No trust in Creation...no trust in Genesis....no trust in Scriptures...

[KOOLLAYDTAC]

The reality is the book of Genesis is vaige when it explains the creation process of everything. Does it tell you what creature God made first? No it does not. It's MANS account of the beginning from God to man to paper. The theory of evolution is just that a theory. I don't think it's satanic at all IMO. Dinosaurs have been proven to have existed and yet I see no mention of it in the Bible. Does that mean they were not real? Absolutely not. The Bible is a ancient collection of history texts combined and a guide from our God on how we are supposed to attempt to live our lives. It is impossible for any one person to live totally with out sin, but our job is to try and do our best to sin as least as possible. To live good lives and try and further understand what it was Jesus was trying to teach us. Do I think creation has anything to do with salvation? No I do not. What I think is it is something to be filed under questions I will ask should I be lucky and blessed enough to make it to Heaven and meet my creator. When I stand before Jesus and God and Angels and possibly other people and loved ones to be judged and after all that is said and done then I might be bothered to ask him about that. Until then I think the focus should be teaching the word of God and Jesus and alittle less time worrying about how the first natural light bulb popped up. Just my thoughts on it anyway.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

First-hand testimony is qualifiable evidence whether or not the person making it is presently alive or not. You "have the answer" because you were a witness to the actual experience of being punched in the face at the time it occurred. The apostles "had the answer" because they were witnesses to the actual experiences at the time they occurred.

You laughed at historical scholars denying that they use science to forensically ascertain the reliability of the evidence of eyewitness testimony. I refuted your false assertion by providing you with the fields of science they use. Of course, some of those fields are also used to ascertain the reliability of present non-historical evidence.

I "have the answer" from both the ascertained reliability of the historical record using science which includes eyewitness testimony but also from another source in the present: God confirmed it by revealing Himself to me both spiritually but also via supernatural miracle (e.g. in this context events in the external world brought about by the immediate agency of God either directly or through delegation of a spiritual being that is aligned with Himself [i.e. angels]).

Now you're not being genuine as I've given you many examples from the world's brightest in previous posts (specifically in the atheist thread we already covered this in detail) and provided you with associations of scientists, researchers, and educators that have extensive membership. So not only are you making a false assertion with respect to quality but you're making a false assertion with respect to quantity too.

That, my atheist friend, was just a name out of a hat as a quick refresher (how was I to know that you apparently have a problem with retaining past information shared with you that rebuts/refutes your ignorant false assertions).

Yes, you need to do a genuine in-depth comparison. Comparing the standard evolutionary model with the creation model the team of scientists at Reasons to Believe have produced for the origin of life is a great place to begin. I made it easy for you but you only responded with ignorant false assertions and an argument from authority fallacy. Tsk,tsk, Percepi; there is nothing "scientific" about that.

You're starting with the answer that you punched me in the fact. If we have the answer, then there's no purpose of proving that answer. The answer itself isn't evidence though. However, if a person who wasn't around demanded evidence, then I would have to present evidence that you punched me in the face.

You also mention one Nobel Prize winner who accepted Creationism. A chemist. Do I really need to look up the level of support behind evolution? I'll not waste my time since you're already aware of this level of support. You're moving goal posts. You talk about how most scientists are wrong, then you find a few scientists who do accept creationism and claim this is a large and important level of support. Oddly enough, these scientists are rarely ever experienced in the field of biology, such as Richard Smalley who's a chemist.

 

[mpaper345]

If a person does not believe in creation then they would not believe in a God although some believe that God went through an evolutionary process to bring things about which is not true.

God created things straight out as whole and not by evolution and scientists will never be able to understand that.

I do not believe in evolution because evolution does not have a mind of intelligence so it does not know anything and does not perceive anything.

Why would evolution give us ears to hear when evolution cannot perceive that there is anything to hear to give us ears to hear.

Why would evolution gives us eyes to see when evolution cannot perceive that there is anything to see to give us eyes to see it.

