Lotan wrote:
Why don't you give us a list of 'creation scientists' who have actually done 'creation science', like publishing research papers?
I did…several of them… not sure how you missed it… ??
Dilettante wrote:
…but why would anyone need to interpret Genesis literally? Big Bang or not, Christians have long interpreted it metaphorically, even before modern science was born. Why isn't it recognized that the Bible simply isn't about science, but about religion?
Genesis should be interpreted as written, historical narrative. Christians did not habitually interpreted Genesis metaphorically before modern science. Where did you get the idea that the Bible is about religion? It is a collection of 66 books which were written over a period of 1600 years by approximately 40 different authors from many different nations. It contains poetry, history, prophecy, and wise sayings. Some of it is “about religion,” some of it is about history, some is about biology, some is about astronomy. I doubt you’ve even read the Bible since you clearly don’t even know what it is aside from your own presuppositions.
Second, the reason we discuss C vs. E is because the Creationists want it taught in science class. We basically don't care what you believe, until you want to force your religious beliefs down our children's throats in the guise of "Science."...we have a perfectly good, naturalistic explanation for the origins of the solar system already that does not rely on such fantasmagorical stories.
First, the reason we debate C vs. E is NOT because Creationists want it taught in the science class, it’s because it is controversial. Evolutionists force their beliefs down our children’s throats daily under the guise of “science.” The Creationists haven’t been lobbying to force anyone to teach Creationism in schools. They have been mostly trying to give teachers the right to openly discuss the weaknesses of evolution and eventually to be able to openly discuss varying theories. And if you think there are no weaknesses with evolution then you shouldn’t be against it. You do not have a “perfectly good, naturalistic explanation for the origins of the solar system.” Everything you believe about the beginning of the solar system is an unobserved, improvable, just-so story made up in an attempt to disprove God so that humanists can sleep better at night, as is your imaginary pre-biotic soup in which the first hypothetical living cells evolved, which is a complete impossibility on all accounts, even according to many evolutionists. Which is why Crick, one of the co-discoverers of the double helix of DNA thinks that aliens seeded life on earth. But that just pushes the problem into outer space. Oh, which reminds me, the Big Bang and Evolution rely wholly upon just-so "fantasmagorical" stories.
Juliod wrote:
Oh, come along now, be fair. I did not bring this topic up. I was directly challenged on my qualification to speak on evolution. Unlike most people I can prove that I am qualified to not only speak about evolution, but to teach it at any level, to conduct leading-edge original research, and to receive grants from government and other organizations.
Actually, you directly challenged on my “qualification” to “speak for God” (which I have the God-given right to do since it’s a Christian’s job to give an answer to anyone who asks about their faith). Besides, I have provided you with a list of numerous PhD Scientists who believe in the Bible on both philosophical and scientific grounds. PhD doesn’t qualify you to disallow someone the right to speak or challenge you. Just because you are “qualified” to do research doesn’t mean you actually do it. If you don’t, then by your own definition (or those of most evolutionists), you aren’t a real scientist.
It must be embarrassing to challenge someone on this only to find out they have a Ph.D. I don't see why I shouldn't take full advantage.
Embarrassing? Your jokig right? I prefer a PhD; it’s more satisfying when even their beloved credentials can’t provide them with the reasoning ability to outwit or disprove something they consider to be of utmost stupidity. PhDs aren’t intimidating, especially when they can’t even provide any evidence or even logic to support their claims but rather resort to scathing cynicism and 'elephant hurling.' Besides, a PhD is a layperson outside his own field. I don’t remember debating biology with you. On a final note, I would like to debate with you on biology. How about you start a thread on it? That way we don’t have to waste any more time going back and forth about qualifications.
...he was adding things to the bible. People who do that listen to their own voices and call it god.
I haven’t added anything to the Bible. In order to add to the Bible you have to claim that it says something that contradicts what it teaches. I don’t call my own voice “God.” In fact, being an evolutionist, you believe man sets the rules and that morality is relative, making yourself “God.” But maybe I’m forgetting how humble a faith humanism is…
It is, in this context, perfectly proper to challenge creationists on the grounds that their arguments are non-biblical.
