Will Creation Science Ever Be Accepted By Mainstream Scientists?

[Michael]

Yawn... repeating something as fact makes it no less the fabrication it was the first time

I haven't really seen you refute it particularly well thus far. You'd have a hard time denying that the Church wasn't well established by the time the first Bible's came to exist.

You of all people will not be lecturing me on the ethics of creating strawmen and no it not a strawman.

Your claim that I believe all concepts have equal merit was definitely your own strawman since I never made such a claim.

If it bothers me? So it doesn't bother you that you misrepresented.

Sure, but the difference is that I've come clean and you have not!

NO until you can have the moral fiber to admit and apologize for your false claim of knowing my position I'l await your answer to my question of what my position is.

I already admitted that I should have asked you your opinion and I should not have used the term 'you', rather I should have used the term YEC. What do you want, egg in your beer?

If yu cant muster the character to flat out admit your claim was wrong to misrepresent you knew what it was unless it bothers me then youare not worth having a further conversation with. Frankly if you can't admit to misrepresenting no one need bother with your posts at all.

Irony overload after accusing me of claiming all concepts are equal. At least I've made an effort to admit my mistakes whereas you have not.

Want a preview of how wrong you are about me being a strict YEC?? read the thread I already told you I have no problem with an old earth. tsk tsk. you should be embarrassed at yourself

I asked you point blank in the last few posts. So basically you're fine with 4.6 billion year old Earth, you just have a problem with the concept of evolution? How exactly do you explain all the fossilized evidence of ancient life? How do you explain evidence of microevolution?

 

[Michael]

Does this mean that you personally believe that humans have been on Earth for 4.6 billion years?

 

[MikeEnders]

Meh. You didn't even come clean till later in the post, and I hadn't read that far yet, so it wasn't actually an intended strawman

Now you have just crossed into pure deliberate misrepresentation. I have not had to come clean about anything and no one had to force me into anything much less you. I have never maintained that there was no poetic or metaphorical language. I have always believed and stated that where it appear the context calls for it. claiming I had to come clean is pretty much yo now calling me a liar because YOU got caught making a real strawman argument. Poor form for a christian and if you keep it up it will be reported

There are those 'cues' in Genesis since not a single author of Genesis could possibly have witnessed the creation event, and it says *nothing* about when that may have occurred. You're burying yourself IMO.

Lol.....SO when the bible tells us anything at all about heaven its a cue that its all metaphorical and heaven doesn't exist at all because the author could not be present and the entire book of genesis is metaphorical because Moses is said to have written it hundreds of years later (obvously he wasn't there.....ooops doesnt apply to just genesis one). and .....lol ...with such poor logic you think you are burying me

Okay now you just got hilalriously entertaining ....thanks for that

 

[Michael]

Now you have just crossed into pure deliberate misrepresentation. I have not had to come clean about anything and no one had to force me into anything much less you. I have never maintained that there was no poetic or metaphorical language. I have always believed and stated that where it appear the context calls for it. claiming I had to come clean is pretty much yo now calling me a liar because YOU got caught making a real strawman argument. Poor form for a christian and if you keep it up it will be reported

Oy Vey. You've made this entire conversation "personal" instead of staying on topic. You've accused me of "losing my faith" in things that I never believed in to begin with. You've accused me of claiming that all ideas and concepts have equal merit when I said *nothing* of the sort. You really have no right to lecture me about strawmen, so get off your high horse already.

Lol.....SO when the bible tells us anything at all about heaven its a cue that its all metaphorical and heaven doesn't exist

More strawmen? Really?

How about answering some basic questions. When *exactly* did you claim that you personally accepted the concept of an ancient Earth? When *exactly* was the Earth created in your opinion? When *exactly* did humans first start walking on the planet? Stop being coy now and just answer some simple questions.

