Which creation do creationists want us to believe took place?

[Morcova]

Yes, believe first. Then it will start to make sense. This is the scientific method according to God. No kidding.

Sounds like good old fashioned ignorance to me.

 

[Morcova]

I wouldn't talk --- from as many challenges as I issue that you guys run from, you'd thing CF was a marathon.

What you mean those threads that you post ,"/finished" then leave the thread for good?

 

[MoonLancer]

I could not disagree more --- God created science.

I have heard this said by others as well, but when i asked them questions about this, They fell silent. Show me evidence that god created science.

 

[MoonLancer]

What you mean those threads that you post ,"/finished" then leave the thread for good?

You /thread av and you say WE run away? from your perspective it may seem that way, but why it is it you that is winded and doubled over?

 

[Athrond]

hmmm.
If God created science, and "gifted us scientists", how does that NOT violate the free will of the people that came up with the scientific method or the "gifted scientists"?

Or is it more like: God created us, and therefore science?

 

[tanzanos]

Where have all the creationists gone to? Is AV the only one left to defend the throne? We need real creationists; like the creation museum guys and not DAD or AV. who offer us many hours of pleasing albeit frustrating debate.

Come on you fundies. Stop cowering in your superstitious dens and give us a run for our money

 

[AV1611VET]

Come on you fundies. Stop cowering in your superstitious dens and give us a run for our money

You guys run enough --- in circles --- and we can't catch up with you.

I have a whole list of challenges archived and still waiting to be answered.

 

[Athrond]

Your abilities as a riddler is no argument for anything AV. They are cool "thought starters" though.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I would conjecture that maybe 10% [or less] of science disagrees with the Bible.

The thing is though, that 10% is being discussed heavily on this site, and it makes us (or me, anyway) look like I'm against all science --- and nothing could be further from the truth.

10%? 10%? you mean the entire geologic column, fossil record, geologic features you consider to be the result of the flood, biogeography, genetics, any meaningful biological discovery of the last century, photosynthesis, earth's rotation as the explanation for diurnal cycles, the solar system, inertial effects of the sun standing still in the sky, the chemistry of water and ethanol, hydrogen bonding and its effects on surface tension, observed star formation, the luminary properties of the moon. thats not 10%! most of the bible disagrees with science on one score or another, certainly any time it tries to make a claim about nature.

I hold science to a Higher Standard --- and God gifts us scientists.

higher standard = accordance with the bible.
science has a simple standard = evidence, which the bible cannot meet.

 

[Split Rock]

You guys run enough --- in circles --- and we can't catch up with you.

LOL!! Do you mean like saying "The Bible is God's Word, becasue the Bible says it is God's Word, therefore the Bible is God's Word, because the Bible says it is God's Word, therefore......."

Or how about "Science is God's gift to mankind, and Science can take a hike?"

I have a whole list of challenges archived and still waiting to be answered.

You mean you don't like the answers we gave you..

Just for you, AVET:
/thread.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

First of all, I've already answered your silicate question by stating that God could have (and probably did) filter out the silicates.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

• William of Ockham --- God must have filtered out the silicates.

Actually, that's not the simplest form: NO GOD is the simplest. Test failed.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

AV, accepting the results of reproducible experimentations & observations constitutes faith in such a limited way that it really cannot be seriously considered the same concept as religious faith. if enough quality papers appear in the literature about the same finding then at what point do we just consider it true unless there is some really good reason not to. you arent taking someone else's word for it. it is silly to regard everything not viewed by your personal eyes to be faith. if i require a standard of evidence and reproducibility then its resemblence to anything like faith is severely diminished. dont pretend we are all in the same boat. we have evidence and you have a book of disputed origin.

 

[AV1611VET]

we have evidence and you have a book of disputed origin.

What I have, Jack, is a Book written by eyewitnesses, and they say that the things contained therein were established by "many infallible proofs".

What you have, Jack, is a system that, today, cannot even verify that the Spanish Armada was defeated by England in 1588 - (it wasn't, btw), and if we still had General Apologetics today, I would start a thread called MY SPANISH ARMADA CHALLENGE:

• Prove scientifically that the English defeated the Spanish Armada in 1588.

Lucky for you guys, GA is no longer with us; as I would have used you guys' own philosophy against you when you tried to answer.

Example:

• Answer: We have documentation that verifies Armada's defeat in 1588.
• My reply: Show me said documentation wasn't written after-the-fact.

[I just might see if I can get that challenge in somewhere else. I'd love to see if you guys can take your own medicine.]

 

[Split Rock]

What I have, Jack, is a Book written by eyewitnesses, and they say that the things contained therein were established by "many infallible proofs".

What you have, Jack, is a system that, today, cannot even verify that the Spanish Armada was defeated by England in 1588 - (it wasn't, btw), and if we still had General Apologetics today, I would start a thread called MY SPANISH ARMADA CHALLENGE:

• Prove scientifically that the English defeated the Spanish Armada in 1588.

Lucky for you guys, GA is no longer with us; as I would have used you guys' own philosophy against you when you tried to answer.

Example:

• Answer: We have documentation that verifies Armada's defeat in 1588.
• My reply: Show me said documentation wasn't written after-the-fact.