Evolution knows nothing and could not perceive anything so it cannot do anything.Evolution could not even get a start.

Evolution would have to have a reason why it did what it did but evolution knows nothing and perceives nothing so it cannot do anything.

The only thing that would make sense is if it had a min d of intelligence but then they would have to say it is a higher being.

God said I gave you eyes can I not see.

God knows there are things to see because He can see so He gave us eyes to see but evolution knows nothing concerning everything.

It is funny with no mind of intelligence that evolution can do all these wonderful things and cause a human body to come out,not only for best functioning but for best looks.

How can evolution understand anything to do anything.

Evolutionists say that the Christians do not put intellictual thought in to their belief but they do put intellectual thought in to their belief.I cannot believe in evolution for it does not make sense.

And here is something else I do not understand if evolution can do all these wonderful things and it is survival of the fittest why did it put a man's testicles on the outside of their body making them vulnerable like that.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Most old earth and progressive creation models posit a local flood event roughly transpiring around 50,000 years ago.

I agree with most of what you said, but question the above statement.

What date do you think Noah's local flood occurred? I'm not looking for a specific date like Bishop Ussher's 2348 BC. Just an approximate date - around 2,500 BC, 5000 BC, 10,000 BC, or what?

 

[crossnote]

Hmm, why do I get the feeling that these prophesies will either have a metaphorical interpretation or they'll refer to already likely events?

As one who looks up to the 'scientific' method of inquiry, would it be honest to go by your 'feelings' and pass off written predictive historical accounts as 'metaphorical'?...especially in the face of other eye witnesses to the fulfilled events.
Sounds like a little bit of anti historical bias, especially if it involves somethig beyond natural explanation.

 

[Percepi]

As one who looks up to the 'scientific' method of inquiry, would it be honest to go by your 'feelings' and pass off written predictive historical accounts as 'metaphorical'?...especially in the face of other eye witnesses to the fulfilled events.
Sounds like a little bit of anti historical bias, especially if it involves somethig beyond natural explanation.

There are only witnesses who claim to have made a connection that doesn't actually exist. Complete unreliability.

BTW, I witnessed a unicorn. Unicorns are real. Want proof? Next week, there will be a sad story of a young child who has died at the hands of an immoral adult. If that prediction comes true, unicorns are real and I'm a unicorn profit. SCIENCE.

First-hand testimony is qualifiable evidence whether or not the person making it is presently alive or not.

But it's not science. Therefore, the rest of your post is entirely moot since we're discussing science.

Now you're not being genuine as I've given you many examples from the world's brightest in previous posts (specifically in the atheist thread we already covered this in detail) and provided you with associations of scientists, researchers, and educators that have extensive membership. So not only are you making a false assertion with respect to quality but you're making a false assertion with respect to quantity too.

So the overwhelming majority of scientists are creationists? Who knew?

Yes, you need to do a genuine in-depth comparison. Comparing the standard evolutionary model with the creation model the team of scientists at Reasons to Believe

These scientists aren't verifying creationism through science. They might be scientists, but they haven't reached scientific conclusions on creationism. They literally draw their conclusions outside of the scientific method. They are dishonest and I'm certain many of them are simply supporting creationism because it's easy money. If a moron such as Ray Comfort can make it rich, just think of what you could do if you DO understand evolution and you know how to misconstrue everything after understanding the total ignorance of creationists such as yourself!

I made it easy for you but you only responded with ignorant false assertions and an argument from authority fallacy. Tsk,tsk, Percepi; there is nothing "scientific" about that.

Considering the fact you literally reject all scientific claims that contradict your views, discussion about what evolution actually is, how it actually works, and why the creationist model doesn't even provide us with a working hypothesis, is all but impossible to have with you.

