Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

UltimateReality : calling evolution a religion doesn't make it so.

YWC : believing you know the only correct way to interpret scripture doesn't make it so.

I didn't call evolution a religion. I called Materialism a religion. Evolution is a tennant of Materialism. Seriously, that is all you could come up with in response???

It definitely is an Ideology.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Who We Are
The Nature Institute, founded in 1998, is a small, independent not-for-profit organization in upstate New York with a proven track record for incisive and thoughtful research studies, publications, and education programs. The Institute serves as a local, national, and international forum for research, education, and the exchange of ideas about the re-visioning of science and technology in an effort to realign humanity with nature. Biologist and Institute founder and director Craig Holdrege, senior researcher and publications' editor Steve Talbott, associate researcher Henrike Holdrege, and affiliate researchers Michael D'Aleo, Johannes Wirz, and Ronald Brady (deceased) have authored books and articles while also speaking at conferences, leading workshops, training teachers, and lecturing widely.


The Nature Institute - About Us

Avoiding the Issue
A reasoner who is supposed to address an issue but instead goes off on a tangent has committed the fallacy of avoiding the issue. Also called missing the point, straying off the subject, digressing, and not sticking to the issue.

Example:


A city official is charged with corruption for awarding contracts to his wife’s consulting firm. In speaking to a reporter about why he is innocent, the city official talks only about his wife’s conservative wardrobe, the family’s lovable dog, and his own accomplishments in supporting Little League baseball.

wrong as always ! the issue here is credibility of the evidence...or a lack of it in your case.
you constantly post speculation, myth and fantasy and try to play it off as fact.
all in an effort to rationalize the non rational .

Did you make the claim that atheism didn't exist in the time of Newton ? That is a myth.

 

[Youwerecreated]

you constantly post speculation, myth and fantasy and try to play it off as fact.

Projecting. This is exactly what evolution theorists do.

You haven't responded to one single point in the article, I'm assuming, because you can't. You are just as blind and brainwashed as the rest. You wouldn't denounce evolution of Darwin appeared to you in the flesh and told you it was all a trick he made up.

You could not hit the nail more squarely.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What most of you haters, and many Christians, do is violate the principle of Hermenutics. Throughout history, people have used the Bible erroneously to prove their point. Folks on this forum are notorious for quoting scripture out of context, not only the context of the specific book, but in relation to the whole Bible. They have no understanding of how the New Revalation relates to the Old. The also have no understanding of the historical context.The funny thing about this is they seem totally oblivious to history. Up until the 19th century, countless men had devoted their entire lives to the study of the Bible. Many of the points brought up here have already been discussed and wrestled with for centuries, but you all act like you are bringing up some new point or revelation. That is just pure arrogance and most of you really are at the center of your own universe, totally oblivious to anything outside your little box. Many are the product of Historical Revisionism and the dumbing down of our education system. It must be this lack of teaching of critical thought that made it so easy to pass of the seriously flawed TOE to so many mindless individuals. The lack of questions being brought against the Darwin fable are alarming.

Five main principles of Biblical Hermenutics(1):

1. The Literal Principle: Usus Loquendi

2. A Historical Principle: Now, when the Scripture was written, they understood what was said clearly. Just like the Constitution: when it was written everybody understood what they meant. Here we are a few hundred years later trying to figure out what they meant. Why? Because history is different. Time has passed. Culture has changed. Circumstances have changed, and even language has changed.

3. Grammatical Principle: You go to a text of Scripture and you have to approach it grammatically. This is called syntax. Lexigraphy is the study of words, syntax is the study of the relationship of words. You have to learn about verbs and adverbs and adjectives and you have to learn about infinitives and participles and you have to learn about prepositions. You have to learn about conjugating verbs and you have to learn about cases for nouns and substantives. Ablative and genitive and all of that, accusative, nominative. You learn all of the structure of language.

4. The Synthesis Principle: The Old Reformers used the expression "Scriptura Intra Pratatum" (sp.). What that means is that Scripture is its own interpreter. And you use the Synthesis Principle. What does that mean? That I always interpret a given passage in the Bible in the light of the rest of the Bible.

5. The Practical Principle: The final question you ask, you go through this whole process, starting out, "All right what's the literal meaning here?" Then you move to, "What's the historical background? The context? What are all the grammatical components here? How does this synthesize with the rest of Scripture? And then the last question you ask is, "So what? What does it mean to me? What does it have to do with me?

Then #6 which is purely a religious principle:

6. The Holy Spirit Principle: It basically infers that the Holy Spirit can speak to us through scripture.

One of my favorite mis-interpretations of the Bible is the Catholics claim that Jesus handed the Christian church to Peter, who is basically credited with being the founder of the Catholic church. It hinges on the statement in the Bible in which Jesus says, "Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Catholics think Jesus was talking to Petra, because his name means rock, but they miss the whole context of WHERE this statement was made. Jesus was standing in front of a large ROCK at Cesari of Philippi. It was a rock cliff where many pagan rituals were performed. When taken in the context of location, Christ was saying the church would be born from the conversion of the pagan worshipers. Then it should be no coincidence that all the Christian holidays were formerly pagan holidays. It should be noted that the cave was commonly referred to as the gates of hell.

Lion Tracks Photo QnA -- Caesarea Philippi (Banias, Panias, Panium) in Israel. Site of question "Who do you say that I am?" by Jesus.

