Will Creation Science Ever Be Accepted By Mainstream Scientists?

[LoricaLady]

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.

Sigh. I will post this one last time hoping that a glimmer of light will get into your head. Pasteur showed that life has to come from life. Dr. Wald got that point, which he why he referenced Pasteur. Whether we are dealing with origins or maggots on meat, we are still talking about where life comes from. There is a Law that tells us. In science a law means it is true 100% of times. The Law of Biogenesis tells us that life only comes from life. Flies don't spontaneous generate from dead meat. Life can't spontaneously generate from some mythical primal pond or whatever. Life comes from life. And btw 100% of the times we see that it comes from life of the same kind.

You think abiogenesis is possible? That takes a lot of....faith. Sorry, I don't have enough faith to believe that in the misty murky conveniently invisible "billions of years ago" somehow, some way - though we've never seen any such thing happen ever - some chemicals arranged themselves into living material. It doesn't happen now. It didn't happen then. But hey if you want to believe that, have fun. I just wish you wouldn't call it science. But that's up to you. I call it religion, personally, you know, faith in the unseen.

But, hey, what do you care what I think? You like to believe us creationists are just running around intentionally bending the truth. Sigh again.

You get the 2nd to the last word if you want it. The truth always gets the last word though.

 

[Michael]

Come on Mike, spit it out: How old is the Earth, and when did human start walking on it?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Will Creation Science Ever Be Accepted By Mainstream Scientists?

That ship sailed a long time ago. Even if one presented a mass of evidence for creationism or things which outright contradict it, they will just reassemble their theory to somehow fit them in. They've actually already been in the business of doing just that, so no, it's not going to happen.

 

[lesliedellow]

Sigh. I will post this one last time hoping that a glimmer of light will get into your head. Pasteur showed that life has to come from life.

Except that he didn't. You would just like that to be the case. All that Pasteur did was to falsify a theory which was current at the time.

 

[Michael]

You think abiogenesis is possible? That takes a lot of....faith.

Oddly enough I agree with you that some amount of faith is necessary to embrace the topic of abiogenesis, but I fail to understand why you keep using "faith" in a negative context. How are your beliefs not based upon 'faith'? I know for a fact that mine are based on faith, and I'm fine with that fact.

 

[MikeEnders]

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.

Why would I admit that you never reasoned what you did in fact reason? You said it clear as day. Since there are so many opinions of Christianity and the Bible it just comes down to personal choice. Buey!! You said it not me. So if a difference of opinion in one area means that its all just up to our personal choice and not up to an objective better opinion then why wouldn't the same logic apply to anything? that fact that your logic makes no sense when applied to other subjects isnt a strawman just because it makes no sense. its just on your faulty logic bro. It is what your logic is.

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.

and where did I say it only applies to Genesis? Straw again!! it actually applies to anywhere the person could not be present for what he was talking about which sorry would include all mentions of heaven (even Jesus wasn't there when he talked about it). so invoking your previous claim that a person not being present is a cue that the passage is to be taken metaphorically then all of those would be non real discussions including all of genesis. Cry some more because your own criteria makes your point look silly but again its all your alleged cue bro..not mine

 

[MikeEnders]

Except that he didn't. You would just like that to be the case. All that Pasteur did was to falsify a theory which was current at the time.

Leslie I think you are begging a bit of bread here. In modern terms yes they re different but it is unlikely someone in Pasteur's day would have made the big distinction between spontaeneous generation and abiogensis that you are .Its more likely they would have seen it more as question of scale and source as they both deal with life potentiall coming out of inorganic material

 

[Michael]

Why would I admit that you never reasoned what you did in fact reason? You said it clear as day.

Quote me then where I made that claim "clear as day".

Since there are so many opinions of Christianity and the Bible it just comes down to personal choice.

In terms of how one interprets the Bible, that is in fact how it works. I didn't claim that all opinions are equally valid however, that's where you put words in my mouth.

Buey!! You said it not me.

No, I didn't. You claimed they were all equal, not me.

So if a difference of opinion in one area means that its all just up to our personal choice and not up to an objective better opinion then why wouldn't the same logic apply to anything?

Well for starters because not all ideas can be right and many of them are contradictory to start with. Some of them can be validated via science, and some cannot. Nobody said anything about them being equal besides you.

that fact that your logic makes no sense when applied to other subjects isnt a strawman just because it makes no sense. its just on your faulty logic bro. It is what your logic is.

