Creation Science/Making Headway - Dallas News

Truth is that the mechanics God used to create all of this is what our scientists pat themselves on the back for discovering. You want science? Nachmanides. Want his source of data? Genesis. He got what you don't from the book because he was scientifically inclined. And what he gleaned has stood the test of scientific time.

Here are three scientific notables who enlightened us concerning dimensions. Hawking, Einstein, and God. Of the three only one has enough knowledge to describe their properties. And HE put in book form before the other two were born. God's scribes took the dictation. And NO MAN can provide even one page written with the same criteria that God used. If you think the Bible was written by man then prove it by emulating it. The numerical method God used is available to anyone who wants to prove that man wrote that book.

The pond scum, simple life form to complex theory met it's doom with DNA. There is no simple form of DNA. The first life form was complex from the very beginning. The first eye was complex from the beginning.
Extreme complexity in simple life forms is the oxymoron. Life has never had a simple form. Single celled Amoebas are complex. We just thought they were simple because we hadn't discovered DNA yet. Just like Hawking hasn't discovered that dimensions can be torn, burnt, and rolled up. In fact, you are going to see one split in half when Christ returns.

And DNA is mutant unfriendly. The opposite of what Darwin's limited understanding required. His theory is predicated on mutation. DNA works to correct any mutation that might occur. It was designed to do so. For a species to mutate into an entirely different species million and millions of years of the exact, precise, same mutations would have to take place, over and over. One mutation of the millions of years of mutating occurs and the "new species" is rendered obsolete before it makes it to the starting gate. We would be walking on the mounds of missing links.

God designed us, not the other way around. Before science found out we really are made of clay, He told us we were. Finally sculpted clay. With the breath of life from our Father, and that's how you were born. :eusa_angel:

Nonsense.

There is no evidence of any such "truth."

Did you miss the whole DNA discovery experience? DNA is the truth. Life is in the blood. Right where God put it. Right where He told us it was. Long before we found it......

I'm afraid the secular fundies prefer to keep their heads firmly in the sand.
 
‘Creation science’ is an oxymoron.

Creationism is religion, not ‘science,’ it’s just as false and subjective as all other religion.

What if creationism is science? :dunno:

What has it given us?

Evolution has given us vaccines, an understanding the human body and the study of it's evolution teaches us how to treat existing and newly discovered disease.

What has magical creation given us?

Religions, Churches, (Including Westboro Baptist), Fanaticism, Conflict, War, Crusades, Conquest, beheadings, annihilation, and... the occasional Altar Boy taking it up the butt.
 
What if creationism is science? :dunno:

What has it given us?

Evolution has given us vaccines, an understanding the human body and the study of it's evolution teaches us how to treat existing and newly discovered disease.

What has magical creation given us?

Oh my gosh. "Evolution gave us vaccines?" There's a thread somewhere in the flame zone where stupid quotes are posted. My I please quote you?

Some of our greatest scientists and physicians have been devout Christians.

And what exactly drove them? Their Christianity, or science? :dunno:
 
One sign that an idea is not scientific is the claim that the idea is absolutely certain and irrefutable. An idea which is absolutely certain cannot be empirically tested. Claims of infallibility and the demand for absolute certainty characterize not science but pseudoscience. The idea of creationism is a good example of a non-scientific theory because it cannot be falsified. "I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know," writes Gould, "but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science." What makes so-called "scientific creationism" pseudoscience is that it attempts to pass itself off as science even though it shares nothing in common with scientific theorizing. Creationism will remain forever unchanged as a theory. It will engender no debate among scientists about fundamental mechanisms of the universe. It generates no empirical predictions which can test the theory. It is taken to be irrefutable. No evidence will ever be accepted which would falsify it.

The history of science, however, clearly shows that scientific theories do not remain forever unchanged. The history of science is not the history of one absolute truth being built upon other absolute truths. Rather, it is the history of theorizing, testing, arguing, refining, rejecting, replacing, more theorizing, more testing, etc. It is the history of theories working well for a time, anomalies occurring (i.e., new facts being discovered which don't fit with established theories), and new theories being proposed and eventually replacing the old ones partially or completely.
 
