Creationists' theory in detail

[alang1216]

Did Mohammad believe and teach that Jesus was God the Messiah, and that by grace one is saved through faith in that Messiah and not by one's own effort because of our sinful imperfection before a perfect GOD? Babies are a gift of GOD and a vital resource that is being wasted. Their blood would cry out from the ground as did that of Abel.

Exactly my point, thank you very much. A billion people believe Jesus spoke for/was God. Another billion believe Mohammed spoke for God. More billions believe completely different theologies. God is certainly capable of clearing up the confusion but chooses not to. If he exists the question is why? If he doesn't exist the answer if obvious.

 

[forkup]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Every once in a while, a thread needs to be restarted. There is one guy that got my attention on this subject. If you REALLY want a well thought out answer:





A more critical view is that all sides live their beliefs by faith. The atheists / nonbelievers have to come to grips with the fact that they cannot explain getting something from nothing. Ever atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter comes from somewhere. So, evolutionists have a theory that has no more scientific weight than creationism. Watch Dr. Lisle. If he don't offer some things to consider, then maybe you've pursued the subject and will never get the answer you want.

Jason Lisle

Jason P. Lisle was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

rationalwiki.org

In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals"
I tend to do this whenever someone proposes a source. So what we have here is an actual scientist who proposes ideas that if true would revolutionize science and than subsequently decides that his ideas are best published not in Nature but in the ARJ(Answers Research Journal). Can you explain to me why that is?

 

[BreezeWood]

Well actually, natural mechanisms are what we know and actually do account for the existence of everything we know.

What magical / supernatural mechanisms can you identify which account for any element of anything we know?

Hogwash! There is no universal we know or believe in your metaphysical presupposition of materialism and/or naturalism. You don't even grasp the ramifications of what you're saying. As another suggested, folks like you don't even grasp the fact that you're confounding metaphysics--your religion!--with science . . . even worse, as if science itself were the beginning and end of knowledge.

Metaphysics necessarily precedes and has primacy over science! Your babble about how natural mechanisms account for the existence of the material realm of being is meaningless baby talk Either the material realm of being is all that exists or it's not, and as you know, ding,. I and others have forcefully shown that everything we know from mathematically, scientifically viable physics and cosmology, the material realm of being necessarily began to exist in the finite past, and logic dictates that existence cannot arise from nonexistence, indeed, that nonexistence is an absurdity.

Something has existed from eternity, and that thing, speaking generically, is of an immaterial substance, the substance of Mind.

Actually, I’m afraid your usual pontificating is, as usual, pointless. Fear and superstition borne of ignorance necessarily precedes enlightenment. It’s certainly your right to embrace fear and superstition but I would instead opt for science as a means to an end primarily because as a member of the natural universe, we can assess natural realities as empirically supported.

You have only forcefully shown an ignorance and revulsion for knowledge and learning with appeals to magic and supernaturalism as an explanation for existence and life on the planet.

While reason and rationality have not answered every question, (in science and nature alike), these questions do not then leap out of the physical and into the metaphysical / supernatural at any point. Even in analogies where nature doesn't behave quite like we expected it to (quantum mechanics for instance), that doesn’t provide a reason to hold our snakes in the air and screech out “the gawds did it”.

I always find it comical that the religious extremists will pontificate about existence not arising from non existence yet they excuse their various gods from the very standard they insist must be applied to others.

“But, but... but...but...my gawds are excused from......”

.

While reason and rationality have not answered every question, (in science and nature alike), these questions do not then leap out of the physical and into the metaphysical / supernatural at any point.

you have gone to far in your denial of the supernatural, the metaphysical forces of the universe are responsible for life and life is supernatural - the denial by the religious zealots in support of their stagnate literature is the true culprit even for your own denial of the mystery of life that may be forever a fleeting rationalization.

How does one go “too far” in their rejection of the supernatural? Please identify a single, verifiable supernatural event.

.

How does one go “too far” in their rejection of the supernatural? Please identify a single, verifiable supernatural event.

I'll try this one more time - physiology is a physical, supernatural substance that disappears when its metaphysical spiritual content is removed.

the key to persistence is to free the spiritual content from the confines of its physiology to be rejoined to the Everlasting from whence it came - that is done by the individual themselves as prescribed through the triumph of good vs evil.

You can try: “physiology is a physical, supernatural substance that disappears when its metaphysical spiritual content is removed.” as many times as you want.

Nothing in your appeals to supernaturalism crosses over into the rational. It’s just silly in that supernaturalism is unverifiable so you can assign any “.... because I say so”, claim.

.

Nothing in your appeals to supernaturalism crosses over into the rational. It’s just silly in that supernaturalism is unverifiable so you can assign any “.... because I say so”, claim.

supernatural is verified by what on planet Earth, life that arrived to its surface as a consequence other than its primordial beginning and those associated component materials.

physiology is not native to planet earth and only exists when there is a spiritual, metaphysical content to guide it, it is you who is in denial.

You’re just making that up.

.

You’re just making that up.

supernatural is verified by what on planet Earth, life that arrived to its surface as a consequence other than its primordial beginning and those associated component materials.

physiology is not native to planet earth and only exists when there is a spiritual, metaphysical content to guide it, it is you who is in denial.

.
making what up, attached was an explanation for supernatural ... what do you consider physiology to be if not celestial. and does not exist without a spiritual content that is metaphysical.

 

[BreezeWood]

supernatural is verified by

Nothing. Ever. By definition.

.