Creationists make arguments that do not accurately portray the theory of evolution. If you correct them with what evolution actually is, they still expect you to disprove their ridiculous claims. The thing is, it shouldn't matter whether or not you disprove their claims because their initial argument fails to acknowledge the actual theory of evolution to begin with. If you do go the extra mile and explain not only how their understanding of evolution is flawed but also how their argument is flawed, they don't even acknowledge that they're wrong and they spew out another "proof" that evolution is wrong. You repeat the process - explain to them how they once again misunderstand what evolution actually is and you disprove their claim. Then they shoot another argument. Eventually, you run into these creationists and they repeat arguments you have previously corrected. It's a futile process.

 

[Fishbait]

Recently I have been doing some street work with young folks and a constant theme with them, is that they are bombarded in school, college and the media in general ( see EVERY NATURAL HISTORY PROGRAM ON THE TV) with the theory that the world evolved. This leads them then to diss any idea of a creation based history of the world and therefore a disbelief in the book of Genesis as the truth of God's word. Once you compromise on Genesis, you compromise on the basic principles of our faith....sin entering the world as a result of man's disobedience, death as a result of sin, mans separation from God and the need for salvation, Satan as a reality, marriage between a man and a women etc.
In My opinion a rejection of creation is possibly Satan's greatest achievement and one which he has successfully propagated throughout history......
Many Christians state that A belief in Creation is not something to get too "worked up about" as it is not really a "salvation matter"......I beg to differ. It is possibly the biggest stumbling block to the non christians ability to see their need for Salvation ......
evolution is Satanic in origin and must be tackled everywhere it is encountered!!

If the first book of the Bible could be wrong then all the other books can be as well. People quickly drift away from the Bible and the ancient stories it proclaims to be true when evolution is taken as a fact. Science tells us it's impossible for light to travel billions of light years in just 6,000 years. Science also tells us it's impossible for a man to be raised from the dead in three days. If Christ was not raised from the dead then none of us would be here in Chirstianchat. Christianity and the belief that Jesus was raised from the dead is the reason for our hope. If Jesus didn't die in our place for ours sins then we're all condemed to hell. Without Jesus being raised from the dead and alive in Heaven why be or even discuss being a Christian?

The Bible clearly teaches a literal six-day creation a few thousand years ago and a global catastrophic Flood at the time of Noah. The Bible firmly resists any attempts to marry it with evolution and millions of years. Rather than playing fast and loose with the sacred text, we ought to heed the words of Isaiah 66:2, where God says:

"For My hand made all these things, thus all these things came into being,” declares the Lord. “But to this one I will look, to him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word."


​

 

[Fishbait]

Most old earth and progressive creation models posit a local flood event roughly transpiring around 50,000 years ago.

Using the Bible, well-documented historical events, and some math, we find that the Flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BC. Some may look for an exact date (i.e., month and day), but we are not given that sort of precision in Scripture.

 

[RedTent]

The Bible clearly teaches a literal six-day creation a few thousand years ago and a global catastrophic Flood at the time of Noah. The Bible firmly resists any attempts to marry it with evolution and millions of years. Rather than playing fast and loose with the sacred text, we ought to heed the words of Isaiah 66:2, where God says:

"For My hand made all these things, thus all these things came into being,” declares the Lord. “But to this one I will look, to him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word."​

The bible clearly does NOT teach a literal six-day creation. Was there nothing there to add to on the first day of creation? Read in Genesis about it, and check the Hebrew that verse was translated from. When you say to listen to Fishbait's interpretation to decide on God, that only Fishbait knows, then it only says the you are not humble before the Lord.

If you listen to science as having superior knowledge than that of the Creator, you don't come out with truth. But, science can help understand scripture in some cases.

For years and years, bible students knew the earth was flat, it clearly talked of the four corners. People had the same reaction as you have to the very strange idea that it was round. Now, knowing it is round adds to our knowledge of what scripture says.

 

[Elin]

And remembering that science is not the only source of information on creation.

Creation isn't supported by science - at all. So, no, it's not even a source of information on creation.

So none of creation exists?

I am not convinced of any "scientific" arguments, which of necessity
must be based on assumptions regarding what cannot be observed and,
therefore, I choose not to make arguments based on any assumption of the facts.
I present arguments which are believed by science, but I do not defend them.

