[_ Old Earth _] ID/Creation- What's the point ???

[Scott1]

Why is so important for some of you to support your views of creation against science?

I can understand supporting what you believe... but I guess I just don't understand what is so evil about the theory of evolution.... just wondering.

 

[John]

Who am I?
Evolution tells us that we are an accident, the result of random chance; but the Bible says we are fearfully and wonderfully made in the image of our creator.

Where did I come from?
If you believe evolution is true then you believe that you evolved out of this primordial soup, according to creation you were designed by an incredible creator, for a reason.

Why am I here?
Evolution leaves us without an answer, there is no purpose to life, creation on the other hand gives us both meaning and purpose for our lives.

Where am I going when I die?
Well if evolution is true don’t worry about it, you got nothing to loose, but if creation is true you have everything to loose by not considering this fundamental question of life.

In a nutshell Evolution offers me nothing, while god offers me everything.
Evolution struggles to explain the life around us, while trust in god does not.

 

[Scott1]

Evolution tells us that we are an accident, the result of random chance; but the Bible says we are fearfully and wonderfully made in the image of our creator.

Evolution told me no such thing..... not sure how you came to the conclusion that we are an "accident"?

If you believe evolution is true then you believe that you evolved out of this primordial soup, according to creation you were designed by an incredible creator, for a reason.

That my creator designed me for a reason is not a point of dispute.... how my creator disigned me is not a theological concern.... I care not the means, just that God willed me (and everything) into existence... wondering why the "how" is so important for you to know?

Evolution leaves us without an answer, there is no purpose to life, creation on the other hand gives us both meaning and purpose for our lives.

Again... I'm wondering what made you come to the conclusion that if you don't know the exact means that our ALLMIGHTY God used to bring you to be that somehow this means your life has no meaning?????

Thanks,
S

 

[BobRyan]

Why is so important for some of you to support your views of creation against science?

I can understand supporting what you believe... but I guess I just don't understand what is so evil about the theory of evolution.... just wondering.

1. Atheist Darwinism ISn't science if you look at the junk-science hoaxes and blunders that even atheist darwinists themselves admit to being part of that system of mythology.

2. I.D does not have to "argue origins" the way Atheist darwinism has to argue it's "statements of faith" regarding some kind of abiogenesis and hope-against-hope "descent from common ancestor by natural process alone". That means that I.D can "go where the data leads".

Atheist Darwinism is simply "non-science" and it should be left in the religious temples of atheist darwinists rather than forced onto school children.

Imagine if the children could have been told the truth about Simpson's fraudulent 1951 horse series promoted for decades in science books "as if it were true".

The same goes for the recently debunked dating of Neanderthals to 25000 years ago and also for the 40 year hoax of piltdown man, nebraska man, archaeoraptor, Haeckles "ontogeny recapitulates phylogony" the "random piecing" of "Java man" human bones added to primate bones etc.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

As for "The Christian view" on origins -- it is given in the Bible - Gen 1-2:3

notice that in God's Ten Commandments the argument FOR the 4th commandment is reliance on the "Details" of Creation week itself "FOR IN Six days the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them " it is from those "inconvenient details" that God makes the point "SIX days YOU shall labor and do all your work but the seventh-day is the Sabbath".

This means that moral law was made based on the the reliability of the actual details in God's Word "being trustworthy" and being accurate at least to the point of the 24 hour sequences "And evening and morning were the first day.. .second day... third day..."

For those who imagine that the language Darwinists use to describe their belief in evolutionism is of the form "FOR in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth the sea and all that is in them" -- try that one on Dawkins, Provine, Huxley, Darwin, Gould, Eldridge, Simpson...

in Christ,

Bob

 

[jmm9683]

Who am I?
Evolution tells us that we are an accident, the result of random chance; but the Bible says we are fearfully and wonderfully made in the image of our creator.

Where did I come from?
If you believe evolution is true then you believe that you evolved out of this primordial soup, according to creation you were designed by an incredible creator, for a reason.

Why am I here?
Evolution leaves us without an answer, there is no purpose to life, creation on the other hand gives us both meaning and purpose for our lives.

Where am I going when I die?
Well if evolution is true don’t worry about it, you got nothing to loose, but if creation is true you have everything to loose by not considering this fundamental question of life.

In a nutshell Evolution offers me nothing, while god offers me everything.
Evolution struggles to explain the life around us, while trust in god does not.

So it makes you feel better about yourself to dismiss a whole scientific discipline is what your are saying. That's just being willfully ignorant.

 

[BobRyan]

I think this is the part where Darwinists are supposed to ignore the point showing that darwinism is junk-science -- not actual science.