Nothing. Ever. By definition.

I gave definitions ... more so than any of your responses.

supernatural is verified by what on planet Earth, life that arrived to its surface as a consequence other than its primordial beginning and those associated component materials.

physiology is not native to planet earth and only exists when there is a spiritual, metaphysical content to guide it, it is you who is in denial.

.
what's good for holy is the same for you ff.

 

[Hollie]

Well actually, natural mechanisms are what we know and actually do account for the existence of everything we know.

What magical / supernatural mechanisms can you identify which account for any element of anything we know?

Hogwash! There is no universal we know or believe in your metaphysical presupposition of materialism and/or naturalism. You don't even grasp the ramifications of what you're saying. As another suggested, folks like you don't even grasp the fact that you're confounding metaphysics--your religion!--with science . . . even worse, as if science itself were the beginning and end of knowledge.

Metaphysics necessarily precedes and has primacy over science! Your babble about how natural mechanisms account for the existence of the material realm of being is meaningless baby talk Either the material realm of being is all that exists or it's not, and as you know, ding,. I and others have forcefully shown that everything we know from mathematically, scientifically viable physics and cosmology, the material realm of being necessarily began to exist in the finite past, and logic dictates that existence cannot arise from nonexistence, indeed, that nonexistence is an absurdity.

Something has existed from eternity, and that thing, speaking generically, is of an immaterial substance, the substance of Mind.

Actually, I’m afraid your usual pontificating is, as usual, pointless. Fear and superstition borne of ignorance necessarily precedes enlightenment. It’s certainly your right to embrace fear and superstition but I would instead opt for science as a means to an end primarily because as a member of the natural universe, we can assess natural realities as empirically supported.

You have only forcefully shown an ignorance and revulsion for knowledge and learning with appeals to magic and supernaturalism as an explanation for existence and life on the planet.

While reason and rationality have not answered every question, (in science and nature alike), these questions do not then leap out of the physical and into the metaphysical / supernatural at any point. Even in analogies where nature doesn't behave quite like we expected it to (quantum mechanics for instance), that doesn’t provide a reason to hold our snakes in the air and screech out “the gawds did it”.

I always find it comical that the religious extremists will pontificate about existence not arising from non existence yet they excuse their various gods from the very standard they insist must be applied to others.

“But, but... but...but...my gawds are excused from......”

.

While reason and rationality have not answered every question, (in science and nature alike), these questions do not then leap out of the physical and into the metaphysical / supernatural at any point.

you have gone to far in your denial of the supernatural, the metaphysical forces of the universe are responsible for life and life is supernatural - the denial by the religious zealots in support of their stagnate literature is the true culprit even for your own denial of the mystery of life that may be forever a fleeting rationalization.

How does one go “too far” in their rejection of the supernatural? Please identify a single, verifiable supernatural event.

.

How does one go “too far” in their rejection of the supernatural? Please identify a single, verifiable supernatural event.

I'll try this one more time - physiology is a physical, supernatural substance that disappears when its metaphysical spiritual content is removed.

the key to persistence is to free the spiritual content from the confines of its physiology to be rejoined to the Everlasting from whence it came - that is done by the individual themselves as prescribed through the triumph of good vs evil.

You can try: “physiology is a physical, supernatural substance that disappears when its metaphysical spiritual content is removed.” as many times as you want.

Nothing in your appeals to supernaturalism crosses over into the rational. It’s just silly in that supernaturalism is unverifiable so you can assign any “.... because I say so”, claim.

.

Nothing in your appeals to supernaturalism crosses over into the rational. It’s just silly in that supernaturalism is unverifiable so you can assign any “.... because I say so”, claim.

supernatural is verified by what on planet Earth, life that arrived to its surface as a consequence other than its primordial beginning and those associated component materials.

physiology is not native to planet earth and only exists when there is a spiritual, metaphysical content to guide it, it is you who is in denial.

You’re just making that up.

.

You’re just making that up.

supernatural is verified by what on planet Earth, life that arrived to its surface as a consequence other than its primordial beginning and those associated component materials.

physiology is not native to planet earth and only exists when there is a spiritual, metaphysical content to guide it, it is you who is in denial.

.
making what up, attached was an explanation for supernatural ... what do you consider physiology to be if not celestial. and does not exist without a spiritual content that is metaphysical.

Your “... because I say so”, insistence for magic and supernaturalism aren’t convincing arguments.

Maybe type them out in all caps.

 

[BreezeWood]

Well actually, natural mechanisms are what we know and actually do account for the existence of everything we know.

What magical / supernatural mechanisms can you identify which account for any element of anything we know?

Hogwash! There is no universal we know or believe in your metaphysical presupposition of materialism and/or naturalism. You don't even grasp the ramifications of what you're saying. As another suggested, folks like you don't even grasp the fact that you're confounding metaphysics--your religion!--with science . . . even worse, as if science itself were the beginning and end of knowledge.

Metaphysics necessarily precedes and has primacy over science! Your babble about how natural mechanisms account for the existence of the material realm of being is meaningless baby talk Either the material realm of being is all that exists or it's not, and as you know, ding,. I and others have forcefully shown that everything we know from mathematically, scientifically viable physics and cosmology, the material realm of being necessarily began to exist in the finite past, and logic dictates that existence cannot arise from nonexistence, indeed, that nonexistence is an absurdity.

Something has existed from eternity, and that thing, speaking generically, is of an immaterial substance, the substance of Mind.