One sign that an idea is not scientific is the claim that the idea is absolutely certain and irrefutable. An idea which is absolutely certain cannot be empirically tested. Claims of infallibility and the demand for absolute certainty characterize not science but pseudoscience. The idea of creationism is a good example of a non-scientific theory because it cannot be falsified. "I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know," writes Gould, "but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science." What makes so-called "scientific creationism" pseudoscience is that it attempts to pass itself off as science even though it shares nothing in common with scientific theorizing. Creationism will remain forever unchanged as a theory. It will engender no debate among scientists about fundamental mechanisms of the universe. It generates no empirical predictions which can test the theory. It is taken to be irrefutable. No evidence will ever be accepted which would falsify it.

The history of science, however, clearly shows that scientific theories do not remain forever unchanged. The history of science is not the history of one absolute truth being built upon other absolute truths. Rather, it is the history of theorizing, testing, arguing, refining, rejecting, replacing, more theorizing, more testing, etc. It is the history of theories working well for a time, anomalies occurring (i.e., new facts being discovered which don't fit with established theories), and new theories being proposed and eventually replacing the old ones partially or completely.

The very word "science" literally means - "knowledge." To believe that the universe simply **poofed** into existence isn't science or knowledge. It's pure fanciful speculation. You WANT to believe it because you DON'T WANT to believe in the Bible. Just be honest and stop trolling.
 
In Genesis 1: Then God said, “Let the land sprout with vegetation—every sort of seed-bearing plant, and trees that grow seed-bearing fruit. These seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came.” And that is what happened. 12 The land produced vegetation—all sorts of seed-bearing plants, and trees with seed-bearing fruit. Their seeds produced plants and trees of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.
13 And evening passed and morning came, marking the third day.
26 Then God said, “Let us make human beings[b] in our image, to be like us.


In Genesis 2: When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 neither wild plants nor grains were growing on the earth. For the Lord God had not yet sent rain to water the earth, and there were no people to cultivate the soil. 6 Instead, springs[b] came up from the ground and watered all the land. 7 Then the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground.

from https://www.biblegateway.com New Living Translation (NLT)

Did Genesis 1 come before or after Genesis 2 or are they telling the same story? Sounds to me that there were no humans before Adam and Adam and Eve were "formed" before the "creation" of "men and women". Am I reading that wrong?

God spoiling His children, as only God can, had everything done for His children, before His children arrived. :eusa_angel:

God either created Adam as the first man or he didn't. Which is it, even God could not do both.

Genesis 1 is active. And you skipped over a whole bunch of it, in order not to make sense of it. The 14-25 skipped part was the active process of God doing everything prior to the action in 26.< Let us make man.( present tense active ) As with any good Father, the "nursery" was finished before His child arrived.

Genesis 2 describes what happened in Genesis 1. It says, "when the Lord made." Made is past tense. It is describing what already took place.
So, before water it was dry. When did plants show up? Gen.1:11 When did water show up? Gen.1:6-10. What existed before that? No plants. Too dry.

Not only that but two other things are revealed. Like Kind. Species, no matter what kind, produced like kind. They still do. Monkeys still produce monkeys. Humans still produce humans.

And the description of the way water was distributed, was the reason for the lack of rain. The firmament created a terrarium effect, the perfect atmosphere for a garden.
It didn't rain on earth until the flood, when the firmament or barrier was removed and the water it separated from the earth poured out on to the earth. I hope that clears up your Genesis confusion. :eusa_angel:
 
What has it given us?

Evolution has given us vaccines, an understanding the human body and the study of it's evolution teaches us how to treat existing and newly discovered disease.

What has magical creation given us?

Oh my gosh. "Evolution gave us vaccines?" There's a thread somewhere in the flame zone where stupid quotes are posted. My I please quote you?

Some of our greatest scientists and physicians have been devout Christians.

