Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI
- Thread starter Nineveh
- Start date
Nineveh posted:
Coral Ridge Ministries is teaming up with the Creation Studies Institute (CSI) to launch a national creation outreach. CSI’s Executive Director Tom DeRosa, an educator and creation studies authority, has spent many years assembling information, contacts, and artifacts in his study of evidences for creation. CSI’s chief aim is to defend and promote creation and to expose the lie of evolution.
Dimo:
Nineveh, why don't they just send their research through the peer review process set up for the scientific community at large?
Is it because people who are not commited to your specific religious paradigm would not come to this conclusion?
Evolution is not a lie. You accept "micro" evolution. If people want to overturn the concept of "macro" evolution, they should focus on finding tangible evidence for one or multiple mechanisms that stop many "micro" evolutions from becoming "macro" evolution. Swearing an oath to an antiquated and static religious paradigm is not science.
I think that whoever made the qoute you posted to is a liar.
Coral Ridge Ministries is teaming up with the Creation Studies Institute (CSI) to launch a national creation outreach. CSI’s Executive Director Tom DeRosa, an educator and creation studies authority, has spent many years assembling information, contacts, and artifacts in his study of evidences for creation. CSI’s chief aim is to defend and promote creation and to expose the lie of evolution.
Dimo:
Nineveh, why don't they just send their research through the peer review process set up for the scientific community at large?
Is it because people who are not commited to your specific religious paradigm would not come to this conclusion?
Evolution is not a lie. You accept "micro" evolution. If people want to overturn the concept of "macro" evolution, they should focus on finding tangible evidence for one or multiple mechanisms that stop many "micro" evolutions from becoming "macro" evolution. Swearing an oath to an antiquated and static religious paradigm is not science.
I think that whoever made the qoute you posted to is a liar.
Last edited:
More creationist nonsense. I continue to say that if creationism has such scientific background and evidence then confront "The Man" head on. Do the research, publish in peer reviewed journals, if the evidence is on your side the scientific community will embrace it. There is no conspiracy of science, no God-less conspiracy.
There should be enough $ in the Christian fundamentalist movement to support some basic research (there was enough to elect W). do it but do it right, not this nonsensical, simply anecdotal, stuff.
There should be enough $ in the Christian fundamentalist movement to support some basic research (there was enough to elect W). do it but do it right, not this nonsensical, simply anecdotal, stuff.
I have attempted to e-mail for some additional info but cannot get through to this outfit. I found nothing on the home page that provided any more specific info re these 3-4000 year old Mammoth bones from FL.
If my history serves when dealing with creationists who make paleontological (did I spell that right?) claims, I will never hear back from them even if I did have a good address.
So I called De Rosa and spoke with him. He said they did not do any radiometric dating, that the age was an estimate based on electron microscopy studies, that nothing is published, that the samples may now be contaminated.
Not a very respectable basis for suggesting an age.
If my history serves when dealing with creationists who make paleontological (did I spell that right?) claims, I will never hear back from them even if I did have a good address.
So I called De Rosa and spoke with him. He said they did not do any radiometric dating, that the age was an estimate based on electron microscopy studies, that nothing is published, that the samples may now be contaminated.
Not a very respectable basis for suggesting an age.
One Eyed Jack
New member
What would you consider a respectable basis?
Nineveh posted:
I sorta figured none of the ToErs would have any kind word of congrats. Thanks guys
Dimo:
I did not have a kind response because the qoute you used and the approach of most of these folks in general is not kind to others. This is exemplified by this segment of the qoute:
"CSI’s chief aim is to defend and promote creation and to expose the lie of evolution."
If you want to take the high road about attitudes try changing yours as well, by not refferencing inflammatory language such as this.
I sorta figured none of the ToErs would have any kind word of congrats. Thanks guys
Dimo:
I did not have a kind response because the qoute you used and the approach of most of these folks in general is not kind to others. This is exemplified by this segment of the qoute:
"CSI’s chief aim is to defend and promote creation and to expose the lie of evolution."
If you want to take the high road about attitudes try changing yours as well, by not refferencing inflammatory language such as this.
So? Knight is an open theist and you are not. Are you therefore not fond of TOL or Knight?
- Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned. Titus 3:10-11
the LORD hates...one who sows discord among brethren. Proverbs 6:16, 20.
I assume Dr. Kennedy is a Calvinist, since he's the pastor of a Presbyterian church. But unlike many other Christian radio programs, I don't pick up any overtly Calvinistic doctrine on "Truths That Transform." If it weren't for the name of his church, I wouldn't know whether he were a Calvinist or an Armenian.
Your logic is quite flawed. One can disagree with a doctrine or theory without transferring that disagreement to a lack of fondness for an individual. Of course many people do hate, or at a minimum show a lack of fondness toward, those who disagree with their theoretical ideas. This is easily seen here by noticing the venom directed toward me simply because I happen to believe that what is written in the Bible, and what has traditionally been what people have understood it to be saying, is true.
I suggest you follow this advice in addition to giving it to others.
The idea that a person must agree with all doctrines of a denomination in order to be a member has been out of favor in America for quite some time now. I doubt if many Christian consider the views of Christian leaders to be as infallible as Catholics do regarding their Pope, although some might. Calvin had many good ideas, but some were better than others. I am sure Dr. Kennedy knows and agrees with this.
If I didn't know better I might think you are deliberately sowing discord among the brothers.