Science isn't based off of assumptions.

Wrong. . .there are assumptions in science.

So you're saying the dating systems are based on no assumptions whatsoever?
And you're saying the process of origin is not assumed to be the same as the processes observed today?

Much of what isn't directly observed can still be verified through science. That's one of the many purposes of science!

"Much" is not all.
It's the "not all" that I am talking about.

You then talk about how you don't make presumptuous arguments.

Nope. . .I don't make arguments based on assumptions.
And in addition, I certainly don't make presumptuous arguments.

I make arguments from a written record. . .which you cannot conclusively prove to be untrue.

That's all creationism is. Assumptions based on presupposed arguments that haven't been verified by science

At least we agree on the limitations of science.

Science cannot verify what it cannot observe without using assumptions.

In the case of the origin of earth and the life on it, it assumes that
the process of origin is the same as the processes observed today.
In the case of dating, it assumes facts that it cannot prove to be true.

I'll leave it to you to do the research on what they are.

but are considered scientific because creationists consider them facts that do not need evidence outside of the Bible - which isn't how science works and is therefore not science.

Agreed, the Bible does not use the scientific method as the basis of its truth.

It's a pity how you have never allowed yourself to become more knowledgeable about science.

And this adds to your argument, how?

But since you brought it up, would it likewise be a pity how you have never allowed yourself
to come to saving faith in Jesus of Nazareth?

However, I am convinced that Jesus is the way, the Truth and the life,
because I am convinced of the truth of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures,
based on evidence which you cannot physically observe and measure.

If it can't be observed or measured, then it isn't evidence.

Now, we're down to the real pity. . .your loss.
It's not evidence to you, but it is overwhelmingly convincing evidence to me.

And in those Scriptures is a written record of what you cannot observe,
and of which you make conclusions from assumptions regarding
the process of origin, dating, et al.

There's A LOT of research behind dating methods.
they aren't arbitrary as you have come to believe.

Agreed. . .and non-responsive.

It's not about research, it's about assumptions.

There's a lot of research relating to extra-terrestrial beings. . .so?

So if you care to deal with the original source of information on creation,
I will be happy to do so with you.

The original source doesn't matter in science because that source is the Bible.
It's assumed to be true

Like the assumptions which science uses; e.g., in the process of origin; in dating?

without having to explain itself to be true. This isn't science.

Likewise, it is not science to assume that science is the epitome of all knowledge and truth.

 

[Sinnner]

// Six 24-Hour Days - GODSAIDMANSAID.COM

 

[BeeD]

My kids and I have had this discussion about what their teaches tell them in school about evolution. I have raised them reading the bible to them, so they know the truth of it. I tell them..."In order to pass the tests you need to put the answers on the test that they tell you to put, but during the discussions you need to tell them the truth that you know." So this is what they do. They have come home to me telling me of the discussions they get into with their teachers....I am just amazed that any adult with even half of a brain would believe in evolution.

 

[Percepi]

Wrong. . .there are assumptions in science.

So you're saying the dating systems are based on no assumptions whatsoever?

Precisely.

And you're saying the process of origin is not assumed to be the same as the processes observed today?

I have no idea what you're asking. First of all, evolution doesn't cover origins. That's a study called abiogenesis. Second, we're not entirely sure how life began. However, we do have a fairly good understanding of some possibilities that is supported by evidence. It's a young study, so it's not yet conclusive. Evolution, on the other hand, is well understood and supported by mountains of evidence.

"Much" is not all.
It's the "not all" that I am talking about.

Science can't be used to verify everything. Most of history is lost in time, as well as many potential scientific discoveries. There are unknowns out there that will forever remain unknown. For example, we will most likely never have the scientific ability to determine what a particular dinosaur ate at exactly 387 days old. We may never know the true color of most fossilized species. We may never know the EXACT age of the Earth.

Nope. . .I don't make arguments based on assumptions.
And in addition, I certainly don't make presumptuous arguments.

