Which parts?

[lucaspa]

Type "Creation Science Research Assoc" to a search & you will see that modern science disproves the above assertions of atheists & liberal theoogians

Since none of the posters here are atheists, that kind of blows that part of your claim from the top. But if you have specific parts of Creation Science that you want discussed we can do that.

See the details of 23 top PhD creationists' "Grand Canyon: Different View" - causing panicky evolutionists into desparate, futile attempts to hide their own folly

LOL! Instead, I see at ICR that the most recent articles on the Grand Canyon are actually accepting the standard geological discoveries of lava dams as part of the formation of the Grand Canyon! In older creationist literature, the GC was supposed to have been formed as the flood waters receded. Now the GC is supposed to have been formed after the that!

I wonder just who is desperate and panicky?

My poem, "All The Wonders Of The Universe" - posted here @ a week ago - may also prove helpful

We dealt with that. Have you addressed our comments on it? I don't think so.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

1. Giants. The data says these did not exist. If they really existed, God would have left evidence in His Creation.

so you also demand proof in hand of everything the bible says.. except the bare minimum to call yourself a Christian. I see no evidence you've presented for your faith, mine is the infallibility of the bible, something you can't disprove because proof requires us to have been there or be able to re-create it exactly. It's faith, i know, but that you deny your own faith in the bible as continually fallible is as pathetic as an Atheist saying the bible is in error because it says the world is a circle *although the word to describe a sphere in the OT language was also circle*



This is very disturbing, and the fact that you try to brow beat others into agreeing with you doubly so.


You have faith in the bible being wrong, you deny what you do not know for sure one way or another on the basis of that faith;

 

[Bushido216]

So instead of presenting refuting evidence you attack our faith? Nice, real nice. Classy even.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

So instead of presenting refuting evidence you attack our faith? Nice, real nice. Classy even.

Your faith is that whenever some guy with a PHD says "i have no evidenced of it" you dismiss it from the bible as 'not literal' ?



It's a disturbing faith my friend, foolish and filled with human wisdom.

 

[wblastyn]

[/font]
so you also demand proof in hand of everything the bible says.. except the bare minimum to call yourself a Christian. I see no evidence you've presented for your faith, mine is the infallibility of the bible, something you can't disprove because proof requires us to have been there or be able to re-create it exactly. It's faith, i know, but that you deny your own faith in the bible as continually fallible is as pathetic as an Atheist saying the bible is in error because it says the world is a circle *although the word to describe a sphere in the OT language was also circle*

Once more logic seems to escape you. Any time the Bible makes a statement that can be falsified it falls under the realm of science, otherwise it is theology and we believe it due to faith.

Btw, there is a word for ball in Hebrew, that would have been better than "circle" (which is flat).

 

[Didaskomenos]

[/font]
so you also demand proof in hand of everything the bible says.. except the bare minimum to call yourself a Christian. I see no evidence you've presented for your faith, mine is the infallibility of the bible, something you can't disprove because proof requires us to have been there or be able to re-create it exactly. It's faith, i know, but that you deny your own faith in the bible as continually fallible is as pathetic as an Atheist saying the bible is in error because it says the world is a circle *although the word to describe a sphere in the OT language was also circle*

You have faith in the bible being wrong, you deny what you do not know for sure one way or another on the basis of that faith;

If the Bible is a scientifically, historically, and in every other way factual documentary and is as such the unshakable basis for all faith, what kind of faith is it? Is it faith to trust that it will not rain while there are no clouds in the sky? Does it take faith to trust something that is already proven?

I encountered God through Jesus because of the Scriptures. Please understand that I truly and dearly love the Bible: it is the record of mankind's encounters with my God throughout the history of the Jewish people. I trust God to guide me using the testimony of the saints, just as those fallible saints trusted God. They didn't have the Bible, so it was harder for them - but for us understanding the truths of God still requires faith and attentiveness to his voice! It must seem a lot scarier to hold God's invisible hand as he guides us through life, often using the words left by other men who also grappled with finding God in the darkness of our world. But that's faith. How could it be said to be inferior to yours?