Actually, I’m afraid your usual pontificating is, as usual, pointless. Fear and superstition borne of ignorance necessarily precedes enlightenment. It’s certainly your right to embrace fear and superstition but I would instead opt for science as a means to an end primarily because as a member of the natural universe, we can assess natural realities as empirically supported.

You have only forcefully shown an ignorance and revulsion for knowledge and learning with appeals to magic and supernaturalism as an explanation for existence and life on the planet.

While reason and rationality have not answered every question, (in science and nature alike), these questions do not then leap out of the physical and into the metaphysical / supernatural at any point. Even in analogies where nature doesn't behave quite like we expected it to (quantum mechanics for instance), that doesn’t provide a reason to hold our snakes in the air and screech out “the gawds did it”.

I always find it comical that the religious extremists will pontificate about existence not arising from non existence yet they excuse their various gods from the very standard they insist must be applied to others.

“But, but... but...but...my gawds are excused from......”

.

While reason and rationality have not answered every question, (in science and nature alike), these questions do not then leap out of the physical and into the metaphysical / supernatural at any point.

you have gone to far in your denial of the supernatural, the metaphysical forces of the universe are responsible for life and life is supernatural - the denial by the religious zealots in support of their stagnate literature is the true culprit even for your own denial of the mystery of life that may be forever a fleeting rationalization.

How does one go “too far” in their rejection of the supernatural? Please identify a single, verifiable supernatural event.

.

How does one go “too far” in their rejection of the supernatural? Please identify a single, verifiable supernatural event.

I'll try this one more time - physiology is a physical, supernatural substance that disappears when its metaphysical spiritual content is removed.

the key to persistence is to free the spiritual content from the confines of its physiology to be rejoined to the Everlasting from whence it came - that is done by the individual themselves as prescribed through the triumph of good vs evil.

You can try: “physiology is a physical, supernatural substance that disappears when its metaphysical spiritual content is removed.” as many times as you want.

Nothing in your appeals to supernaturalism crosses over into the rational. It’s just silly in that supernaturalism is unverifiable so you can assign any “.... because I say so”, claim.

.

Nothing in your appeals to supernaturalism crosses over into the rational. It’s just silly in that supernaturalism is unverifiable so you can assign any “.... because I say so”, claim.

supernatural is verified by what on planet Earth, life that arrived to its surface as a consequence other than its primordial beginning and those associated component materials.

physiology is not native to planet earth and only exists when there is a spiritual, metaphysical content to guide it, it is you who is in denial.

You’re just making that up.

.

You’re just making that up.

supernatural is verified by what on planet Earth, life that arrived to its surface as a consequence other than its primordial beginning and those associated component materials.

physiology is not native to planet earth and only exists when there is a spiritual, metaphysical content to guide it, it is you who is in denial.

.
making what up, attached was an explanation for supernatural ... what do you consider physiology to be if not celestial. and does not exist without a spiritual content that is metaphysical.

Your “... because I say so”, insistence for magic and supernaturalism aren’t convincing arguments.

Maybe type them out in all caps.

.

Your “... because I say so”, insistence for magic and supernaturalism aren’t convincing arguments.

.
I have only stated physiology is an example of a physical supernatural substance - per your request to provide something that is supernatural ...

and has a metaphysical spiritual content that when removed the substance disappears -

or do you find physiology just laying around the same as bolders or sand along the beach line.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Every once in a while, a thread needs to be restarted. There is one guy that got my attention on this subject. If you REALLY want a well thought out answer:





A more critical view is that all sides live their beliefs by faith. The atheists / nonbelievers have to come to grips with the fact that they cannot explain getting something from nothing. Ever atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter comes from somewhere. So, evolutionists have a theory that has no more scientific weight than creationism. Watch Dr. Lisle. If he don't offer some things to consider, then maybe you've pursued the subject and will never get the answer you want.

you do not understand the OP
....the evolutionists HAVE a theory based on facts..the fairytale believers do not
YES, they do have more weight
I will ask you also, do you believe a fully formed human just appeared?
.....no, you give me a brief theory of about 10 sentences long on creation of man

My theory and a couple of bucks will buy you a cup of coffee in most restaurants in America. Evolutionists cannot scientifically how matter just happened along. That is a fact. Having said that, I do not believe that the Bible limits itself to the 6 "day" creation of 24 hours per day. The word as originally translated in Genesis only means equal periods of time. So, in six equal periods of time, God created the heavens and the earth. BTW, that is heavens (plural) so we're not limited to planet earth. No, your theory holds no more weight than the belief in creation. Both require faith and have no definitive answer to the bottom line.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Every once in a while, a thread needs to be restarted. There is one guy that got my attention on this subject. If you REALLY want a well thought out answer:





A more critical view is that all sides live their beliefs by faith. The atheists / nonbelievers have to come to grips with the fact that they cannot explain getting something from nothing. Ever atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter comes from somewhere. So, evolutionists have a theory that has no more scientific weight than creationism. Watch Dr. Lisle. If he don't offer some things to consider, then maybe you've pursued the subject and will never get the answer you want.

Jason Lisle

Jason P. Lisle was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

rationalwiki.org

In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals"
I tend to do this whenever someone proposes a source. So what we have here is an actual scientist who proposes ideas that if true would revolutionize science and than subsequently decides that his ideas are best published not in Nature but in the ARJ(Answers Research Journal). Can you explain to me why that is?