 

[LoricaLady]

lesliedellow - Pasteur provided evidence that life did not come from non life, from "spontaneous generation." The so called primal pond belief, and similar theories (all created by evolutionists, never by creationists), rest on accepting spontaneous generation. Dr. Wald is referencing Pasteur's totally relevant research to indicate why he knows "spontaneous generation leading to evolution", as he said in the quote, is not possible. Why his honest statement to that effect would make you feel you can't sully your eyes with any more of the quotes does not make any kind of sense to me, personally. As I have said in an earlier post, the link was given to belie the oft repeated comment that "All scientists believe in evolution." As I also said, that link is by no means the only evidence demonstrating that they most certainly all do not.

 

[MikeEnders]

I haven't really seen you refute it particularly well thus far. You'd have a hard time denying that the Church wasn't well established by the time the first Bible's came to exist.

Feigning blindness will do that for you. The church was in existence form AD 30s. get busy showing how the roman catholic church was present there with some real evidence. Its your premise the RC represent the oldest church against all evidence because they are nowhere present there in any first century documents. get busy bro

I already admitted that I should have asked you your opinion and I should not have used the term 'you', rather I should have used the term YEC. What do you want, egg in your beer?

Nah no egg in your beer just the integrity and strength of character to man up and admit being wrong as you congratulated a lady for doing a few hours ago. not some week kneed "if it bothers you" but an admission of guilt for doing that. simple. finding it to hard to get the nerve up or find that strength eh?

 

[Michael]

Feigning blindness will do that for you. The church was in existence form AD 30s.

Was there a recognized head of the Church in the book of Acts, yes or no?

get busy showing how the roman catholic church was present there with some real evidence.

Get busy and show me where as I said anything about "Rome".

Its your premise the RC represent the oldest church against all evidence because they are nowhere present there in any first century documents. get busy bro

Actually I simply said Catholic, I didn't say anything about Rome, but if you insist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter

Saint Peter (Latin: Petrus, Greek: Πέτρος Petros, Syriac/Aramaic: ܫܸܡܥܘܿܢ ܟܹ݁ܐܦ݂ܵܐ, Shemayon Keppa, Hebrew: שמעון בר יונה‎ Shim'on Bar Yona; died c. 64 AD[2]), also known as Simon Peter, Simeon, or Simōn, according to the New Testament, was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ, leaders of the early Christian Church. The Roman Catholic Church considers him to be the first Pope, ordained by Jesus in the "Rock of My Church" dialogue in Matthew 16:18. The ancient Christian churches all venerate Peter as a major saint and associate him with founding the Church of Antioch and later the Church in Rome,[3] but differ about the authority of his various successors in present-day Christianity.

Nah no egg in your beer just the integrity and strength of character to man up and admit being wrong as you congratulated a lady for doing a few hours ago. not some week kneed "if it bothers you" but an admission of guilt for doing that. simple. finding it to hard to get the nerve up or find that strength eh?

In other words, you're intent on impugning my character even after I've admitted my mistake, and without admitting your own. What a great rationalization that must be.

 

[MikeEnders]

More strawmen? Really?

Nope still not getting the hang of what a strawman is eh? IF you say a cue that a passage is a metaphor is that a writer could not have been present for what he wrote about then by the same token writers who talk about heaven must be taken merely metaphorically and not real because they could not be present in heaven either and Moses must have been doing pure metaphors because when he wrote (or whoever you claim did) they wrote years after they could have been present.

Shucks several prophecies that actually have taken place literally (go figure) must be strangely metaphorical because thewriters were writing about the future and could not have been present. Showing the natural extension of your logic isn't a strawman its the natural extension of your claims as embarrassing as they may be to you.

 

[lesliedellow]

Seriously? We have been at studying abiogenesis seriously for close to what??? 80 years? and still not a viable thesis on it and you are taking objection to a article that starts out claiming there is no basis for spontaneous generation?

Pasteur did not prove what the writer claimed he had proved. Simple as that, and typical of the bending of truth which is only to be expected of creationists.