 

[MagusAlbertus]

Please understand that I truly and dearly love the Bible: it is the record of mankind's encounters with my God throughout the history of the Jewish people.

I don't dearly love the bible, i just believe what it has to say. You can't get anything but worldly worship without trying to better come to the mind of Christ.. something you can not do without a rock of truth based on the fact of Jesus’ life and times, which are predicated on the infallibility of the old testament.

Any time the Bible makes a statement that can be falsified it falls under the realm of science, otherwise it is theology and we believe it due to faith.

You can't falsify anything with science unless you test it, it would require the re-creation of creation to falsify gen 1 & 2.



you can't falsify anything with science unless you can prove it false, you can't prove that the flood didn't occur just because you don't understand how it could have happened.


the waters you present are muddy and spiritualy unsound, they are not a rock but shifting sands.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Magus - I see you have moved to creationist stage three:

The stages are:

1) Present PRATTs
2) Argue PRATTs until it's obvious to everyone you've been soundly thrashed on the science
3) Attack the faith of your fellow Christians who disagree with you.

Stage 4, of course, is to imply that their souls are in mortal peril. Some have already moved onto that stage.

 

[wblastyn]

What does PRATT stand for? Previously refuted arguments something something? :o

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Point Refuted A Thousand Times

 

[wblastyn]

Point Refuted A Thousand Times

Ah I see, thanks.

 

[aziel92]

Since none of the posters here are atheists, that kind of blows that part of your claim from the top. But if you have specific parts of Creation Science that you want discussed we can do that.

LOL! Instead, I see at ICR that the most recent articles on the Grand Canyon are actually accepting the standard geological discoveries of lava dams as part of the formation of the Grand Canyon! In older creationist literature, the GC was supposed to have been formed as the flood waters receded. Now the GC is supposed to have been formed after the that!

I wonder just who is desperate and panicky?

We dealt with that. Have you addressed our comments on it? I don't think so.

Wasn't the original point that ICR was trying to make was that the Grand canyon was NOT made gradually over millions of years by the river currently found at the bottom? If normal scientists are allowed to revise thier theories (which evolutionists do all the time) based on new data, why cant creation scientist? So the statment you are making is ridiculing creation scientists for doing something that is scientifically acceptable and EXPECTED!!! this seems a little unfair!

 

[lucaspa]

lucaspa 1. Giants. The data says these did not exist. If they really existed, God would have left evidence in His Creation.
so you also demand proof in hand of everything the bible says.

I'm sorry, but you have misunderstood. What I am doing is falsifying a claim, not saying "there is no evidence". If I state there is a couch in my living room and you look at all my living room and there is no couch, then you have falsified my claim.

We have done the equivalent in looking thru the archeological and fossil record of the last 50,000 years. There are no giants there.

I see no evidence you've presented for your faith,

Since my faith is Christianity, what is your problem?
Evolution is not a faith. It's a scientific theory.

mine is the infallibility of the bible

Then you are in trouble, since I have shown thru Acts 12, Mark 10 and Matthew 19 that the Bible is fallible.

, something you can't disprove because proof requires us to have been there or be able to re-create it exactly.

Nice strawman, but neither is a requirement for proof, or rather disproof. Remember, the present is the way it is because the past was the way it was. We weren't there to see the formation of Meteor Crator, either, nor have we re-created it exactly, yet we have "proof" that it was made by a meteor impact, don't we?

It's faith, i know, but that you deny your own faith in the bible

One more time.
1. I deny faith in your human, fallible, interpretation of the Bible.
2. I worship God, not the Bible.

Magus, the more you say, the more you condemn yourself as worshipping the Bible and not God. It's bible, bible, bible with you. I don't know that you can pull back from this fatal theology; you seem too dedicated to it. I hope you can. Christianity is about Christ as the Living Word, not about the Bible. The Bible helps us to understand Christ and what God wants for us. It is not something that is supposed to be worshipped in the place of God.

 

[Larry]

Yes, you've seen this before, but here it is again.

How do we know which parts of the Bible should be believed and which parts shouldn't be? How do we know which parts are historical, and which parts are not?

Are you asking which parts of the Bible are to be taken literally, and which parts are not?