I said the man makes me think. Not knowing who or what criteria he based his decisions on, I cannot answer for him. Personally, I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time. Lisle calls a lot of commonly held beliefs into question. Unlike extremists who demand nonexistent / definitive proof from either side, I'm not good at accepting or rejecting any proposition based upon any personal prejudices. Neither do I claim that what I believe in is the whole truth and fact just because some group I like gives me bias confirmation. What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition. As stated, every atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter had an origination point. You cannot get something from nothing and no amount of psycho babble from people trying to use fifty dollar words to convey a ten cent concept can change that.

 

[zaangalewa]

33 pages in this thread and still no General Theory of Supernatural Creation.

But, that’s like every other thread claiming proof of the gods and supernatural mechanisms.

Are you sure?

Positive.

I remember in this context now an academic discussion of the Emeritus, when he was cardinal, with a famous atheistic philosopher of the so called "school of Frankfurt". After their very friendly academic discussion on an extraordinary high level of intellect - what a joy to see such people discussing - lots of idiots had called this philosopher a traitor, because he had to agree in this discussion a pure materialistic view to the world is not consequently thinkable.

So tell me why you hate the idea the world contains spiritual components (which you call super-natural and I call meta-physics). Take care in this context that mathematics (and logic (from logos = "word")) is only a world of ideas whithout any concrete materialistic structure. Practically for phycisists (explorers of the physis (of the 'materialistic' structure of the world)) mathematics is an essential tool, which is either not a part of the physis of the world - then it is for phycisists a kind of 'spirituality' of physics - or mathematics is a part of the physis of the world - then it makes no sense to think the world is without 'spiritual' structure in the widest sense of this word.

And in general: If you say to someone "Prove you are a blue horse" and the other one says "I am not a blue horse, I'm a purple elephant" then you are perhaps not right with your idea the other one is not able to prove he is a blue horse. Perhaps you should try to undertand what others say and not try to misunderstand what others say. I have the feeling meanwhile the whole English speaking world uses words more and more like weapons, instead to try to find real inspirations.

 

[zaangalewa]

Did Mohammad believe and teach that Jesus was God the Messiah, and that by grace one is saved through faith in that Messiah and not by one's own effort because of our sinful imperfection before a perfect GOD? Babies are a gift of GOD and a vital resource that is being wasted. Their blood would cry out from the ground as did that of Abel.

Exactly my point, thank you very much. A billion people believe Jesus spoke for/was God. Another billion believe Mohammed spoke for God. More billions believe completely different theologies. God is certainly capable of clearing up the confusion but chooses not to. If he exists the question is why? If he doesn't exist the answer if obvious.

If he doesn't exist the question is "Do we exist?". What if god finds out we don't do so?

And let me say additionally: "obvious" means in this context you believe the philosophy empirism is the god of god - but it is not. Nothing and no one is the god of god - except god on his own. And we are his children.

 

[harmonica]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Every once in a while, a thread needs to be restarted. There is one guy that got my attention on this subject. If you REALLY want a well thought out answer:





A more critical view is that all sides live their beliefs by faith. The atheists / nonbelievers have to come to grips with the fact that they cannot explain getting something from nothing. Ever atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter comes from somewhere. So, evolutionists have a theory that has no more scientific weight than creationism. Watch Dr. Lisle. If he don't offer some things to consider, then maybe you've pursued the subject and will never get the answer you want.

Jason Lisle

Jason P. Lisle was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

rationalwiki.org

In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals"
I tend to do this whenever someone proposes a source. So what we have here is an actual scientist who proposes ideas that if true would revolutionize science and than subsequently decides that his ideas are best published not in Nature but in the ARJ(Answers Research Journal). Can you explain to me why that is?

I said the man makes me think. Not knowing who or what criteria he based his decisions on, I cannot answer for him. Personally, I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time. Lisle calls a lot of commonly held beliefs into question. Unlike extremists who demand nonexistent / definitive proof from either side, I'm not good at accepting or rejecting any proposition based upon any personal prejudices. Neither do I claim that what I believe in is the whole truth and fact just because some group I like gives me bias confirmation. What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition. As stated, every atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter had an origination point. You cannot get something from nothing and no amount of psycho babble from people trying to use fifty dollar words to convey a ten cent concept can change that.

.....the bible is irrelevant....it's a book written thousands of years ago = they didn't know anything about life/science/etc
..you even prove it by saying the word ''days'' could mean anything

 

[forkup]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Every once in a while, a thread needs to be restarted. There is one guy that got my attention on this subject. If you REALLY want a well thought out answer:





A more critical view is that all sides live their beliefs by faith. The atheists / nonbelievers have to come to grips with the fact that they cannot explain getting something from nothing. Ever atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter comes from somewhere. So, evolutionists have a theory that has no more scientific weight than creationism. Watch Dr. Lisle. If he don't offer some things to consider, then maybe you've pursued the subject and will never get the answer you want.

Jason Lisle

Jason P. Lisle was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

rationalwiki.org

In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals"
I tend to do this whenever someone proposes a source. So what we have here is an actual scientist who proposes ideas that if true would revolutionize science and than subsequently decides that his ideas are best published not in Nature but in the ARJ(Answers Research Journal). Can you explain to me why that is?

I said the man makes me think. Not knowing who or what criteria he based his decisions on, I cannot answer for him. Personally, I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time. Lisle calls a lot of commonly held beliefs into question. Unlike extremists who demand nonexistent / definitive proof from either side, I'm not good at accepting or rejecting any proposition based upon any personal prejudices. Neither do I claim that what I believe in is the whole truth and fact just because some group I like gives me bias confirmation. What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition. As stated, every atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter had an origination point. You cannot get something from nothing and no amount of psycho babble from people trying to use fifty dollar words to convey a ten cent concept can change that.