You didn’t show me what I said that was non-biblical. For something to be unbiblical, it has to contradict the Bible. There is such a thing as inference. It’s quite necessary. I didn't contradicted the Bible, but merely interpreted it. If I said that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat, THAT would be unbiblical.
juliod wrote:
You've introduced the concept of "source". That would not have been understood by the ancients. The "day" had light. The "night" did not. The sun was not the source of light to them. This was obvious since there was clearly light in your house, or in the shade, when the sun was not visible. Even overcast days had light, but no sun.
It’s kind of hard to miss the giant glowing circle in the sky.
Even up till the middle ages it was thought that your eyes projected something out into the world to create vision.
Are you saying that all the millions of people from Indian, Japan, Australia, South America, Africa, North America, and Europe ALL had the SAME idea about your eyes projecting “something” to create vision?
So your retro-modern view of what the bible meant is not sustainable. The bible is merely an ancient, wrong document.
That comment is not sustainable. It’s hollowed out bologna and that's just wacky. Do you know the epitome of foolishness? Reaching a conclusion before hearing the argument.
I was unaware that only PhD’s are allowed to voice opinions.
I never said that. You challenged me. I respect your opinion fully. But keep in mind that this forum is not a level playing field. Some of us know far far more than others.
My challenge was a response to your challenge. Your arrogance is apparent not only in your “I have a PhD” attitude, but in your assertion that you know “far, far more” than others. You haven’t demonstrated that you know more than me, in fact your paltry remarks have thus far shown the opposite since you can do no more than keep saying “I’m right and you’re wrong.” We aren’t here to debate how much smarter you think you are or whether or not you think you are right.
What I was pointing out is that no creation "scientist" has shown how the various real fossils could have been created by the flood. Forget AIGs silly examples. Ask them why they can't show mineralization of a freshly-killed carcass in a general flood-like environment?
Creationists have demonstrated that fossils can form quickly so I’m not sure what your argument is. AiG’s example aren’t silly (they are just strange to you because you’re indoctrinated with uniformitarian ideas) and unless you can demonstrate them to be false, then don’t ridicule them. Even evolutionists teach that fossils are formed when a creature is buried but water and sediment, where it then mineralizes. So tell me why a flood would somehow hinder fossilization. Are you saying also that only long dead creatures can fossilize and that fresh carcasses cannot? Then how do you explain dinosaur (and other fossils) having either fossilized or un-fossilized soft tissue attached? Please provide a single logical reason (I won’t even ask for evidence!) why a flood could not produce fossils if it buried living creatures.
Quote:
How do you define “scientist”? Which of these Creationists isn’t a scientist by your definition?
I don't define "scientist". I merely state that no creation "scientist" ever actually does science.
What I will do is look up one of the people you posted, and see if I can find out if they are both a real active research scientist, and a creationist. I've done this before with similar lists with the expected result that they were either not active scientists or not creationists.
MINE: Every one of the scientists I listen is a real research scientist as well as a creationist. My personal favorite is Dr. Sarfati. I challenge you to provide one example from my list that is either not a “real research scientist” or not a creationist, since you are so sure of yourself. Must be embarrassing making bold assertions but never being able to back them up.
Quote:
In case you don't notice, by saying the Bible is "completely wrong," you are saying that you are also wrong about many things as the Bible states many things you would agree with, including wise insights and historical events that have been verified by archaeologists.
Of course, I meant the biblical accounts of Genesis. But I don't think the bible contains "wise sayings" when taken as a whole (all that blood and gore, you know), and is no better than any other ancient document in recording historical events. They always attribute things to supernatural causes that don't exist and have people talking to magical beings, etc, that never happened. So I think "completely wrong" is a fair assessment.
MINE: You are completely wrong in your contention that the bible is no better than any other ancient historical document in recording historical events. Not only does it have more manuscript support than any other ancient document, but it has been accurate on more historical accounts that any other ancient texts and, again, I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise. You declared it as fact, so it’s your job to provide the evidence.