Bob

 

[jmm9683]

I think this is the part where Darwinists are supposed to ignore the point showing that darwinism is junk-science -- not actual science.

Bob

I thought this was the point where you point to Piltdown Man being the reason why all of evolutionary biology is false...

 

[Scott1]

Ummm... forgive me folks... ya'll have several threads to call each other stupid and talk "science".... THIS thread, however, is not the place for your "evidence" pro or con... PLEASE.

1. Atheist Darwinism ISn't science if you look at the junk-science hoaxes and blunders that even atheist darwinists themselves admit to being part of that system of mythology.

Ok.... but there are several areas of pseudo-science that DON'T seem to be attacked with such frequency... I'm trying to understand why.

As for "The Christian view" on origins -- it is given in the Bible - Gen 1-2:3

... is every detail of Genesis (the whole Bible for that matter) to be taken literally as scientific/historical proof of something or just this?

This means that moral law was made based on the the reliability of the actual details in God's Word "being trustworthy" and being accurate at least to the point of the 24 hour sequences "And evening and morning were the first day.. .second day... third day..."

We disagree on that.... the moral law is based upon natural law: present in the heart of each man and established by reason.... and has nothing to do with what time it is.

Would murder be a good thing according to moral law if the day was 25 hours long?

 

[BobRyan]

1. Atheist Darwinism ISn't science if you look at the junk-science hoaxes and blunders that even atheist darwinists themselves admit to being part of that system of mythology.

Ok.... but there are several areas of pseudo-science that DON'T seem to be attacked with such frequency... I'm trying to understand why.

Which ones did you list?

As for "The Christian view" on origins -- it is given in the Bible - Gen 1-2:3

... is every detail of Genesis (the whole Bible for that matter) to be taken literally as scientific/historical proof of something or just this?

Correct the rest of the Bible is a myth we don't believe a word of it -- just chapter one ;-)

Is your point about "exegesis" or are you at all serious with that?

This means that moral law was made based on the the reliability of the actual details in God's Word "being trustworthy" and being accurate at least to the point of the 24 hour sequences "And evening and morning were the first day.. .second day... third day..."

That reference to Exodus 20 is a good place to look at the principle of Exegesis -- feel free.

We disagree on that....

And so the story goes... on.

the moral law is based upon natural law: present in the heart of each man

Good story -- and now back to the Word of God and the concept of exegesis. Try it. Integrity with the text etc.

BTW - when you ask Christians why the interest in ID and Creation the answer is never "because the Word of God is not true and so we just make up whatever humanist philosophy story-telling we fell like".

I mean -- "you knew that" already right?

Would murder be a good thing according to moral law if the day was 25 hours long?

hmmm - survival of the fittest -- natural selection, predation "tooth-and-claw" rules of Darwinism claim that the very thing you identify is HOW we get "created" out of single celled organisms. (only we don't give it a moral evaluation when animals do it -- we are Christians so we DO give it a moral value if humans do what animals do)

You seem to be kicking at your own model system...

So --- "you tell me".

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I think this is the part where Darwinists are supposed to ignore the point showing that darwinism is junk-science -- not actual science.

Bob

I thought this was the point where you point to Piltdown Man being the reason why all of evolutionary biology is false...

Piltdown, Neanderthal, Horse Series, Achaeoraptor, Haeckle's "ontogony-Phylogony" fabrication etc etc ... you mean "the whole LIST of junk-science hoaxes" should be devoutly ignored??

Good thing we have an alternative -- REAL science!

Why not LISTEN to Colin Patterson speak to "the STORIES about how one thing came from another -- they are STORIES EASY enough to TELL but they are NOT science!"??

Why is it that darwinists IGNORE these prominent atheist DARWINISTs as they give out "these little hints"??

Bob

 

[Scott1]

Which ones did you list?

I didn't.... would you like me to?

Is your point about "exegesis" or are you at all serious with that?

I want an answer to the question.... maybe your reasons for your answer.... you know... like a forum board.

That reference to Exodus 20 is a good place to look at the principle of Exegesis -- feel free.

Since I can't read your mind... care to start?

BTW - when you ask Christians why the interest in ID and Creation the answer is never "because the Word of God is not true and so we just make up whatever humanist philosophy story-telling we fell like".

I mean -- "you knew that" already right?

Yes... I do no that much.... what I don't know is why... so I ask instead of making assumptions about people.

You seem to be kicking at your own model system...

So --- "you tell me".

Again.... I can't read you mind to know what you mean by "our model system" so I need some help.

Thanks Bob,
S

 

[jmm9683]

I think this is the part where Darwinists are supposed to ignore the point showing that darwinism is junk-science -- not actual science.