I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time.

What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts when science rules out something.

What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition.

First of most of the masses still believe in some form of a higher being as has been the case for millennia. Every single one of those people who believed claimed they knew. Science is actually the only thing that doesn't condition it's veracity on"the masses" it's only condition is that it's propositions are supported by evidence.

You cannot get something from nothing

And yet you believe in God. Who created him? If you say nobody to that question than you do believe in something from nothing.

By the way, something from nothing is a strawman put up by religious people to describe atheists. Nobody as far as I can tell really proposes that life or the universe came from nothing. At the worst what you'll get is "I don't know". Something that is a hell of a lot more honest answer than "I believe" god did it.

 

[LittleNipper]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Every once in a while, a thread needs to be restarted. There is one guy that got my attention on this subject. If you REALLY want a well thought out answer:





A more critical view is that all sides live their beliefs by faith. The atheists / nonbelievers have to come to grips with the fact that they cannot explain getting something from nothing. Ever atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter comes from somewhere. So, evolutionists have a theory that has no more scientific weight than creationism. Watch Dr. Lisle. If he don't offer some things to consider, then maybe you've pursued the subject and will never get the answer you want.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Jason lisle

So how do you explain the starlight problem when you believe in a 6-day creation 6000 years ago? Lisle’s solution is simple: “creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically.” So the inerrancy of the Bible is actually an axiom. He even published a paper in AiG’s “Answers Research Journal” claiming to have a more sophisticated solution and emphasizing that critics should have an open mind. The argument in the paper is: “The Bible must be true. Genesis says the stars were created simultaneously, on Day Four, 6000 years ago. This conflicts with relativity. Therefore relativity is wrong. Therefore The Bible must be true.” Even the dimmest student would spot the problem here, but Lisle proudly points out that “So far, no one has published in a peer-reviewed journal any criticism of this model.” [hat tip Rationalwiki]. It’s all like the weirdest sort of Alex Jones conspiracy, really – anything is taken to confirm the preheld view, even when it’s evidence against it.

Diagnosis: Confirmation bias run wild – über-crank Lisle is apparently blissfully unaware of the fact that he has made an art of arguing in circles. He is pretty vocal but important mostly as the scientific alibi of Ken Ham’s gang (and what an alibi).

The Bible in Genesis solves the starlight problem very easily (it would seem what atheists insist on calling "dumb sheepherders" were either very astute or GOD revealed what man at that time could have no clue of except by divine revelation. The Bible clearly states that God created the light first and later He created the stars. The Bible also states that the heavens were spread out like a curtain. In other words, GOD made the light reaching earth. GOD then made light sources for the light already existing. And then GOD spread out the entire Universe along with the already preexisting light. Thanks for providing yet another opportunity to demonstrate the often ignored or missed complexities revealed in GOD's Holy Word. Thanks also for providing an opportunity to demonstrate DIVINE REVELATION. For DIVINE REVELATION to exist there must be GOD. For life to exist there must be a designer. Life then also proves that GOD exists. Jesus Christ existed and said that HIS Father in heaven sent HIM. Here is yet another proof that GOD exists. How many more do you need?

 

[Hollie]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Every once in a while, a thread needs to be restarted. There is one guy that got my attention on this subject. If you REALLY want a well thought out answer:





A more critical view is that all sides live their beliefs by faith. The atheists / nonbelievers have to come to grips with the fact that they cannot explain getting something from nothing. Ever atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter comes from somewhere. So, evolutionists have a theory that has no more scientific weight than creationism. Watch Dr. Lisle. If he don't offer some things to consider, then maybe you've pursued the subject and will never get the answer you want.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Jason lisle

So how do you explain the starlight problem when you believe in a 6-day creation 6000 years ago? Lisle’s solution is simple: “creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically.” So the inerrancy of the Bible is actually an axiom. He even published a paper in AiG’s “Answers Research Journal” claiming to have a more sophisticated solution and emphasizing that critics should have an open mind. The argument in the paper is: “The Bible must be true. Genesis says the stars were created simultaneously, on Day Four, 6000 years ago. This conflicts with relativity. Therefore relativity is wrong. Therefore The Bible must be true.” Even the dimmest student would spot the problem here, but Lisle proudly points out that “So far, no one has published in a peer-reviewed journal any criticism of this model.” [hat tip Rationalwiki]. It’s all like the weirdest sort of Alex Jones conspiracy, really – anything is taken to confirm the preheld view, even when it’s evidence against it.

Diagnosis: Confirmation bias run wild – über-crank Lisle is apparently blissfully unaware of the fact that he has made an art of arguing in circles. He is pretty vocal but important mostly as the scientific alibi of Ken Ham’s gang (and what an alibi).

The Bible in Genesis solves the starlight problem very easily (it would seem what atheists insist on calling "dumb sheepherders" were either very astute or GOD revealed what man at that time could have no clue of except by divine revelation. The Bible clearly states that God created the light first and later He created the stars. The Bible also states that the heavens were spread out like a curtain. In other words, GOD made the light reaching earth. GOD then made light sources for the light already existing. And then GOD spread out the entire Universe along with the already preexisting light. Thanks for providing yet another opportunity to demonstrate the often ignored or missed complexities revealed in GOD's Holy Word. Thanks also for providing an opportunity to demonstrate DIVINE REVELATION. For DIVINE REVELATION to exist there must be GOD. For life to exist there must be a designer. Life then also proves that GOD exists. Jesus Christ existed and said that HIS Father in heaven sent HIM. Here is yet another proof that GOD exists. How many more do you need?