I make arguments from a written record. . .which you cannot conclusively prove to be untrue.

It's not my job to prove the Bible false. It's your job to prove it true. The same goes for every other religious book such as the Qur'an, the Tanakh, and Dianetics. There is no reason to assume any of these texts to be factual until they are proven to be factual.

Science cannot verify what it cannot observe without using assumptions.

Though I addressed this already, I just need to stress out that you're dead wrong. Science doesn't use assumptions when observing the past. Science relies on different methods of observation that have been verified. A good example of this is Dendrochronology, the method of using tree rings as a means of dating. We understand what causes tree rings, and we understand that trees of similar species within an area will have similar tree ring patterns in which their life spans overlap. This is a very basic and easy to understand method and probably the easiest example of how we use science to date past objects.

In the case of the origin of earth and the life on it, it assumes that

No it doesn't. Scientists, as far as I'm aware, have not made a statement that they know for sure how life formed or how the Earth was formed. However, we do have some fairly well supported theories. Evolution, on the other hand, has been verified beyond a doubt.

Different scientific fields are at different stages of progress. In some fields, we know a lot. In others, we're still learning. It's important to understand that even when scientists can't explain for sure how a past event happened, they can narrow down the answers.

And this adds to your argument, how?

But since you brought it up, would it likewise be a pity how you have never allowed yourself
to come to saving faith in Jesus of Nazareth?

The difference is, if someone corrects my understanding of Christianity and Christian belief, I'll look into the issue further and correct myself (or at least avoid making the same flawed arguments) in the future.

Now, we're down to the real pity. . .your loss.
It's not evidence to you, but it is overwhelmingly convincing evidence to me.

That's perfectly fine. However, you're stepping out of the bounds of your personal convictions and debating science without having even the most basic understanding of what science is.

Agreed. . .and non-responsive.

It's not about research, it's about assumptions.

I didn't think it would be necessary for me to explain that the research is conclusive. The dating methods we use, how they work, and why they work, have all been verified. We even understand when they don't work. Scientists are also careful enough to use at least two dating methods when verifying the age of an object since there's always a chance one of the methods may not work correctly due to other variables that may not have been known at the time. If two dating methods results in two different dates, then multiple other dating methods are used when possible before an age can be established.

Likewise, it is not science to assume that science is the epitome of all knowledge and truth.

This statement is nonsensical.

 

[Percepi]

My kids and I have had this discussion about what their teaches tell them in school about evolution. I have raised them reading the bible to them, so they know the truth of it. I tell them..."In order to pass the tests you need to put the answers on the test that they tell you to put, but during the discussions you need to tell them the truth that you know." So this is what they do. They have come home to me telling me of the discussions they get into with their teachers....I am just amazed that any adult with even half of a brain would believe in evolution.

I feel horrible for your children.

The reason you're amazed that any adult with half a brain would accept evolution is because you have absolute confidence that evolution is flawed based on your views that God is always right no matter what. The problem here is that you're not using any critical thinking skills to come to your conclusions. You're being told what's right and without question you accept it. This does not result in knowledge. In fact, it breeds ignorance.

"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."
-Tim Minchin, Storm

 

[Elin]

So you're saying the dating systems are based on no assumptions whatsoever?

Precisely.

You are not as informed about science as you should be.

evolution doesn't cover origins. That's a study called abiogenesis.

Then why did you address creation in my post?

Science can't be used to verify everything.

And therefore those things lie outside its realm, including creation.

It's not my job to prove the Bible false. It's your job to prove it true.

The Bible cannot be proven either true or false.

Both are a matter of faith.

My faith is that it is true.
Your faith is that it is not.

Though I addressed this already, I just need to stress out that you're dead wrong.
Science doesn't use assumptions

You are not as informed regarding science as you should be.

Scientists, as far as I'm aware, have not made a statement that they know for sure how life formed

You might want to check that again.

or how the Earth was formed.

There are statements, however, that it was not created in six days.