 

[LoricaLady]

I tend to agree. Most YEC are very adamant and sincere about their beliefs which is why it's rare to see them change their views. That doesn't make them right however and frankly some of his claims are simply scientifically irrational.

I have been researching these topics for years and have listened to many of Kent Hovind's presentations. I think his understanding of the scientific facts is excellent. Further he has a winning, often humorous, way of bringing complex subjects into a realm where "ordinary" people can learn about them and understand them.

I do not want to, and will not, debate on Kent Hovind as I simply don't have the time. Just putting in my two cents to say I've examined what he (and other YEC creationists, like say world class cosmologist Dr. Russell Humphreys, but many others) has to say and found it to be based on good science and good logic.

I'm a YEC and proud of, and glad about, that. That position is based on years of research because, as I stated earlier, I started out as an atheist, and in fact one who thought the Bible was "a bunch of dumb myths". I smugly believed that Christians were way not lacking in "dumbness" either.

I don't have time to argue YEC either, though. Sorry. Again, just putting in one person's two cents on the topic.

 

[MikeEnders]

Actually I simply said Catholic, I didn't say anything about Rome, but if you insist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter

This IS getting hilarious . I ask for a first century document and Mike here gives me Wikipedia. Firs century wikipedia? I am loving it

In other words, you're intent on impugning my character even after I've admitted my mistake, and without admitting your own. What a great rationalization that must be.

You didn't apologize you put a condition of if on it. Play games all you want a confession is when you state you did something wrong without a conditional if. I don't go to God after i sin and say ...If did anything wrong to day forgive me. I am required to own what i did. that would be just hedging my self from real confession

 

[LoricaLady]

Pasteur did not prove what the writer claimed he had proved. Simple as that, and typical of the bending of truth which is only to be expected of creationists.

Before you post to me again....

Pasteur most certainly did prove that spontaneous generation does not occur. Where were you in 5th grade science lessons? He is famous, and never questioned, on what he proved. You asked me earlier "Who are you to judge..." when I wasn't even judging, just making a tentative guess. You aren't just judging creationists, and with no real understanding of the scientific issues as far as I can tell, but you are for all practical purposes accusing them of being intentionally dishonest. That's why you needn't bother to post to me again.

One thing I've learned - once evo. devotees start getting into personal insult mode, which is common, they escalate. That's not scientific discussion; it's called verbal abuse.

Please spend your time actually learning what science is all about. Maybe start back in 5th grade for whatever you missed then.

Blessing and bye bye. FINIS

 

[MikeEnders]

Pasteur did not prove what the writer claimed he had proved. Simple as that, and typical of the bending of truth which is only to be expected of creationists.

Leslie since Pasteur nothing substantive has changed that shows the conclusions that spontaenous emergence of life is viable. I could see alot of other claims you could make the claim are bending the truth but to stop reading when there really is nothing that contradicts spontaenous creation of life being as non viable as then is just you showing your bias.

 

[Michael]

Nope still not getting the hand of what a strawman is eh?

When you admit that I never claimed that all ideas are equal you can actually lecture me about strawmen and the meaning of the term, and not a moment sooner.

IF you say a cue that a passage is a metaphor is that a writer could not have been present for what he wrote about then by the same token writers who talk about heaven

There's more than a few folks who talked about and wrote about heaven. That particular concept isn't limited to the book of Genesis, so your argument toast.

must be taken merely metaphorically and not real because they could not be present in heaven either and Moses must have been doing pure metaphors because when he wrote (or whoever you claim did) they wrote years after they could have been present.

More stuff I never said. Tsk Tsk, Tsk.

Shucks several prophecies that actually have taken place literally (go figure) must be strangely metaphorical because thewriters were writing about the future and could not have been present.

More strawmen. You've got a whole army burning over there at this point and maybe some reductio ad absurdum in there for fun too. Wheeeee! It's a fallacy extravaganza!