I need something more than you insisting the Bible is true because you believe the Bible is true. Nothing in what you wrote moves beyond web based proselytizing. Religionists of differing beliefs and caliber of weapons will make similar claims to their religions, holy texts and their respective gods as counters to your claims.

BTW, life does not prove your gods exist. Stop the madness.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Every once in a while, a thread needs to be restarted. There is one guy that got my attention on this subject. If you REALLY want a well thought out answer:





A more critical view is that all sides live their beliefs by faith. The atheists / nonbelievers have to come to grips with the fact that they cannot explain getting something from nothing. Ever atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter comes from somewhere. So, evolutionists have a theory that has no more scientific weight than creationism. Watch Dr. Lisle. If he don't offer some things to consider, then maybe you've pursued the subject and will never get the answer you want.

Jason Lisle

Jason P. Lisle was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

rationalwiki.org

In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals"
I tend to do this whenever someone proposes a source. So what we have here is an actual scientist who proposes ideas that if true would revolutionize science and than subsequently decides that his ideas are best published not in Nature but in the ARJ(Answers Research Journal). Can you explain to me why that is?

I said the man makes me think. Not knowing who or what criteria he based his decisions on, I cannot answer for him. Personally, I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time. Lisle calls a lot of commonly held beliefs into question. Unlike extremists who demand nonexistent / definitive proof from either side, I'm not good at accepting or rejecting any proposition based upon any personal prejudices. Neither do I claim that what I believe in is the whole truth and fact just because some group I like gives me bias confirmation. What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition. As stated, every atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter had an origination point. You cannot get something from nothing and no amount of psycho babble from people trying to use fifty dollar words to convey a ten cent concept can change that.

.....the bible is irrelevant....it's a book written thousands of years ago = they didn't know anything about life/science/etc
..you even prove it by saying the word ''days'' could mean anything

Did you consider that the books you rely on are irrelevant because they rely on the word of some guy written many years ago and / or by people with a predetermined agenda? There is nothing wrong with the Bible. The only problem you really have is with man's agenda when interpreting it. The good news is, on this subject whether you think the earth was built in 6 days or 6 trillion years isn't going to determine whether or not a person is going to heaven or not.

I'm not sure that I'd like your religion wherein you have to get your boxers in a bunch just because some other guy believes the concept of creation while reminding you that you are in no better position since you have to have faith that you are right since you have no bottom line explanation for what is. You cannot get something from nothing. If I'm right, I have something to look forward to in the hereafter. You have nothing beyond this life. If I'm wrong, it costs me nothing. If you're wrong, the stakes are much higher. So, what does it cost to believe? Those who believe live a much more fulfilling life and, just like you, they have faith. Your religion causes you to be miserable, even angry when you cannot get others to accept your version of life. I can believe in the Word of God and be so confident that I can fight to the death for your Right to believe in anything and it does not cost me anything at the end of the day. You cannot fight for the Rights of others - you're intimidated by believers. I could never be converted to such a position.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Every once in a while, a thread needs to be restarted. There is one guy that got my attention on this subject. If you REALLY want a well thought out answer:





A more critical view is that all sides live their beliefs by faith. The atheists / nonbelievers have to come to grips with the fact that they cannot explain getting something from nothing. Ever atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter comes from somewhere. So, evolutionists have a theory that has no more scientific weight than creationism. Watch Dr. Lisle. If he don't offer some things to consider, then maybe you've pursued the subject and will never get the answer you want.

Jason Lisle

Jason P. Lisle was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

rationalwiki.org

In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals"
I tend to do this whenever someone proposes a source. So what we have here is an actual scientist who proposes ideas that if true would revolutionize science and than subsequently decides that his ideas are best published not in Nature but in the ARJ(Answers Research Journal). Can you explain to me why that is?

I said the man makes me think. Not knowing who or what criteria he based his decisions on, I cannot answer for him. Personally, I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time. Lisle calls a lot of commonly held beliefs into question. Unlike extremists who demand nonexistent / definitive proof from either side, I'm not good at accepting or rejecting any proposition based upon any personal prejudices. Neither do I claim that what I believe in is the whole truth and fact just because some group I like gives me bias confirmation. What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition. As stated, every atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter had an origination point. You cannot get something from nothing and no amount of psycho babble from people trying to use fifty dollar words to convey a ten cent concept can change that.

I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time.

What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts when science rules out something.

What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition.

First of most of the masses still believe in some form of a higher being as has been the case for millennia. Every single one of those people who believed claimed they knew. Science is actually the only thing that doesn't condition it's veracity on"the masses" it's only condition is that it's propositions are supported by evidence.

You cannot get something from nothing

And yet you believe in God. Who created him? If you say nobody to that question than you do believe in something from nothing.

By the way, something from nothing is a strawman put up by religious people to describe atheists. Nobody as far as I can tell really proposes that life or the universe came from nothing. At the worst what you'll get is "I don't know". Something that is a hell of a lot more honest answer than "I believe" god did it.