Bob

I thought this was the point where you point to Piltdown Man being the reason why all of evolutionary biology is false...

Piltdown, Neanderthal, Horse Series, Achaeoraptor, Haeckle's "ontogony-Phylogony" fabrication etc etc ... you mean "the whole LIST of junk-science hoaxes" should be devoutly ignored??

Good thing we have an alternative -- REAL science!

Why not LISTEN to Colin Patterson speak to "the STORIES about how one thing came from another -- they are STORIES EASY enough to TELL but they are NOT science!"??

Why is it that darwinists IGNORE these prominent atheist DARWINISTs as they give out "these little hints"??

Bob

None of those things are being used to support current evolutionary biology. It was scientists who exposed the frauds and fixed the errors, not creationists. That's how science works, it's self correcting.

And what about all the falsehoods used again and again to support creationism? Water vapor canopy, accumulation of cosmic dust, minerals in the ocean, shrinking sun, etc. they were all debunked by scientists but are STILL being used as evidence by creationists. And you sure talk a lot about "storytelling," take a look in the mirror, the whole Bible is a book full of stories that you are using as your basis for argument.

Evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet, NOT whatever your pastor is dishing out to you.

 

[Barbarian]

Since the courts have ruled that creationism, being a religion, cannot be taught in public schools, they have retooled creationism as "intelligent design." No more "God" or "Creator;" He's been fitted with a disguise, by which creationists hope to sneak him into the schoolhouse.

Unfortunately Dover put an end to that. Maybe another name change...

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan wrote:
1. Atheist Darwinism ISn't science if you look at the junk-science hoaxes and blunders that even atheist darwinists themselves admit to being part of that system of mythology.

Scott1 wrote:
Ok.... but there are several areas of pseudo-science that DON'T seem to be attacked with such frequency... I'm trying to understand why.

Which ones did you list?

Which ones did you list?

I didn't.... would you like me to?

It's your question -- feel free to be as clear on it as you would like.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Since the courts have ruled that creationism, being a religion, cannot be taught in public schools, they have retooled creationism as "intelligent design." No more "God" or "Creator;" He's been fitted with a disguise, by which creationists hope to sneak him into the schoolhouse.

Hmm "the courts have ruled" -- Scopes trial -- I believe the evolutionists lost and prior to that ... hmmm "courts have ruled" -- is this the new place for atheist darwinism to "hide" it's junk-science methods?

I like what Expelled the movie said about "courts have ruled" in Nazi Germany as contrasted to Scandinavia

I also like how the "Courts have ruled" that humanism "is a real religion"

Unfortunately Dover put an end to that. Maybe another name change...

Dover is actually a good place to find extreme censorship -- in that case "you are not allowed to tell students -- 'THERE EXISTS A BOOK in the Libary..."

-- Judges orders- no telling that to students.

I love the wild extremes that atheist darwinists devotees will willingly go to AND THEN pretend that the rest of us "don't notice"!!

It is a hoot!

BTW - the district that has to follow that Dover court ruling is not "the district of America". So while it was indeed sad for the people in Dover - we at least have followers of atheist Darwinism going on record about their extreme positions on censorship and their need to shut down academic freedom to the point that "THERE EXISTS a book in the Library called ..." can no longer be SAID in the class room!!

Really -- that is very obliging for them to climb out on that limb for the rest of us to see and then for the devoted faithful to that junk-science religion we call atheist darwinism to also come out and let it be known they will gladly be counted as endorsing those extreme forms of censorship and the shut down of academic freedom if it challenges atheist darwinist dogma or even ADMITS that "there EXISTS A BOOK in the LIBRARY...".

Bob

 

[jmm9683]

I love how Bob points out things that were used in the past to support evolution before they were shown to be false (not by creationists mind you). As if mentioning these things somehow disproves all of evolutionary biology. They are not currently being used to support evolution.

He does like to ignore the blatant falsehoods and lies that are STILL being used by creationists despite being debunked over and over again: water vapor canopy, polonium halos, accumulation of cosmic dust, etc. Creationism is pseudoscience and has been exposed as nothing but that countless times.

 

[Barbarian]

Hmm "the courts have ruled" -- Scopes trial -- I believe the evolutionists lost

No, that's wrong. Scopes was acquitted. The issue in Dover was whether ID was science or simply creationism with God disguised as the "designer." The latter turned out to be true.

I like what Expelled the movie said about "courts have ruled" in Nazi Germany as contrasted to Scandinavia

I see where Stein lost it completely, and said that Science is about killing innocent people. Remember, he was Nixon's speechwriter; his talent is smearing innocent people.

also like how the "Courts have ruled" that humanism "is a real religion"

The original humanism is:

The over-riding goal of humanists -- who valued reason and the evidence of the senses as ways of reaching the truth, over the Christian values of humility, introspection, and passivity or "meekness" which had dominated European thought in the previous centuries -- was to become eloquent in rhetoric.

