User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 38

Thread: William Lane Craig commits classic anti-creation mistake

  1. #16
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,961
    Thanks
    2,822
    Thanked 4,865 Times in 2,923 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147740
    Quote Originally Posted by Alate_One View Post
    I mean the hundreds of ways evolution explains how biology works. Creationism does not. Trying to use creationism in biology is like trying to ride a bike with both arms tied behind your back. It's mental gymnastics that are so awkward it's painful.
    Not coordinated then??? Sorry, I'm lost in simile because it doesn't add up. I've done the no-hands on a bike a lot and it is anything but painful. Did this backfire on you? There literally isn't much touched in science by science/theology friction. For some reason, you've a lot of eggs in this basket and it seems less empathy for reading anyone reading scripture any way but as you (how are your devotions going these days? Still reading your bible regularly? rhetorical)


    Quote Originally Posted by Alate_One View Post
    I used to be a YEC back in high school and early college. I had two copies of the Genesis flood. We got ICR tracts all the time. Once I got enough scientific knowledge I realized how none of it fit any of the available data.
    Not true. Many of the writers/presenters of these two sites have PhD's upon PhD's. I've taught science on an elementary level AND gone through science classes as you have. I read with a discerning eye and try to actually compare what is possible vs what is someone else's theory. The science community all pretty much buy into interpretation of data. If you missed that, you missed something big. I'm not saying you have to be YEC, but I do think you've swallowed the camel and at present, are no longer at all critical in your filtering process.

    Creationist literature in general has a very poor scientific basis.
    Well, in a sense I agree with you, because it is often aimed at church members and trying to keep it understandable like 'Science for Dummies' but do you have a science PhD like many of these do? Be careful how far you want to challenge. I remember certainly, that WLC has a doctorate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alate_One View Post
    It's primarily composed of data cherry picking, misrepresentation and occasional outright falsehoods. Bones of Contention was the last book I had, it tried very hard to deal with human fossils, but it was pretty obvious they were trying to shoehorn the data into the categories they WANTED it to fit into.
    With a 4.5 star rating and an endorsement from Colorodo State University professor?
    Go on to the negative comments on Amazon:

    NeanderthalGirl said it was horrible. -1 star Interesting that. Can even a caveman er girl, do it?

    Or the next one: "... relies on selective quotations from researchers whose opinions are not widely accepted." -1 star

    So science IS a popularity contest????

    Or the next: "The only conclusion that follows from pointing out these historical scientific blunders is that some scientists simply screwed up. They lied. It's too bad, but does it follow that Modern Evolutionary Theory is a giant hoax? No." -1 star

    Are you throwing in with these??? Why is it most of these are girls (not many girls in biology sciences)?
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  2. #17
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,491
    Thanks
    590
    Thanked 13,621 Times in 9,450 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147858
    Quote Originally Posted by Alate_One View Post
    I mean the hundreds of ways evolution explains how biology works. Creationism does not. Trying to use creationism in biology is like trying to ride a bike with both arms tied behind your back. It's mental gymnastics that are so awkward it's painful.
    Even if you were on topic, this would be spam.

    I used to be a YEC back in high school and early college. I had two copies of the Genesis flood. We got ICR tracts all the time. Once I got enough scientific knowledge I realized how none of it fit any of the available data. Creationist literature in general has a very poor scientific basis. It's primarily composed of data cherry picking, misrepresentation and occasional outright falsehoods. Bones of Contention was the last book I had, it tried very hard to deal with human fossils, but it was pretty obvious they were trying to shoehorn the data into the categories they WANTED it to fit into.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  3. #18
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    10,448
    Thanks
    35,361
    Thanked 8,881 Times in 5,712 Posts

    Mentioned
    86 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147644
    Quote Originally Posted by Alate_One View Post
    Possibly but most likely I would pick it apart. I have been all over the web and seen most of the newer arguments as well. They are slightly better, but still very wrong. Behe tries very hard but still fails.
    The book in question:
    http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

    See also Bryan Nickel's video series which goes through the Hydroplate theory in detail:
    https://www.youtube.com/user/nnlmt28

  4. #19
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,491
    Thanks
    590
    Thanked 13,621 Times in 9,450 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147858
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    Er, Creation Research Institute and Answers In Genesis? Listen to 6 Days and Stripe a bit. They've addressed this a number of times, but most early Christian scientists believed in a global flood until the 18th/19th century, even some scientists today (Smithsonian).
    I tend to stay away from arguments over who believes what or how popular an idea is.