 

[lucaspa]

something you can not do without a rock of truth based on the fact of Jesus’ life and times, which are predicated on the infallibility of the old testament.

Here is the "does not follow" that trips up creationists. Magus, the entire OT could disappear and Jesus would remain. Paul and the disciples understood Jesus in terms of the OT because they were already Jews and thus filtered the new data through their present theory. But seriously, if the OT never happened, Christianity would be fine because Jesus would still be the Son of God and would still have died as atonement for your sins.

You can't falsify anything with science unless you test it, it would require the re-creation of creation to falsify gen 1 & 2.

A false view of science. As long as an event leaves evidence in the present, you can test it. You don't have to recreate it. In fact, forensic science does not duplicate the crime, but instead says what happened based on evidence left at the crime scene.

Let's do a quick review of deductive logic.
"Theories are collections of statements. The observational consequences of a theory are statements that have to be true if the statements belonging to the theory are all true. These observational consequences also have to be statements whose truth or falsity can be ascertained by direct observation.
My initial discussion of predictive success presented the rough idea that, when we find the observational consequences of a theory to be true, our findings bring credit to the theory. Conversely, discovery that some observational consequences of a theory are false was viewed as damaging. We can now make the second point much more precise. Any theory that has a false observational consequence must contain some false statement (or statements). For if all the statements in the theory were true, then, according to the standard definitions of deductive validity and observational consequence, any observational consequence would also have to be true. Hence, if a theory is found to have a false observational consequence, we must conclude that one or more statements of the theory is false. This means that theories can be conclusively falsified, through the discovery that they have false observational consequences. " Phillip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism, pp. 36-38.

So, we don't have to recreate an event in order to find observational consequences that either are predicted by the event or cannot have happened if the event had happened. What we see are observations that simply can't be there if creationism is true. For instance, we have observed one species changing to another in real time. There is no way the rocks called rhythmites can possibly be there if geological formations were deposited by a flood. If the earth were really only 6,000 years old, we would not see over 30,000 annual ice deposits in ice cores in Greenland and the Andes. None of these observations can be there if young earth creationism is true.

What you have done, Magus, is trot out the old Baconian view of science because you can now use it to say you can't even look at creation. But that view of science simply isn't true.

you can't falsify anything with science unless you can prove it false, you can't prove that the flood didn't occur just because you don't understand how it could have happened.

True, but that isn't how we are doing it.

the waters you present are muddy and spiritualy unsound, they are not a rock but shifting sands.

The metaphor is weird. You have spiritual waters that are sand? I think that says it all about the spiritual soundness of Biblical literalism!

The ideas we are presenting are spiritually sound because they are based on God and don't ignore God. Creationism and Biblical literalism is based on the worship of the false idol of a literal Bible. That can't possibly be spiritually sound.

 

[lucaspa]

Wasn't the original point that ICR was trying to make was that the Grand canyon was NOT made gradually over millions of years by the river currently found at the bottom? If normal scientists are allowed to revise thier theories (which evolutionists do all the time) based on new data, why cant creation scientist? So the statment you are making is ridiculing creation scientists for doing something that is scientifically acceptable and EXPECTED!!! this seems a little unfair!

1. The Grand Canyon is still formed over millions of years by the river currently found at the bottom. It's just that much of the canyon was made in the past 15 million years instead of 65 million years.
2. Creation scientists say their "theory" is based on the Bible and is thus constant! They, in fact, criticize science for "constantly changing". Having said that science is wrong for this property, they then can't come along and do the same thing.
3. I was specifically referring to a post in another thread (which I have lost) that tried to make fun of science by stating that incorporating another's theory into your position was the wrong thing to d. Hopefully, someone will help me find that. It came from the Creation Safari website but I can't remember which thread it was in. So my point was the ICR was violating a rule about science that creationists had set up.

 

[Bushido216]

Your faith is that whenever some guy with a PHD says "i have no evidenced of it" you dismiss it from the bible as 'not literal' ?



It's a disturbing faith my friend, foolish and filled with human wisdom.

Aren't you filtering the Bible through "human" wisdom?