Creation vs. Evolution

[Hedshaker]

I suspect Michael has had to take a variety of drugs in his time for his medical condition. In hospital under the drug I saw a number of imaginary nurses (angels of a sort ) who would suddenly disappear in a cloud of dots right in front of me as if they'd been "beamed up", but I eventually came to realise that it was a delusion but I had been totally deceived. :think:

Yes indeed! The human mind can be easily fooled, especially, it appears, when it comes to beliefs held for mostly emotional reasons. Our very own Michael being a classic example.

And the hard-wired thing also seems plausible as well. It appears to be a strange phenomenon though if you're of a sceptical persuasion.

 

[alwight]

Atheists can't hold their position. The only atheists that can hold are drug addicts. Those are the only atheists I respect as atheists.

What makes you an expert on atheists?

 

[dialm]

What makes you an expert on atheists?

It is not so much that I'm an expert on atheists. I'm an expert on hypocrites. Atheists just make up a large section of that grouping.

Does this help you?

 

[6days]

u do realise that at a paleontological gathering, Kurt Wise would be a very lonely man. Thus you do not help your cause to list YEC scientists or palaeontologists, because for every one you find, I could find 100 opposed to this. So let's call this argument (4)*YEC-numbers-game*and never use it again.

Its not a niumbers game at all. Truth is not determined by consensus. As this paleontogist says....as Christians we accept Gods Word as truth. And as he says there is evidence in the world around us to support the truth in His Word.

And saying that religious scientists believe no matter what the facts, let's call this argument (5)*religious-closed-mindedness. This argument is totally off-putting to people of a scientific disposition. So this too never furthers your cause. So I would never use (5) again if I were you.

Are you trying to create a snowman that you can beat up on? Oh no that's called a straw man isn't it?

Kurt Wise didn't say anything about believing in spite of the facts. I don't think anybody said that unless I missed a post somewhere?*If anything, Im sure Wise would insist that we believe because of the facts

 

[6days]

Which is precisely why science does not concern itself with un-falsifiable notions.

Which is why things like multiverse, big bang, and common ancestry are not?
Perhaps we could call tbings like Intelligent Design or common ancestry - 'origins science'.

 

[6days]

Kurt Wise is a YEC first and foremost who will not be convinced even though he understands the science and the evidence.*

Yes.... Christians are thankful that more and more scientists are willing to take a stand for the absolute truth of Gods Word.*

As he says there are evidences from the world around us that support *Biblical creation, but it is the Bible itself which is the most compelling.*

 

[alwight]

It is not so much that I'm an expert on atheists. I'm an expert on hypocrites. Atheists just make up a large section of that grouping.

Does this help you?

Not really, perhaps if you explained your reasoning rather than only asserting it, that might help.

 

[Interplanner]

Yes.... Christians are thankful that more and more scientists are willing to take a stand for the absolute truth of Gods Word.*

As he says there are evidences from the world around us that support *Biblical creation, but it is the Bible itself which is the most compelling.*

Actually 6days it is a significant amount of outside material that reinforces the Bible. Today I watched this Stratham presentation on biogeography. https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search...e+flood&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-002
There are just a few quotes of Genesis passages, but a very powerful demonstration that biogeography and geologic history are in irreconcilable conflict.

Don't forget the U. Middelmann quote on the relation of the Bible to the circumference of truth:

“My perception stands in a system of coordinates (including the Bible in his ‘list’)… All of these are controls on each other, so that together they provide me with a view of reality that is more accurate than any one of them or than my perception of any one alone.”
--U. Middelmann, Pro-Existence, 1974

Material that reinforces Gen 1-11 is out there, you just have to ask, seek, knock a lot. The Machine wants to bury it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Well, it wouldn't end there for me. That would only be the beginning. I'd want to know what this creative force is, exactly? Where did it come from? How does it function? From where does it's energy come from. And yes, I've heard all the apologetics but they're just not sceptic proof. The most powerful entity in existence, cannot just exist simply because it just does, or has always existed.... same thing really. No amount of faith could make me believe in magic.

I used to enjoy The Barbarian's posts for the most part, his knowledge of Evolutionary theory and science was tops. But then he'd pick creationists up on lacking evidence and in the next breath start bantering on about "God's word" (presumably the Bible?) as though it was fact.

I struggled with his compartmentalising but loved his science prowess.

Well, if such a force exists and is actually behind life itself then science wouldn't give any of the answers to your queries regardless.

 

[Hedshaker]

Which is why things like multiverse, big bang, and common ancestry are not?
Perhaps we could call tbings like Intelligent Design or common ancestry - 'origins science'.

As you well you know The Theory of Evolution and Common Ancestry come under the banner of science and is taught in science classes in Schools across the civilised world. Whether you like it or not. Intelligent design, on the other hand, has been shown to be creationism by another name, which is religion not science. Genesis is but one creation myth among many.

