them" if you want to continue the masquerade that they are separate movements.) That presupposes that the answer will be something science can examine, in other words, "PHYSICAL evidence."

There ain't none.

 

[verysincere]

But the OP did not ask for the "best evidence" of the Creation Week as described by YEC.

It asked for the most significant discovery of "Creation Science" .....That presupposes that the answer will be something science can examine, in other words, "PHYSICAL evidence."

Yes, even those Christians who appear to respect "Creation Science" if sufficiently pressed will admit that it is NOT SCIENCE. So they don't expect it to produce any evidence for anything.

But if there is ANY CREATIONIST out there who believes they know of something which represents a DISCOVERY produced by "creation science" or anything of any sort which illustrates the scientific value of it, please bring it to our attention----even if simply in the form of a link to a webpage.