Showing the natural extension of your logic isn't a strawman its the natural extension of your claims as embarrassing as they may be to you.

Ignoring the fact that heaven is mentioned all over the Bible and resorting to ridiculous fallacies seems to embarrass you more than it embarrasses anyone else. You didn't "naturally" extend anything, you twisted it like a pretzel to suit yourself. How many times is the term 'heaven' mentioned in the Bible, and is that term limited to the book of Genesis, yes or no?

 

[lesliedellow]

Before you post to me again....

Pasteur most certainly did prove that spontaneous generation does not occur. Where were you in 5th grade science lessons? He is famous, and never questioned, on what he proved. You asked me earlier "Who are you to judge..." when I wasn't even judging, just making a tentative guess. You aren't just judging creationists, and with no real understanding of the scientific issues as far as I can tell, but you are for all practical purposes accusing them of being intentionally dishonest. That's why you needn't bother to post to me again.

Please spend your time actually learning what science is all about.

Blessing and bye, bye. FINIS

Before you post to me again....

Pasteur most certainly did prove that spontaneous generation does not occur.

Whether or not spontaneous generation can occur, at least in the sense which was at the time postulated, is 100% irrelevant to whether or not abiogenesis is possible. Pasteur was talking about a hypothetical and ongoing process which was postulated to be happening in the here and now. He was not talking about the origin of life.

 

[Michael]

One thing I've learned - once evo. devotees start getting into personal insult mode, which is common, they escalate. That's not scientific discussion; it's called verbal abuse.

I love how you hypocritically use the term 'evo devotees' while whining about other people resorting to personal insults. Irony overload.

Please spend your time actually learning what science is all about.

We have which is why we both know (as do all the atheists) that YEC is never going to be embraced by the scientific community.

 

[Michael]

I'm still waiting for you to tell us how old you think the Earth is, and when you think humans first walked the Earth. Can't you answer a couple of simple questions?

 

[lesliedellow]

Leslie since Pasteur nothing substantive has changed that shows the conclusions that spontaenous emergence of life is viable. I could see alot of other claims you could make the claim are bending the truth but to stop reading when there really is nothing that contradicts spontaenous creation of life being as non viable as then is just you showing your bias.

If a viable theory of abiogenesis is forthcoming, and in particular, if there is enough evidence to turn the hypothesis into a theory, it will then be possible to conclude that life arose through normal physical processes. I am inclined to suspect that it did, because that is the means by which God normally accomplishes his purposes, and miracles are extremely rare.

Direct divine intervention is always possible, but you do not start out by postulating that, because that would automatically forestall any further scientific investigation. Doubtless that is exactly what creationists would like to happen, but there is no reason why the rest of us should agree to having the question settled in advance.

 

[Michael]

I have been researching these topics for years and have listened to many of Kent Hovind's presentations. I think his understanding of the scientific facts is excellent.

Which 'facts' might those be?

Further he has a winning, often humorous, way of bringing complex subjects into a realm where "ordinary" people can learn about them and understand them.

If you say so. I find some of his statements to be simply ridiculous and his grasp of physics is appalling.

I'll happily give him the benefit of the doubt with respect to his motives and his sincerity, but I simply see no evidence that his ideas have any scientific merit, and most scientists reject them outright. He may very well believe everything he says, but very few scientists agree with him.

 

[Michael]

This IS getting hilarious . I ask for a first century document and Mike here gives me Wikipedia. Firs century wikipedia? I am loving it

Ya, apparently loving it and not dealing it, or any of the links it has right there for you to read.

You didn't apologize you put a condition of if on it.

Actually I did, but you refuse to accept it.

Play games all you want a confession is when you state you did something wrong without a conditional if. I don't go to God after i sin and say ...If did anything wrong to day forgive me. I am required to own what i did. that would be just hedging my self from real confession

When did you intend to confess that I never claimed that all ideas are equal with or without any personal caveats? Never? Next week? Next month?