And what exactly drove them? Their Christianity, or science? :dunno:

Science and Christianity are not opposing ideologies. Some scientists oppose a belief in Christ and some Christians oppose certain factions of the scientific community but the two beliefs are not diametrically opposed. Thus, we have the scientists of ICR who are also Christians.

A belief in God opens the mind to the vastness and grandeur of the universe as well as the perplexity and intricacy of the living cell or the eye ball. A Christian who is awe-inspired by the vast power and scope of an infinite Creator will want to know and understand His creation; therefore, to answer your question, both their faith and their love for knowledge motivated or "drove" them to seek the truth.
 
Oh my gosh. "Evolution gave us vaccines?" There's a thread somewhere in the flame zone where stupid quotes are posted. My I please quote you?

Some of our greatest scientists and physicians have been devout Christians.

Of course. Quote me. And while you are at it, pass on these 3 million, 6 hundred and 30 thousand links:

evolution and vaccines

And don't forget to tell people who you are. So we can all laugh.

Man, and I was really in the mood to deliver a good bitch slap. Thanks for helping me out on that.

20140303104530f025d.gif

So you're sticking to your story that "evolution," rather than mankind, created vaccines? Got it. A genius you're not.

Like I said:

Evolution has given us vaccines, an understanding the human body and the study of it's evolution teaches us how to treat existing and newly discovered disease.

What part of that you didn't understand?

Worse, I GAVE YOU 3,630,000 links so you could learn something. But apparently you've lost the ability to learn. Hope that's not an inherited trait or it could be the end of the line for you.
 
Oh my gosh. "Evolution gave us vaccines?" There's a thread somewhere in the flame zone where stupid quotes are posted. My I please quote you?

Some of our greatest scientists and physicians have been devout Christians.

And what exactly drove them? Their Christianity, or science? :dunno:

Science and Christianity are not opposing ideologies. Some scientists oppose a belief in Christ and some Christians oppose certain factions of the scientific community but the two beliefs are not diametrically opposed. Thus, we have the scientists of ICR who are also Christians.

A belief in God opens the mind to the vastness and grandeur of the universe as well as the perplexity and intricacy of the living cell or the eye ball. A Christian who is awe-inspired by the vast power and scope of an infinite Creator will want to know and understand His creation; therefore, to answer your question, both their faith and their love for knowledge motivated or "drove" them to seek the truth.

They aren't even on the same page.

One is a belief in mysticism and the occult.

The other is a study of reality.

There are no new "discoveries" in mystical and occult beliefs. But science knowledge doubles every year.
 
Please ... inform all of us of what the "truth" is (using your words only). Thanks.

It would involve study and experimentation, NOT just reading one book and only looking for those things that bolster its contentions.

Thanks. Very helpful!!!

So far, we have 4 or 5 mere, mortal men with finite brains each agreeing wholeheartedly that the Genesis account of origins MUST BE WRONG but I would be willing to lay down money that no two of you will agree on exactly how the universe and man's existence DID come to be.

But ... as long as we can all jump on the anti-Bible bandwagon then all is good.

FAIL!!

There's no need to agree on all the particulars. That will come with study, experimentation and time. What's important is that the age of the earth is known by radiometric dating.
Age of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fossils have been laid out over the eons with some appearing early and some appearing later, disproving "six days of creation".
Fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Work with DNA has shown relationships between older and younger species and the development of one to another.
Molecular evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Models of DNA evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All these cites show the kind of depth of knowledge, scholarship and experimentation that creation research would have to reach for it to be seriously considered. As of yet their contributions to science have been sorely lacking.
 
Of course. Quote me. And while you are at it, pass on these 3 million, 6 hundred and 30 thousand links:

evolution and vaccines

And don't forget to tell people who you are. So we can all laugh.

Man, and I was really in the mood to deliver a good bitch slap. Thanks for helping me out on that.

20140303104530f025d.gif

So you're sticking to your story that "evolution," rather than mankind, created vaccines? Got it. A genius you're not.