    When you lot are interested in OP or even a tangent that is evidence-based, let me know.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  5. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (September 17th, 2019),Lon (September 18th, 2019),Right Divider (September 18th, 2019)

  6. #20
    Over 2500 post club Alate_One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,676
    Thanks
    151
    Thanked 350 Times in 264 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    103605
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    Not coordinated then??? Sorry, I'm lost in simile because it doesn't add up. I've done the no-hands on a bike a lot and it is anything but painful. Did this backfire on you? There literally isn't much touched in science by science/theology friction. For some reason, you've a lot of eggs in this basket and it seems less empathy for reading anyone reading scripture any way but as you (how are your devotions going these days? Still reading your bible regularly? rhetorical)
    In the Christian life it doesn't matter whether you agree with me or not. The problem I have is people saying you CAN'T believe like me and be a Christian. I believe that's wrong and is far too common a position in Christian circles but especially this site.

    Not true. Many of the writers/presenters of these two sites have PhD's upon PhD's. I've taught science on an elementary level AND gone through science classes as you have. I read with a discerning eye and try to actually compare what is possible vs what is someone else's theory. The science community all pretty much buy into interpretation of data. If you missed that, you missed something big. I'm not saying you have to be YEC, but I do think you've swallowed the camel and at present, are no longer at all critical in your filtering process.
    Eh no. Filtering is what I have gotten better at with time. Reading science daily and watching for the "huh?!" papers that show up once in a while.

    Well, in a sense I agree with you, because it is often aimed at church members and trying to keep it understandable like 'Science for Dummies' but do you have a science PhD like many of these do? Be careful how far you want to challenge. I remember certainly, that WLC has a doctorate.
    I think you may have misinterpreted my last post. I also have a doctorate. It was graduate school that truly destroyed my YEC position. Classes on molecular biology that included discussions of plant genomics and synteny. Looking at DNA sequences myself, running the comparisons, seeing exactly what mutations look like. It was close to a crisis of faith for me (also couldn't find a decent church). Fortunately I found people that believe as I do now, so I got through it. I now have a church that doesn't 100% agree with me but isn't telling me I must believe the earth is 4000 years old either. And I get to tell students about evolution but also tell them it doesn't have to destroy their faith. So, pretty happy about all of that.

    With a 4.5 star rating and an endorsement from Colorodo State University professor?
    Go on to the negative comments on Amazon:

    NeanderthalGirl said it was horrible. -1 star Interesting that. Can even a caveman er girl, do it?

    Or the next one: "... relies on selective quotations from researchers whose opinions are not widely accepted." -1 star

    So science IS a popularity contest????

    Or the next: "The only conclusion that follows from pointing out these historical scientific blunders is that some scientists simply screwed up. They lied. It's too bad, but does it follow that Modern Evolutionary Theory is a giant hoax? No." -1 star

    Are you throwing in with these??? Why is it most of these are girls (not many girls in biology sciences)?
    There's plenty of women in biology, really more these days than men at least at the undergraduate level. But for a creationist book, that one was almost decent. It however doesn't explain the genetic evidence, human chromosome fusion, endogenous retroviruses, dozens of pseudogenes or even the fossils it claims to deal with very well.

    That book and several others try to classify each hominin fossil as human or ape, and the funny thing is, the books don't agree on them. Which should tell you something about those fossils.
    “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.