1) Science has not ruled out anything - Lisle shows that

2) You have no evidence - all you have is faith. You cannot get something from nothing. THAT is the bottom line

3) God came from somewhere if he exists. You find fault with my acceptance the He does exist and you expect me to blindly expect that whatever matter caused the earth to be formed just exists. Both our positions are rooted in faith since you lack any scientific evidence for your premise.

 

[forkup]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Every once in a while, a thread needs to be restarted. There is one guy that got my attention on this subject. If you REALLY want a well thought out answer:





A more critical view is that all sides live their beliefs by faith. The atheists / nonbelievers have to come to grips with the fact that they cannot explain getting something from nothing. Ever atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter comes from somewhere. So, evolutionists have a theory that has no more scientific weight than creationism. Watch Dr. Lisle. If he don't offer some things to consider, then maybe you've pursued the subject and will never get the answer you want.

Jason Lisle

Jason P. Lisle was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

rationalwiki.org

In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals"
I tend to do this whenever someone proposes a source. So what we have here is an actual scientist who proposes ideas that if true would revolutionize science and than subsequently decides that his ideas are best published not in Nature but in the ARJ(Answers Research Journal). Can you explain to me why that is?

I said the man makes me think. Not knowing who or what criteria he based his decisions on, I cannot answer for him. Personally, I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time. Lisle calls a lot of commonly held beliefs into question. Unlike extremists who demand nonexistent / definitive proof from either side, I'm not good at accepting or rejecting any proposition based upon any personal prejudices. Neither do I claim that what I believe in is the whole truth and fact just because some group I like gives me bias confirmation. What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition. As stated, every atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter had an origination point. You cannot get something from nothing and no amount of psycho babble from people trying to use fifty dollar words to convey a ten cent concept can change that.

I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time.

What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts when science rules out something.

What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition.

First of most of the masses still believe in some form of a higher being as has been the case for millennia. Every single one of those people who believed claimed they knew. Science is actually the only thing that doesn't condition it's veracity on"the masses" it's only condition is that it's propositions are supported by evidence.

You cannot get something from nothing

And yet you believe in God. Who created him? If you say nobody to that question than you do believe in something from nothing.

By the way, something from nothing is a strawman put up by religious people to describe atheists. Nobody as far as I can tell really proposes that life or the universe came from nothing. At the worst what you'll get is "I don't know". Something that is a hell of a lot more honest answer than "I believe" god did it.

1) Science has not ruled out anything - Lisle shows that

2) You have no evidence - all you have is faith. You cannot get something from nothing. THAT is the bottom line

3) God came from somewhere if he exists. You find fault with my acceptance the He does exist and you expect me to blindly expect that whatever matter caused the earth to be formed just exists. Both our positions are rooted in faith since you lack any scientific evidence for your premise.

Science rules out stuff all the time. It comes out with a hypothesis and then tries to find ways to test it. If the tests show something else the hypothesis is ruled out. Lisle shows something else. What he shows that even people who have a PhD can ignore the scientific method of which peer review is a cornerstone in favor of religion.

I have plenty of evidence. I have evidence that the earth exists. I have evidence the Universe exists. I have evidence the Earth is way older than 6000 years. I have evidence that at the beginning of life on this planet no complex lifeforms existed. I can show that stars are way further than 6000 lightyears. I can prove that gravity exists. Etc. Etc. You, on the other hand, have absolutely zero proof that God exists. This means to me that God as an hypothesis is unproven and as such invalid.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Every once in a while, a thread needs to be restarted. There is one guy that got my attention on this subject. If you REALLY want a well thought out answer:





A more critical view is that all sides live their beliefs by faith. The atheists / nonbelievers have to come to grips with the fact that they cannot explain getting something from nothing. Ever atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter comes from somewhere. So, evolutionists have a theory that has no more scientific weight than creationism. Watch Dr. Lisle. If he don't offer some things to consider, then maybe you've pursued the subject and will never get the answer you want.

Jason Lisle

Jason P. Lisle was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

rationalwiki.org

In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals"
I tend to do this whenever someone proposes a source. So what we have here is an actual scientist who proposes ideas that if true would revolutionize science and than subsequently decides that his ideas are best published not in Nature but in the ARJ(Answers Research Journal). Can you explain to me why that is?

I said the man makes me think. Not knowing who or what criteria he based his decisions on, I cannot answer for him. Personally, I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time. Lisle calls a lot of commonly held beliefs into question. Unlike extremists who demand nonexistent / definitive proof from either side, I'm not good at accepting or rejecting any proposition based upon any personal prejudices. Neither do I claim that what I believe in is the whole truth and fact just because some group I like gives me bias confirmation. What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition. As stated, every atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter had an origination point. You cannot get something from nothing and no amount of psycho babble from people trying to use fifty dollar words to convey a ten cent concept can change that.

I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time.

What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts when science rules out something.

What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition.

First of most of the masses still believe in some form of a higher being as has been the case for millennia. Every single one of those people who believed claimed they knew. Science is actually the only thing that doesn't condition it's veracity on"the masses" it's only condition is that it's propositions are supported by evidence.

You cannot get something from nothing

And yet you believe in God. Who created him? If you say nobody to that question than you do believe in something from nothing.

By the way, something from nothing is a strawman put up by religious people to describe atheists. Nobody as far as I can tell really proposes that life or the universe came from nothing. At the worst what you'll get is "I don't know". Something that is a hell of a lot more honest answer than "I believe" god did it.