Beauty, a popular topic, was held to represent a deep inner virtue and value, and an essential element in the path towards God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_humanism

Christianity, to be exact. "Secular humanism" is an oxymoron.

"There can be no humanism without the Gospels."
Karl Barth

Barbarian on the attempted deception:
Unfortunately Dover put an end to that. Maybe another name change...

Dover is actually a good place to find extreme censorship -- in that case

Funny about that. Bill Dembski was dreaming about the day they could face scientists in a courtroom. He got his wish. I guess IDers figure an open exchange of ideas is "censorship."
That would explain why they so rigidly control who can be a fellow in the Discovery Institute. "No Intelligence Allowed" seems to be their new motto.

"you are not allowed to tell students -- 'THERE EXISTS A BOOK in the Libary..."

-- Judges orders- no telling that to students.

Darn First Amendment. It's that pesky law about freedom of religion, again. Governments aren't allowed to promote or deny religion.

BTW, the district that has to follow that Dover court ruling is not "the district of America".

It is, however, precedent, and that is enough. All that work, all that money, all that planning, and it crashes and burns in Dover. In a few years, expect another renaming and another campaign.

 

[BobRyan]

I think this is the part where Darwinists are supposed to ignore the point showing that darwinism is junk-science -- not actual science.

I thought this was the point where you point to Piltdown Man being the reason why all of evolutionary biology is false...

Bob said
Piltdown, Neanderthal, Horse Series, Achaeoraptor, Haeckle's "ontogony-Phylogony" fabrication etc etc ... you mean "the whole LIST of junk-science hoaxes" should be devoutly ignored??

Good thing we have an alternative -- REAL science!

Why not LISTEN to Colin Patterson speak to "the STORIES about how one thing came from another -- they are STORIES EASY enough to TELL but they are NOT science!"??

Why is it that darwinists IGNORE these prominent atheist DARWINISTs as they give out "these little hints"??

Bob

None of those things are being used to support current evolutionary biology. It was scientists who exposed the frauds and fixed the errors, not creationists. That's how science works, it's self correcting.

And what about all the falsehoods used again and again to support creationism? Water vapor canopy, accumulation of cosmic dust, minerals in the ocean, shrinking sun, etc. they were all debunked by scientists but are STILL being used as evidence by creationists.

I don't know of any of them "debunked" in fact the lunar dust issue went on display at the Smithsonian Air and Space museum -- a note they placed there beside the lunar module explaining the reason for the large pads on the landing gear.

your "debunked" and fraud argument against Christians AND I.D evolutionists is rank "equivocation" when compared with the actual frauds and hoaxes listed on the Atheist darwinist side of the ledger.

And in this case -- as with all of atheist darwinism -- story telling is the real meaning behind "debunked" -- you simply take science data and "tell stories around it" calling that "debunking". Simply telling a story that makes you "feel good" has nothing to do with the credibility of the data that is "not in favor of" atheist darwinism.

but this is to be "expected" since atheist darwinism requires a "deny all" approach to objective science and hard facts.

And you sure talk a lot about "storytelling," take a look in the mirror

The Colin Patterson quote on "Story telling" is a statement from a prominent atheist darwinist -- the senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural Hist (or at least he was when alive) -- this is a darwinist EVOLUTIONIST telling us that the story telling they do "about how one thing came from another" is NOT SCIENCE.

, the whole Bible is a book full of stories that you are using as your basis for argument.

I don't deny that the Bible is ALSO ANOTHER source for a religious argument just as junk-science serves as a source for a religious argument on the part of "true believers" in atheist darwinism who "believe" no matter WHAT the list of hoaxes and frauds used to prop up that failed religion.


1. I would argue that "telling STORIES about HOW one thing came from another" IS an active part of the atheist darwinist religion -- still today.

2. I would argue that the JUNK-SCIENCE frauds and hoaxes that litter and yet fueled the rise to acceptance of atheist darwinism AS IF it was actual science -- were being USED for DECADES in support of atheist darwinism. See the Horse series STILL in use, see Neanderthal dating hoax STILL in use see Piltdown USED for 40 years see ... well just see!

Hoaxes and frauds are KEY to atheist darwinist junk-science succes AND key to exposing the junk-science pillars of the religion we call atheist darwinism.

Bob

 

[Dunzo]

What do you mean "we"? I do believe you're the only person using the idiotic term "atheist darwinism". It's almost as if you've got some weird pretentions about using "evolutionists" or "evolutionary scientists" instead.