    Some of the Evidence for Climate Change

    The Biologos Foundation - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

    What Darwin Never Knew

  7. #21
    Over 2500 post club Alate_One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,676
    Thanks
    151
    Thanked 350 Times in 264 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    103605
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Ohhh THAT book. I've been through quite a bit of it with Stripe in the past so . . .

    See also Bryan Nickel's video series which goes through the Hydroplate theory in detail:
    https://www.youtube.com/user/nnlmt28
    I'm sorry but the Hydroplate theory is scientifically beyond terrible and worse than the Genesis Flood book in terms of sense making. It breaks all the rules of physics plus making no sense of any of the biological data. If any of it had actually happened it would have wiped out all complex life on earth.
    “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.

    Some of the Evidence for Climate Change

    The Biologos Foundation - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

    What Darwin Never Knew

  8. #22
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,491
    Thanks
    590
    Thanked 13,621 Times in 9,450 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147858
    Quote Originally Posted by Alate_One View Post
    In the Christian life it doesn't matter whether you agree with me or not. The problem I have is people saying you CAN'T believe like me and be a Christian. I believe that's wrong and is far too common a position in Christian circles but especially this site.
    We hear this silly accusation all the time.

    Quote someone saying that you cannot be a Christian and hold to evolution what you can't oh that's right because nobody says it.

    Grow up.

    The only factor regarding salvation is: Do you confess Jesus Christ as Lord and saviour? Yes? Christian. Nothing else matters.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (September 18th, 2019),Right Divider (September 18th, 2019),Yorzhik (September 18th, 2019)

  10. #23
    Over 2000 post club User Name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,406
    Thanks
    630
    Thanked 555 Times in 391 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    262107
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    Quote someone saying that you cannot be a Christian and hold to evolution what you can't oh that's right because nobody says it.

    Grow up.

    The only factor regarding salvation is: Do you confess Jesus Christ as Lord and saviour? Yes? Christian. Nothing else matters.
    And here we completely agree. YEC is an article of faith, just as the resurrection of Jesus is an article of faith. Neither can be proven scientifically, so what is the point of arguing in favor of either on an allegedly scientific basis? Just believe in both, and rest in Christ.

  11. #24
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,491
    Thanks
    590
    Thanked 13,621 Times in 9,450 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147858
    Quote Originally Posted by User Name View Post
    And here we completely agree.
    If you want to agree, you have to say something equivalent to what I expressed.

    Hint: I did not say that YEC is an article of faith.

    For clarity, YEC is the idea that the world was created by God as described in Genesis 1 and elsewhere in the Bible.

    Neither can be proven scientifically.
    Nothing can be "proven" scientifically.

    What is the point of arguing in favor of either on an allegedly scientific basis?
    Because the scientific approach is applicable in every situation, although it might not be as helpful in every scenario.

    You clearly have no understanding of what science is.

    Just believe in both, and rest in Christ.
    You first. Go away and stop spamming our threads. ;up:
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (September 18th, 2019)

  13. #25
    Over 2000 post club User Name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,406
    Thanks
    630
    Thanked 555 Times in 391 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    262107
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    For clarity, YEC is the idea that the world was created by God as described in Genesis 1 and elsewhere in the Bible.

    Nothing can be "proven" scientifically.

  14. #26
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,491
    Thanks
    590
    Thanked 13,621 Times in 9,450 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147858
    Quote Originally Posted by User Name View Post
    Yup.

    You need to think long and hard on this one.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (September 18th, 2019)

  16. #27
    Over 1000 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,135
    Thanks
    1,051
    Thanked 853 Times in 545 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    75049
    Quote Originally Posted by User Name View Post
    YEC is an article of faith...
    What (if anything) do you even mean when you call something "an article of faith"? And, of what faith are you saying that YEC is an article? Of the Christian faith? Are you saying that YEC is an article of the Christian faith?