Like I said:

Evolution has given us vaccines, an understanding the human body and the study of it's evolution teaches us how to treat existing and newly discovered disease.

What part of that you didn't understand?

Worse, I GAVE YOU 3,630,000 links so you could learn something. But apparently you've lost the ability to learn. Hope that's not an inherited trait or it could be the end of the line for you.

Evolution didn't give us anything any more than a mud fence did. I can list the names of the various MEN who did produce vaccines. Stop making a total ass of yourself.

Evolution has yet to be proven. Dogs are still dogs and cats are still cats.
 
Of course. Quote me. And while you are at it, pass on these 3 million, 6 hundred and 30 thousand links:

evolution and vaccines

And don't forget to tell people who you are. So we can all laugh.

Man, and I was really in the mood to deliver a good bitch slap. Thanks for helping me out on that.

20140303104530f025d.gif

So you're sticking to your story that "evolution," rather than mankind, created vaccines? Got it. A genius you're not.

Like I said:

Evolution has given us vaccines, an understanding the human body and the study of it's evolution teaches us how to treat existing and newly discovered disease.

What part of that you didn't understand?

Worse, I GAVE YOU 3,630,000 links so you could learn something. But apparently you've lost the ability to learn. Hope that's not an inherited trait or it could be the end of the line for you.

Lets hope he has no spawn, if so it is child abuse. Thankfully religious fundamentalism is getting closer to being classified as a mental illness, and once it is these people can be placed into treatment :eusa_whistle:
 
It would involve study and experimentation, NOT just reading one book and only looking for those things that bolster its contentions.

Thanks. Very helpful!!!

So far, we have 4 or 5 mere, mortal men with finite brains each agreeing wholeheartedly that the Genesis account of origins MUST BE WRONG but I would be willing to lay down money that no two of you will agree on exactly how the universe and man's existence DID come to be.

But ... as long as we can all jump on the anti-Bible bandwagon then all is good.

FAIL!!

There's no need to agree on all the particulars. That will come with study, experimentation and time. What's important is that the age of the earth is known by radiometric dating.
Age of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fossils have been laid out over the eons with some appearing early and some appearing later, disproving "six days of creation".
Fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Work with DNA has shown relationships between older and younger species and the development of one to another.
Molecular evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Models of DNA evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All these cites show the kind of depth of knowledge, scholarship and experimentation that creation research would have to reach for it to be seriously considered. As of yet their contributions to science have been sorely lacking.

The Bible says that the earth was created whole and that man was created with age. Therefore, man had age the very moment he was created. The same is true of the earth. Also, God is infinite. If the elements that He used to create the earth existed prior to the earth's creation then measuring an element cannot tell us the age of the formed earth. In other words, I could have a bag of flour in my cupboard for 5 years then bake a cake with it. The flour would be 5 years old but the cake would only be 10 minutes old.
 

I guess there's no such thing as a billionaire either. How long it takes to do something a billion times is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that earth's magnetic field has lasted this is due the heat provided by decaying radioactive isotopes. That wasn't known in the 1800s and is why earlier estimates of earth's age were in the millions rather than billions of years range.
 

If it was really a fact, there'd be no "probably" about it. The stories mentioned could easily have been concocted after fossils have been found.

We can all speculate until the cows come home but speculative conclusions are not facts. The fact of the matter is that any and all naysayers who abjectly and absolutely reject the Bible still have no concrete conclusions to counter what the Bible says. It all boils down to wishful thinking, speculations, and, usually, a hatred towards Christianity.
 

I guess there's no such thing as a billionaire either. How long it takes to do something a billion times is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that earth's magnetic field has lasted this is due the heat provided by decaying radioactive isotopes. That wasn't known in the 1800s and is why earlier estimates of earth's age were in the millions rather than billions of years range.

Ahh, but we have this little problem call "entropy." The earth is in a constant state of decay. While evolutionists teach that life is "evolving" in an upward direction the laws of thermodynamics tell a different story.
 

Forum List

Back
Top