As has already been pointed out to you more than once, the Multiverse is openly "suspected" as an "Hypothesis" by some scientists and cosmologists and is as reasonable an hypothesis as any. What exactly do you think we should see upon approaching the edge of the only universe we know about? A sign saying The Universe Ends Here? Followed by a divinely constructed brick wall? Or you could perhaps present your own hypothesis for why there must be only one universe, without quoting apologetics or invoking what you think is "Gods Word"?

I must admit to not knowing who exactly first coined the phrase, "The Big Bang", nor do I really care. Was astronomer Fred Hoyle a creationist?
or not, and who cares any way?

You repeat the same drivel so often now that you appear to be parodying yourself.

 

[6days]

As you well you know The Theory of Evolution and Common Ancestry come under the banner of science and is taught in science classes in Schools across the civilised world. Whether you like it or not. Intelligent design, on the other hand, has been shown to be creationism by another name, which is religion not science. Genesis is but one creation myth among many.

As has already been pointed out to you more than once, the Multiverse is openly "suspected" as an "Hypothesis" by some scientists and cosmologists and is as reasonable an hypothesis as any. What exactly do you think we should see upon approaching the edge of the only universe we know about? A sign saying The Universe Ends Here? Followed by a divinely constructed brick wall? Or you could perhaps present your own hypothesis for why there must be only one universe, without quoting apologetics or invoking what you think is "Gods Word"?

I must admit to not knowing who exactly first coined the phrase, "The Big Bang", nor do I really care. Was astronomer Fred Hoyle a creationist?
or not, and who cares any way?

You repeat the same drivel so often now that you appear to be parodying yourself.

???
But you said science doesnt concern itself with non falsifible things..... you now contradict yourself.
Multiverse...Creation....Big Bang....common ancestor are all non falsifiable beliefs. (Things science doesnt concern itself with according to you)

 

[Hedshaker]

Well, if such a force exists and is actually behind life itself then science wouldn't give any of the answers to your queries regardless.

Totally agree, which is the point. One would be hard put to see any difference between it, whatever "it" is and nothing at all.

Of course, peeps are free to believe what ever they wish, but if they choose un-falsifiable notions they are still in the same boat as the "I don't know" crowd. Which again, is the point.

I personally think admitting ignorance regarding what is genuinely not known to be more honest. I rather value honesty. :thumb:

 

[patrick jane]

Totally agree, which is the point. One would be hard put to see any difference between it, whatever "it" is and nothing at all.

Of course, peeps are free to believe what ever they wish, but if they choose un-falsifiable notions they are still in the same boat as the "I don't know" crowd. Which again, is the point.

I personally think admitting ignorance regarding what is genuinely not known to be more honest. I rather value honesty. :thumb:

I've said this time and again. Nobody knows

 

[Hedshaker]

???
But you said science doesnt concern itself with non falsifible things..... you now contradict yourself.
Multiverse...Creation....Big Bang....common ancestor are all non falsifiable beliefs. (Things science doesnt concern itself with according to you)

You know, I don't know if you do this to bolster your own beliefs or whether you are genuinely clueless:

See Hypothesis

hypothesis
hʌɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/
noun
noun: hypothesis; plural noun: hypotheses

a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
"his ‘steady state’ hypothesis of the origin of the universe"
synonyms: theory, theorem, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition; More
notion, concept, idea, contention, opinion, view, belief
"his ‘steady state’ hypothesis of the origin of the universe"
Philosophy
a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.
"the hypothesis that every event has a cause"

A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. is not a "belief" in the same way that you are using the word.

Science, theories, hypotheses are not about non falsifiable "beliefs" in the way you want to use the terms.

And there appears to be quite a lot to study about..... is common descent falsifiable


But anyway, admittedly science is far from perfect. It can be messy and open to abuse, but it's, by far, the most successful human endeavour regarding the proverbial truth search ever devised, IMO.

 

[Hedshaker]

I've said this time and again. Nobody knows

Me too. In fact I said as much in the post you quoted :thumb:

 

[Interplanner]

As you well you know The Theory of Evolution and Common Ancestry come under the banner of science and is taught in science classes in Schools across the civilised world. Whether you like it or not. Intelligent design, on the other hand, has been shown to be creationism by another name, which is religion not science. Genesis is but one creation myth among many.

As has already been pointed out to you more than once, the Multiverse is openly "suspected" as an "Hypothesis" by some scientists and cosmologists and is as reasonable an hypothesis as any. What exactly do you think we should see upon approaching the edge of the only universe we know about? A sign saying The Universe Ends Here? Followed by a divinely constructed brick wall? Or you could perhaps present your own hypothesis for why there must be only one universe, without quoting apologetics or invoking what you think is "Gods Word"?

I must admit to not knowing who exactly first coined the phrase, "The Big Bang", nor do I really care. Was astronomer Fred Hoyle a creationist?
or not, and who cares any way?

You repeat the same drivel so often now that you appear to be parodying yourself.