    If I'm not mistaken, the term "article of faith" has historically been used to indicate something which must be believed by a person, in order for that person to be in the faith. In other words, if X is an article of faith, then, so long as Joe fails to believe X, Joe is not (at least, not entirely) in the faith. So, are you telling us that for a person to not believe YEC is for that person to be not entirely in the Christian faith? If that's what you're saying, why then, commendably, you're saying truth: Anyone who does not believe the Bible truth known as "YEC" is not entirely (if at all) in the Christian faith. YEC is not something extraneous to Christianity; it is (like all other essential parts of Christianity) an essential part of Christianity.

    Quote Originally Posted by User Name View Post
    the resurrection of Jesus is an article of faith.
    The resurrection of Jesus is, indeed, an article of faith. You don't believe God's word of truth that Jesus rose from the dead? Then you're outside the faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by User Name View Post
    Neither can be proven scientifically
    By this, what do you mean, if not simply that neither is true? Are you not merely saying that YEC is false? Are you not merely saying that the resurrection of Jesus is false?

    Note, also, that you called YEC "an article of faith", rather than "an article of truth". Why is that? And, you called the resurrection of Christ "an article of faith", rather than "an article of truth". Why is that?

    Quote Originally Posted by User Name View Post
    Just believe in both, and rest in Christ.
    Here, you're recommending that people believe in YEC. I take it, then, that you're a believer of YEC, also. No? Because, I mean, if you are not a believer in YEC, then why would you be telling people to believe in YEC? Why would you be telling people to believe things that you, yourself, do not believe?

    And what (if anything) do you mean by "rest in Christ"? Or, were you just trying to create a Hallmark moment by saying that?

  17. #28
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,491
    Thanks
    590
    Thanked 13,621 Times in 9,450 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147858
    User name usually just posts links. It becomes clear why when he tries to engage in an actual conversation.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    7djengo7 (September 18th, 2019),JudgeRightly (September 18th, 2019)

  19. #29
    Over 2000 post club User Name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,406
    Thanks
    630
    Thanked 555 Times in 391 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    262107
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    What (if anything) do you even mean when you call something "an article of faith"? And, of what faith are you saying that YEC is an article? Of the Christian faith? Are you saying that YEC is an article of the Christian faith?

    If I'm not mistaken, the term "article of faith" has historically been used to indicate something which must be believed by a person, in order for that person to be in the faith. In other words, if X is an article of faith, then, so long as Joe fails to believe X, Joe is not (at least, not entirely) in the faith. So, are you telling us that for a person to not believe YEC is for that person to be not entirely in the Christian faith? If that's what you're saying, why then, commendably, you're saying truth: Anyone who does not believe the Bible truth known as "YEC" is not entirely (if at all) in the Christian faith. YEC is not something extraneous to Christianity; it is (like all other essential parts of Christianity) an essential part of Christianity.



    The resurrection of Jesus is, indeed, an article of faith. You don't believe God's word of truth that Jesus rose from the dead? Then you're outside the faith.



    By this, what do you mean, if not simply that neither is true? Are you not merely saying that YEC is false? Are you not merely saying that the resurrection of Jesus is false?

    Note, also, that you called YEC "an article of faith", rather than "an article of truth". Why is that? And, you called the resurrection of Christ "an article of faith", rather than "an article of truth". Why is that?



    Here, you're recommending that people believe in YEC. I take it, then, that you're a believer of YEC, also. No? Because, I mean, if you are not a believer in YEC, then why would you be telling people to believe in YEC? Why would you be telling people to believe things that you, yourself, do not believe?

    And what (if anything) do you mean by "rest in Christ"? Or, were you just trying to create a Hallmark moment by saying that?
    You mad bro?

  20. #30
    Over 1000 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,135
    Thanks
    1,051
    Thanked 853 Times in 545 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    75049
    Quote Originally Posted by User Name View Post
    You mad bro?
    That's your answer???

    You fail.

    Please stop spamming TOL; please quit being a troll.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us