[I just might see if I can get that challenge in somewhere else. I'd love to see if you guys can take your own medicine.]

You are confusing "after the fact" with "decades later." You are also confusing "after the fact" with "written by people who did not witness any of it."

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

What I have, Jack, is a Book written by eyewitnesses, and they say that the things contained therein were established by "many infallible proofs".

What you have, Jack, is a system that, today, cannot even verify that the Spanish Armada was defeated by England in 1588 - (it wasn't, btw), and if we still had General Apologetics today, I would start a thread called MY SPANISH ARMADA CHALLENGE:

• Prove scientifically that the English defeated the Spanish Armada in 1588.

Lucky for you guys, GA is no longer with us; as I would have used you guys' own philosophy against you when you tried to answer.

Example:

• Answer: We have documentation that verifies Armada's defeat in 1588.
• My reply: Show me said documentation wasn't written after-the-fact.

[I just might see if I can get that challenge in somewhere else. I'd love to see if you guys can take your own medicine.]

i believe i answered that by saying there are multiple official documentations of such an event, which include things like dates. journals and diaries can also verify the dates and events. all of these documents can be subject to carbon dating techniques to verify that they come from that time period.

 

[thaumaturgy]

i believe i answered that by saying there are multiple official documentations of such an event, which include things like dates. journals and diaries can also verify the dates and events. all of these documents can be subject to carbon dating techniques to verify that they come from that time period.

Jack, AV is veering off into a tried-but-true methodology. It is the "all or nothing" gambit predicated on the very real epistemological issue around "how do we know anything?"

This is the ultimate end-game of real, true empiricism. Hume stood on the verge of this and really it is very hard to comprehend the vastness of this philosophical abyss.

AV and Dad have very valid points in that we really don't "know" the past and we really can't say we "know" anything when viewed from a strictly empirical standpoint. No matter how many times you flick the switch and the light comes on, it could just be random chance that you repeatedly happen to flick the switch and it just happened to coincide with the light coming on. You can't "prove" it was the switch.

Now this is, admittedly, an absurdity that cannot be dealt with on a regular human type scale. It's a game of statistics and probabilities.

But, here's where folks like AV and Dad fall down on the job; they wish to "deconstruct" science to the point that we question everything down to the point where we can feel like all ignorance is equivalent to any claims of knowledge.

The only problem for them is; "why would we believe their claims to any knowledge about the Bible are true?"

It is a double-edged sword. But folks like AV and Dad simply don't understand that the next step in their "slicing and dicing science" is that the blade comes back around to slice and dice their point with equal ease.

If the goal is the "scorched earth policy" that all "knowledge" is equally invalid, then Creationists and their fellow-travellers are Sherman's Army on their march to the sea of oblivion, except they are scorching their own earth with equal aplomb.

 

[atomweaver]

SPANISH ARMADA CHALLENGE:

• Prove scientifically that the English defeated the Spanish Armada in 1588.

Lucky for you guys, GA is no longer with us; as I would have used you guys' own philosophy against you when you tried to answer.

Example:

• Answer: We have documentation that verifies Armada's defeat in 1588.
• My reply: Show me said documentation wasn't written after-the-fact.

Curious, does the fact that some things are written after-the-fact in your view somehow automatically invalidate them? Would you apply such a line of reasoning to your favorite book? Frex, were Genesis 1 and 2 written before, during, or after-the-fact?

 

[Split Rock]

Jack, AV is veering off into a tried-but-true methodology. It is the "all or nothing" gambit predicated on the very real epistemological issue around "how do we know anything?"

This is the ultimate end-game of real, true empiricism. Hume stood on the verge of this and really it is very hard to comprehend the vastness of this philosophical abyss.

AV and Dad have very valid points in that we really don't "know" the past and we really can't say we "know" anything when viewed from a strictly empirical standpoint. No matter how many times you flick the switch and the light comes on, it could just be random chance that you repeatedly happen to flick the switch and it just happened to coincide with the light coming on. You can't "prove" it was the switch.

Now this is, admittedly, an absurdity that cannot be dealt with on a regular human type scale. It's a game of statistics and probabilities.

But, here's where folks like AV and Dad fall down on the job; they wish to "deconstruct" science to the point that we question everything down to the point where we can feel like all ignorance is equivalent to any claims of knowledge.

The only problem for them is; "why would we believe their claims to any knowledge about the Bible are true?"

It is a double-edged sword. But folks like AV and Dad simply don't understand that the next step in their "slicing and dicing science" is that the blade comes back around to slice and dice their point with equal ease.

If the goal is the "scorched earth policy" that all "knowledge" is equally invalid, then Creationists and their fellow-travellers are Sherman's Army on their march to the sea of oblivion, except they are scorching their own earth with equal aplomb.

AVET's job here is to show that if all knowledge is equally invalide, then all knowledge is also equally valide. This is his goal. Parity. He will sacrifice the purity of his faith in Jesus as his savior, as well as all of science in his quest for parity.

 

[juvenissun]

You serious?...That God, what a kidder. Hey, do all religions work on this principle, or just Christianity?

I am not sure if is it just Christianity because I do not know enough on other religions, except the Buddhism. For Buddhism, it is not.

That is why it is pretty hard to attack Buddhism from humanistic point of view.