Nope. You blatantly and intentionally misrepresented my statements when you suggested that I claimed that they were all equally valid ideas. I never made that claim. That's your own strawman.

and where did I say it only applies to Genesis? Straw again!! it actually applies to anywhere the person could not be present

So you believe that it's impossible for Jesus to have personal experience of 'heaven'? I thought you considered yourself to be a 'Christian'? (Isn't strawman burning fun?)

for what he was talking about which sorry would include all mentions of heaven (even Jesus wasn't there when he talked about it).

I didn't say he had to be there at the moment he talked about it, now did I?

so invoking your previous claim that a person not being present is a cue that the passage is to be taken metaphorically then all of those would be non real discussions including all of genesis. Cry some more because your own criteria makes your point look silly but again its all your alleged cue bro..not mine

Unless you intend to argue that Christ never came from Heaven, you're blowing your own argument right out of the water! Boom!

 

[MikeEnders]

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

YOU got a partcular link to a first century source then state it. Dont expect me to waste my time clicking all the links to see if you can actually make a good point because I don;t have much faith in your ability there

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?

the next second if you can show that you never claimed that a multiplicity of opinions of christianity don't lead to just going with your own persona opinion on that basis. deal? I am man enough if you can show that. Only problem is you will probably need a Delorean, a flux capacitor and Doc's knowledge of time travel (or Marty...Biffs clueless)

 

[MikeEnders]

Unless you intend to argue that Christ never came from Heaven, you're blowing your own argument right out of the water! Boom!

He wasn't in heaven when he told us about Heaven so according to your claim that if the person couldn't have been present when he wrote it its a cue that its metaphorical he must have not meant it.....Booom ! goes you cue again

But I tell you what for all your rich entertainment as of late I can give you Jesus but what are you going to do about prophecies and the whole book of Genesis writing of events hundreds of years before? Why even try dude? its such a silly claim and it can be blow up sky high is so many different ways

Like umm how come prophets prophesied Christ and it literally came true when according to you if the prophets could not witness a thing it was a cue its metaphorical and not literal?

ooops.

 

[lesliedellow]

Leslie I think you are begging a bit of bread here. In modern terms yes they re different but it is unlikely someone in Pasteur's day would have made the big distinction between spontaeneous generation and abiogensis that you are .Its more likely they would have seen it more as question of scale and source as they both deal with life potentiall coming out of inorganic material

In Pasteur's day, adiogenesis probably wasn't a question on anybody's lips. It certainly wasn't what Pasteur was addressing himself to.

 

[Michael]

YOU got a partcular link to a first century source then state it. Dont expect me to waste my time clicking all the links to see if you can actually make a good point because I don;t have much faith in your ability there

Oy Vey. Let's start with Paul's own letters and criticisms of the some of the Early churches then:

http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200502/200502_100_lessons.cfm
http://www.galatians-paul-the-torah-law-legalism.info/Pauls-criticism-of-peter-Galatians-2-11.html

Still going to claim that all early Christians agreed on everything?

the next second if you can show that you never claimed that a multiplicity of opinions of christianity don't lead to just going with your own persona opinion on that basis. deal?

Deal? Er, no. The fact that there are a plethora of various Christians sects demonstrates that it *does* lead to an 'anything goes' scenario, but I still never claimed that all interpretations are equal or scientifically viable.

I am man enough

I never asked you if you were "man enough". You keep interjecting a bunch of personal nonsense where none is necessary or warranted.

if you can show that. Only problem is you will probably need a Delorean, a flux capacitor and Doc's knowledge of time travel (or Marty...Biffs clueless)

Case in point.

 

[Michael]

I fail to see why you won't tell us when you think the Earth was created and when you think humans first walked on it. Cat got your tongue?

 

[Michael]

Would you like to discuss Origen and the fact he embraced Universal Salvation, not eternal torment? Still going to claim that Christianity thought in lockstep for hundreds of years?
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0412.htm

 

[Michael]

He wasn't in heaven when he told us about Heaven so according to your claim that if the person couldn't have been present when he wrote it its a cue that its metaphorical he must have not meant it.....Booom ! goes you cue again

Unless you're going to claim that Jesus didn't come from heaven and he had no experience of heaven *before* coming to Earth, you toasted your own argument big time. Fess up now, where did Jesus come from?

But I tell you what for all your rich entertainment as of late I can give you Jesus but what are you going to do about prophecies and the whole book of Genesis writing of events hundreds of years before?

I'll judge them individually based on their own merits and how well they did at predicting the future. That seems like the logical thing to do.

Why even try dude? its such a silly claim and it can be blow up sky high is so many different ways

Wake me up when you finally do it.