MINE: As for attributing things to supernatural causes, that is again, wrong. What is attributed to the supernatural are supernatural events such as creation from nothing, miracles, etc. But that doesn’t mean that every day events have supernatural causes. The universe works according to laws which are unchanging and thus can be tested and understood. But when someone comes back from the dead, that’s clearly not something in the realm of science. Doubtless an evolutionist will now contest that since Creation is supernatural, it’s outside the realm of science. But that’s not so, Creationists do not imagine, as evolutionists do, that they can prove the improvable past. In terms of origins, Creationists study the evidence in the present to see whether is confirms or disconfirms the Biblical record (as well as doing just day-to-day research).
Quote:
Humus easily fits into the above definition of “dust.”
Not on a pre-biotic earth such as the garden of Eden. There weren't decandes of decomposing plant matter in the soil before the plants were created, were there? Don't you ever consider the context of your texts?
MINE: Again, you haven’t answered how you think plants could evolve from non-living matter before humus. But like I said before, God didn’t need to use humus to create. And if he did, he could create humus. He didn’t even have to use earth to form man; he could have made him appear from nothing, like the universe. So there isn’t even a problem here. A problem arises only when you say the universe had no first cause, that it just appeared out of nothing without an omnipotent God to make it so. So if you think an all-powerful God couldn’t use “dust” to make humans, tell me how the universe created itself from nothing. After all, you have PhD don’t you?
juliod
Quote:
By the middle ages I would think that someone would have noticed the correlation between "sun" and "light", and "no sun" and "dark"...
It's not nearly that simple, I think. Optics is still a very difficult topic for modern students. And these people where working in an age without lenses or even a half-decent theory of optics.
MINE: I don’t think you imaginary primitive people would have been quite advanced enough to understand that optics is complex. You don’t have to understand how a computers inner functions work in order to work a computer. You don’t have to understand optics to understand that you see with your eyes and that without light, you can’t see. Fire hot, ice cold, light bright. What’s the problem?
MINE: You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see a correlation between big yellow light in sky and daylight. Also, who said they had to believe sun was the “only” source of light? I doubt “the ancients” thought of optics as such a complicated issue since, according to your own logic, they were “primitive.” Seeing a correlation between sun and light is no more advanced that seeing a correlation between lake and wet. After all, I get wet when I’m not in the lake because sweat comes out of my body. So I guess that the lake isn’t a source of wetness.
juliod
I merely state that no creation "scientist" ever actually does science.
What I will do is look up one of the people you posted, and see if I can find out if they are both a real active research scientist, and a creationist. I've done this before with similar lists with the expected result that they were either not active scientists or not creationists
MINE: I said it before and I’ll say it again. The epitome of foolishness is answering a matter before you hear it. Creation scientists do as much science as evolutionists. I wouldn’t call what many evolutionists do “science” though. And you can expect what you want. I challenge you to provide one example from my list that fits your “expected result.” I’m waiting.
A "Creationist Scientist" maybe a "scientist" the may even do science for a living. But when it come to doing "Creation Science" they are not doing science, Scientist or not. it is apologetics using technology pretending it is science.
I have helped create a couple of grants in Family Medicine.
No money in it.
Taught Dr.s research methodology,
no money in it.
Taught History, Psychology and Sociology, No money in it.
Taught computer science or information science,
no money in it.
Did computer consulting for 20 years, money in it but computers are a pain in the ass.
MINE: I’m not sure what you not earning money and creationists have to do with each other. To say that Creationists doing “Creation Science” is not science is the same as saying Evolutionists doing “Evolution Science” isn’t science. In a way I would agree, but you first have to make the distinction between experimental science and origins science. I don’t disagree with any observation an evolutionist makes. I just disagree with him assumptions and thus, many of his conclusions.
What was lightness and darkness like befor they were seperated ignoring the fact it was words were day. What did it look like, feel like or taste I will go with anything.
MINE: Well, that’s easy. Light and Dark were light and dark (as opposed to dark and light…), before they were separated. The light was probably just in a chaotic state as opposed to being gathered together. Kind of like when God made the earth and it was “without form and void.” First he creates matter then he makes it orderly. Just like making dirt then forming it into living creatures. What did it look like? I wasn’t there. What did it feel or taste like? I never put it in my mouth so I wouldn’t know. What ddi the Big Bang taste like? You don’t KNOW?!?! Well, that proves that it didn’t happen I guess…