1) Science has not ruled out anything - Lisle shows that

2) You have no evidence - all you have is faith. You cannot get something from nothing. THAT is the bottom line

3) God came from somewhere if he exists. You find fault with my acceptance the He does exist and you expect me to blindly expect that whatever matter caused the earth to be formed just exists. Both our positions are rooted in faith since you lack any scientific evidence for your premise.

Science rules out stuff all the time. It comes out with a hypothesis and then tries to find ways to test it. If the tests show something else the hypothesis is ruled out. Lisle shows something else. What he shows that even people who have a PhD can ignore the scientific method of which peer review is a cornerstone in favor of religion.

I have plenty of evidence. I have evidence that the earth exists. I have evidence the Universe exists. I have evidence the Earth is way older than 6000 years. I have evidence that at the beginning of life on this planet no complex lifeforms existed. I can show that stars are way further than 6000 lightyears. I can prove that gravity exists. Etc. Etc. You, on the other hand, have absolutely zero proof that God exists. This means to me that God as an hypothesis is unproven and as such invalid.

Again, though you can prove that such things exist, you cannot prove their origination point. You don't seem to understand that you cannot get something from nothing. You have zero evidence to show from where all those things originate. You take their existence on faith, not science.

Christians have the secular history of Jesus Christ and his miracles. So, whether you believe he was the son of God or not, he gave testimony of our father in Heaven. Hate to break it to you, but that is evidence.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Did Mohammad believe and teach that Jesus was God the Messiah, and that by grace one is saved through faith in that Messiah and not by one's own effort because of our sinful imperfection before a perfect GOD? Babies are a gift of GOD and a vital resource that is being wasted. Their blood would cry out from the ground as did that of Abel.

Exactly my point, thank you very much. A billion people believe Jesus spoke for/was God. Another billion believe Mohammed spoke for God. More billions believe completely different theologies. God is certainly capable of clearing up the confusion but chooses not to. If he exists the question is why? If he doesn't exist the answer if obvious.

Why do you exist?

 

[alang1216]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Every once in a while, a thread needs to be restarted. There is one guy that got my attention on this subject. If you REALLY want a well thought out answer:





A more critical view is that all sides live their beliefs by faith. The atheists / nonbelievers have to come to grips with the fact that they cannot explain getting something from nothing. Ever atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter comes from somewhere. So, evolutionists have a theory that has no more scientific weight than creationism. Watch Dr. Lisle. If he don't offer some things to consider, then maybe you've pursued the subject and will never get the answer you want.

Jason Lisle

Jason P. Lisle was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

rationalwiki.org

In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals"
I tend to do this whenever someone proposes a source. So what we have here is an actual scientist who proposes ideas that if true would revolutionize science and than subsequently decides that his ideas are best published not in Nature but in the ARJ(Answers Research Journal). Can you explain to me why that is?

I said the man makes me think. Not knowing who or what criteria he based his decisions on, I cannot answer for him. Personally, I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time. Lisle calls a lot of commonly held beliefs into question. Unlike extremists who demand nonexistent / definitive proof from either side, I'm not good at accepting or rejecting any proposition based upon any personal prejudices. Neither do I claim that what I believe in is the whole truth and fact just because some group I like gives me bias confirmation. What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition. As stated, every atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter had an origination point. You cannot get something from nothing and no amount of psycho babble from people trying to use fifty dollar words to convey a ten cent concept can change that.

I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time.

What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts when science rules out something.

What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition.

First of most of the masses still believe in some form of a higher being as has been the case for millennia. Every single one of those people who believed claimed they knew. Science is actually the only thing that doesn't condition it's veracity on"the masses" it's only condition is that it's propositions are supported by evidence.

You cannot get something from nothing

And yet you believe in God. Who created him? If you say nobody to that question than you do believe in something from nothing.

By the way, something from nothing is a strawman put up by religious people to describe atheists. Nobody as far as I can tell really proposes that life or the universe came from nothing. At the worst what you'll get is "I don't know". Something that is a hell of a lot more honest answer than "I believe" god did it.

1) Science has not ruled out anything - Lisle shows that

2) You have no evidence - all you have is faith. You cannot get something from nothing. THAT is the bottom line

3) God came from somewhere if he exists. You find fault with my acceptance the He does exist and you expect me to blindly expect that whatever matter caused the earth to be formed just exists. Both our positions are rooted in faith since you lack any scientific evidence for your premise.

Science rules out stuff all the time. It comes out with a hypothesis and then tries to find ways to test it. If the tests show something else the hypothesis is ruled out. Lisle shows something else. What he shows that even people who have a PhD can ignore the scientific method of which peer review is a cornerstone in favor of religion.

I have plenty of evidence. I have evidence that the earth exists. I have evidence the Universe exists. I have evidence the Earth is way older than 6000 years. I have evidence that at the beginning of life on this planet no complex lifeforms existed. I can show that stars are way further than 6000 lightyears. I can prove that gravity exists. Etc. Etc. You, on the other hand, have absolutely zero proof that God exists. This means to me that God as an hypothesis is unproven and as such invalid.

Again, though you can prove that such things exist, you cannot prove their origination point. You don't seem to understand that you cannot get something from nothing. You have zero evidence to show from where all those things originate. You take their existence on faith, not science.

Christians have the secular history of Jesus Christ and his miracles. So, whether you believe he was the son of God or not, he gave testimony of our father in Heaven. Hate to break it to you, but that is evidence.

There is solid evidence, evidence you can see and check with your own eyes, and there is weak evidence, evidence that is second or third hand, unverifiable, and contradictory such as Jesus Christ and his miracles.