Like umm how come prophets prophesied Christ and it literally came true when according to you if the prophets could not witness a thing it was a cue its metaphorical and not literal?

ooops.

Ooops nothing. It's a relatively straight forward process to look at history and see which "prophesies" came true, and which did not, or have not to date. You're still not helping your case from my vantage point. The fact that YEC doesn't predict anything useful about what we observe via physics doesn't bode well for a 'literal" interpretation of the Bible.

 

[MikeEnders]

Oy Vey. Let's start with Paul's own letters and criticisms of the some of the Early churches then:

http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200502/200502_100_lessons.cfm
http://www.galatians-paul-the-torah-law-legalism.info/Pauls-criticism-of-peter-Galatians-2-11.html

Still going to claim that all early Christians agreed on everything?

rofl... he gives me a link to Wikipedia about Peter to prove that the RC is the first church, tries to spin that theres a first century document link in it then when I don't buy it he tries to switch subjects to sinful churches Paul wrote to. Following the performer on the trampoline where he bounces to next no one knows

Deal? Er, no. The fact that there are a plethora of various Christians sects demonstrates that it *does* lead to an 'anything goes' scenario, but I still never claimed that all interpretations are equal or scientifically viable.

If anything goes then its jsut another way of saying its all good nothing more or less right about any of them so on that basis they are equal and up to your personal opinion. You aren't fooling anyone certainly not me.

Case in point.

What? who doesn't like a back to future reference?? If you can't take a BTF joke heres a tip - you can just take it as a metaphor ....right?

 

[MikeEnders]

Would you like to discuss Origen and the fact he embraced Universal Salvation, not eternal torment? Still going to claim that Christianity thought in lockstep for hundreds of years?
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0412.htm

More straw alert!! Seriously you might as well get a farm. You got enough straw to feed some cows for years. I said the early church was united for years not hundreds of year. if you actually read the the book you would see multiple apostles prophecied that when they died heresies would come into the church guess what bro? BY the time Origen writes they were all dead. sorry you missed making a real point but check a calendar Origen didn't write in the first century church time period

 

[Michael]

rofl... he gives me a link to Wikipedia about Peter to prove that the RC is the first church, tries to spin that theres a first century document link in it then when I don't buy it he tries to switch subjects to sinful churches Paul wrote to. Following the performer on the trampoline where he bounces to next no one knows

What are you even talking about? This particular debate started because you took exception to my use of the book of Acts to demonstrate division in the Early Church. Even Paul's various letters in the Bible demonstrate that point, hence the reference to Paul. You're the one bouncing around all over the place rather than just acknowledge the fact that Christianity has *always* been splintered to some degree or another.

If anything goes then its jsut another way of saying its all good nothing more or less right about any of them so on that basis they are equal and up to your personal opinion. You aren't fooling anyone certainly not me.

You're not fooling anyone when you made that strawman about me claiming that all interpretation are valid. I didn't say that. You did.

What? who doesn't like a back to future reference?? If you can't take a BTF joke heres a tip - you can just take it as a metaphor ....right?

You have included a host of personal insults in pretty much post after post in this thread. It's therefore not obvious when you're joking and or just being difficult to be difficult. I fail to see why I need a Delorian to study history, but if you think that's funny, so be it. I was actually referring to the whole paragraph which included the sentence before it, but I can see the confusion as it relates to the BTF reference. That specifically wasn't necessary designed as an insult so much as it was simply being flippant.

FYI, this conversation would go a lot faster if you weren't being so coy about your own "interpretations" of the age of the Earth and when humans first got here. Since you won't address those points, it's really just a one sided conversation with you playing the role of devils advocate. It's getting old now.

 

[Goonie]

This thread seems to have steered into the choppy waters of general apologetics, it is meant to be about the oxymoronically named creation science not prophecy and whether one can date the Catholic Church to the 1st century or whatever.

 

[Michael]

More straw alert!! Seriously you might as well get a farm. You got enough straw to feed some cows for years. I said the early church was united for years not hundreds of year.

Which "years" might those have been since Paul was clearly complaining about the dogma being taught in some early 1st century Churches. Are you talking 1 year? 2 years? How many years? Since you refuse to provide any specifics, it's a bit like arguing with Jello.

if you actually read the the book you would see multiple apostles prophecied that when they died heresies would come into the church guess what bro? BY the time Origen writes they were all dead. sorry you missed making a real point but check a calendar Origen didn't write in the first century church time period

Oy Vey. I was simply pointing out to you that there really hasn't ever been a time where all Christian belief was exactly the same. That's your own personal myth apparently.