That 'science' of Evolution and Common Ancestry is a slopped-up job by 19th century British elites to help them think they were the premier race. So biogeography and geologic history completely conflict with each other. But few talk about it.

The short-circuit of the 19th century was that that were driven by 'getting rid of physico-theologians.' That's a horrible way to approach any subject, and is why Darwin sat in Rio Vera Cruz harbor on the Beagle reading theory from 7000 miles away about S. American geography instead of looking out the window to see what actually happened in the Vera Cruz valley.

The thing to care about is that this place is God's and our lives and efforts belong to him and are accountable to him. If you are dismissing that, then say so, but don't say that the doctrine of such a God creating this place and universe is a 'myth' when all the evidence is in plain sight. A 'myth' in your sense is LORD OF THE RINGS-type material. Genesis 1-11 is far more reality-based than even the Enuma Elish where you have a female deity acting retributive to a human for his refusing her sexual advances. Genesis does not ask you to believe that, as categories go.

I don't know why your write-off of creationism is written as though it was the end-all of the issue. The question, to use more clear language, is whether there is an infinite-personal-intelligent Creator doing certain things in the very same realm which 'science' treats. Why could there not be? The 'could' question is far more necessary to resolve than the latest news from the edge of the universe. To use the language of past English novels about various unusual situations: 'why ever not'? (ie could this not ever be true?)

 

[Hedshaker]

The thing to care about is that this place is God's and our lives and efforts belong to him and are accountable to him.

Well if there's a rag of truth in any of that you should have no problem explaining where he came from, where his energy comes from, how he uses it and how its distributed.

Just making bald claims is no more than mindless preaching, which is fine if that's all you want to do, but it proves nothing.

 

[Interplanner]

He doesn't explain it. Why do you need to know? What he does communicate about is the events of planet earth and eventually how a person's debt of sin can be forgiven in Christ. There is not much concern that your questions about things behind the cosmological scenes be answered.

What we have in evolution is a poorly thought out system that has biogeography and geologic history in total conflict with what is known by scientists about either of them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAjpbwH8teo

 

[MichaelCadry]

I can't really argue against your angels Michael, clearly they are important to you. I wonder why you think you were selected to have first hand experience?

Michael, I'm rather sure that you haven't actually understood the science involved here. It has nothing to do with human lifetimes or even individual stars. Galaxies are many millions of light-years away so their light is many millions of years old.

Dear alwight,

I think I had this firsthand experience in part, because I have Israeli blood in me (all 12 tribes) and also Arabic (Lebanese). God purposed this for me before I was even in my Mom's womb. Dad let my Mom call me Michael instead of Mohamed, which was my grandfather's name on my Dad's side. My Dad also let my Mom raise us as Christians even though he was a Muslim. We used to have to run and hide the Christian Bibles and Church pamphlets when my Dad's family suddenly pulled in the driveway. They always came over unannounced. They didn't know we were Christian until I was 18 years old. There's more to it, but that will have to do for now. My Dad did embrace Christianity before he died. This is what the Lord told me when I asked Him. Take it any way you like it. I used to even sing in the Church choir and also played the organ a couple times at Church. They used to have me do solos.

Who is to say that these galaxies are 'millions' of miles away? Some new measuring device? A light spectrum? I don't believe a word of it. We will never see outside of this Universe because God doesn't want us to see the end of it. It's the same thing as the inaccuracy of Carbon-14 dating? Or Piltdown man, and Lucy? I could go on. Haekel's fraud? Man's ancestry, etc. You're WRONG!!

I know that I've been blessed for having these things happen to me. I have had more than one angel visit me, and more than one vision, and more than one visit from the Lord, and more than one visit by the Holy Ghost. That doesn't happen if you are hallucinating. You just don't know about it because you've never experienced it. If you had any similar experiences, you would believe me.

Cheerio, Mate,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Well, it wouldn't end there for me. That would only be the beginning. I'd want to know what this creative force is, exactly? Where did it come from? How does it function? From where does it's energy come from. And yes, I've heard all the apologetics but they're just not sceptic proof. The most powerful entity in existence, cannot just exist simply because it just does, or has always existed.... same thing really. No amount of faith could make me believe in magic.

I used to enjoy The Barbarian's posts for the most part, his knowledge of Evolutionary theory and science was tops. But then he'd pick creationists up on lacking evidence and in the next breath start bantering on about "God's word" (presumably the Bible?) as though it was fact.

I struggled with his compartmentalising but loved his science prowess.

Dear Hedshaker,

I'm sorry you need such criteria to believe in a Creator. I doubt you will get it. He goes by which person believes him out of faith, not those who expect Him to prove Him before He acknowledges you. You're out of luck if that's what you think. He goes by how a person's heart feels and those who truly love Him, not those who simply want to get to Heaven. Otherwise, everyone would be going to Heaven, right? It would just anyone's destiny!

Nice Try,

Michael