Evolution, on the other hand, has been verified beyond a doubt

Wow! Your acquaintance with the field is more limited than I realized.

you're stepping out of the bounds of your personal convictions

My convictions are based on evidence, just as you say your conviction regarding evolution is based on evidence.

and debating science without having even the most basic understanding of what science is.

You've called that one incorrectly.

I didn't think it would be necessary for me to explain that the research is conclusive. The dating methods we use, how they work, and why they work, have all been verified.

How they work and why they work does not address the assumptions involved in them.

Likewise, it is not science to assume that science is the epitome of all knowledge and truth.

This statement is nonsensical.

It makes eminent sense to those who understand it.

 

[Tintin]

I feel horrible for your children.

The reason you're amazed that any adult with half a brain would accept evolution is because you have absolute confidence that evolution is flawed based on your views that God is always right no matter what. The problem here is that you're not using any critical thinking skills to come to your conclusions. You're being told what's right and without question you accept it. This does not result in knowledge. In fact, it breeds ignorance.

"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."
-Tim Minchin, Storm

Some biblical creationists may be guilty of such things, but how do you know he doesn't think things through critically after reading both sides of the coin? Funny thing, I could say the same thing about many people who believe evolution. They're taught evolution in school and then accept it as truth. In fact, I would say far more evolutionists (as in the general populace) are guilty of this. Scientists are the new prophets - almost everyone seems to believe them blindly, that they can handle evidence without bias and that everything they speak is truth. It seems you don't understand the prevalence of evolutionary belief in society. I attended Christian schools and we were exposed to evolutionary beliefs, theistic evolutionary beliefs but still evolutionary beliefs. The biblical creation understanding isn't common place, even in most Christian schools. I believe both a biblical understanding and evolution should be taught but then let the students come to their own conclusions. But there's no scientific dialogue if there's only one worldview to argue.

 

[Bowman]

First of all, evolution doesn't cover origins. That's a study called abiogenesis. Second, we're not entirely sure how life began.

Show us something that you can, then.....like the DIRECT genetic ancestor for homo sapiens sapiens...

 

[breno785au]

Some biblical creationists may be guilty of such things, but how do you know he doesn't think things through critically after reading both sides of the coin? Funny thing, I could say the same thing about many people who believe evolution. They're taught it in school and then accept it as truth. In fact, I would say far more evolutionists (as in the general populace) are guilty of this. Scientists are the new prophets - almost everyone seems to believe them blindly, that they can handle evidence without bias and that everything they speak is truth.

Spot on, in fact its the evolutionists that will squash any other thinking or thought process even to the point of ridicule and expelling people from scientific communities.

 

[Percepi]

Some biblical creationists may be guilty of such things, but how do you know he doesn't think things through critically after reading both sides of the coin? Funny thing, I could say the same thing about many people who believe evolution. They're taught evolution in school and then accept it as truth. In fact, I would say far more evolutionists (as in the general populace) are guilty of this. Scientists are the new prophets - almost everyone seems to believe them blindly, that they can handle evidence without bias and that everything they speak is truth. It seems you don't understand the prevalence of evolutionary belief in society. I attended Christian schools and we were exposed to evolutionary beliefs, theistic evolutionary beliefs but still evolutionary beliefs. The biblical creation understanding isn't common place, even in most Christian schools. I believe both a biblical understanding and evolution should be taught but then let the students come to their own conclusions. But there's no scientific dialogue if there's only one worldview to argue.

The reason we don't teach both evolution and creationism in science class is because creationism isn't science. I'm not just saying that because I disagree with creationism. I'm saying it because creationism does not follow the scientific method.

 

[Tintin]

The reason we don't teach both evolution and creationism in science class is because creationism isn't science. I'm not just saying that because I disagree with creationism. I'm saying it because creationism does not follow the scientific method.

Evolution isn't science either then. It's a religion. But silly me! I thought schools were meant to be religion-free?

So, if biblical creation doesn't follow the scientific method, how is it that those who held to such beliefs paved the way for modern science?