Gates of Hell | Follow The Rabbi

Banias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hermeneutics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(1) Borrowed from Jon MacArthur: Charismatic Chaos

I have been studying the word for over 40 years I have no reason to doubt what I have learned.

The scriptures are for:

2Ti 3:16 Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.

 

[Montrovant]

UltimateReality : calling evolution a religion doesn't make it so.

YWC : believing you know the only correct way to interpret scripture doesn't make it so.

I didn't call evolution a religion. I called Materialism a religion. Evolution is a tennant of Materialism. Seriously, that is all you could come up with in response???

How much response do I need for the baseless accusation that belief in evolution is based on denial of god? How much response do I need to you assuming you know what others believe as well as you ascribing connections or characteristics to the theory of evolution that aren't there?

 

[UltimateReality]

UltimateReality : calling evolution a religion doesn't make it so.

YWC : believing you know the only correct way to interpret scripture doesn't make it so.

I didn't call evolution a religion. I called Materialism a religion. Evolution is a tennant of Materialism. Seriously, that is all you could come up with in response???

How much response do I need for the baseless accusation that belief in evolution is based on denial of god? How much response do I need to you assuming you know what others believe as well as you ascribing connections or characteristics to the theory of evolution that aren't there?

That is your interpretation (ha!!), but not in alignment with the most outspoken proponents like Hawkins and Dawkins, or thousands of others including many who post here.

You say it is baseless but I believe you just need to open your mind and look at the evidence. Evolutionary theory is every bit the product of denial of the Creator, just as much as the Multi-universe theory is a response to the Fine Tuning argument which puts God as the Master Tuner. Your denial of these facts is the only baseless claim here.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I can show how absurd it is to believe in abiogenesis it's so absurd the only explanation is an intelligent designer. I have tried this before but I think it just went over peoples head but The formation of Amino Acids and Proteins are the evidence of the creator.

There is no way life could have come into existence without being created. There is just no way an unintelligent process could create life.

 

[blu]

I can show how absurd it is to believe in abiogenesis it's so absurd the only explanation is an intelligent designer. I have tried this before but I think it just went over peoples head but The formation of Amino Acids and Proteins are the evidence of the creator.

There is no way life could have come into existence without being created. There is just no way an unintelligent process could create life.

how does amino acid show the need for a creator?

religious nuts just cling on to whatever science hasn't proven yet in order to justify their illogical belief in god.

First it was the rain & sun god, then the crop god, and on and on all the while science disproved their nonsense.

What will the nutbags do when science has proven everything and their creationist garbage is finally put to rest for good?

 

[UltimateReality]

how does amino acid show the need for a creator?

The odds my friend. Arrogance and ignorance.... a really bad combination.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I can show how absurd it is to believe in abiogenesis it's so absurd the only explanation is an intelligent designer. I have tried this before but I think it just went over peoples head but The formation of Amino Acids and Proteins are the evidence of the creator.

There is no way life could have come into existence without being created. There is just no way an unintelligent process could create life.

how does amino acid show the need for a creator?

religious nuts just cling on to whatever science hasn't proven yet in order to justify their illogical belief in god.

First it was the rain & sun god, then the crop god, and on and on all the while science disproved their nonsense.

What will the nutbags do when science has proven everything and their creationist garbage is finally put to rest for good?

I explained this to you in the other thread blu.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I can show how absurd it is to believe in abiogenesis it's so absurd the only explanation is an intelligent designer. I have tried this before but I think it just went over peoples head but The formation of Amino Acids and Proteins are the evidence of the creator.

There is no way life could have come into existence without being created. There is just no way an unintelligent process could create life.

how does amino acid show the need for a creator?

religious nuts just cling on to whatever science hasn't proven yet in order to justify their illogical belief in god.

First it was the rain & sun god, then the crop god, and on and on all the while science disproved their nonsense.

What will the nutbags do when science has proven everything and their creationist garbage is finally put to rest for good?

Here in case you missed it.

Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins which are the main substances of living cells. Amino acids couldn't link to form proteins in the beginning.

It would be like claiming that if bricks could form in nature they would get together to build houses.

Proteins are so hard to form that in all of nature they never form except in already existing cells. This scientific fact stands in direct contrast to what you students are taught.

Oh but it gets better. We know that proteins do not form outside of living cells,the amino acids from which proteins are built,there are two kinds. half are left handed and right handed, proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them.

 

[daws101]

you constantly post speculation, myth and fantasy and try to play it off as fact.

Projecting. This is exactly what evolution theorists do.

You haven't responded to one single point in the article, I'm assuming, because you can't. You are just as blind and brainwashed as the rest. You wouldn't denounce evolution of Darwin appeared to you in the flesh and told you it was all a trick he made up.

nothing to respond to since it's all speculation ..what's the point?

 

[daws101]

I have to disagree with you.

He created all things in the beginning.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.


You can read the genesis account for more details.

I'm not going to be tricked by that bit of "Word" play, which is merely an English translation of a Greek philosophical term (Logos, or Word, first used by Heraclitus of Ephesus). Anyone with a halfway decent education in the classics (i.e. comparative religion, history, philosophy, etc.) can blow the nebulous assertions in the Bible out of the water.

As an example:

Logos-as-Son-of-God, first synthesized by Philo Judaeus, who was influeced by the Stoics.
Trinities of gods, a universal component of the ancient heathen mythology.

Etc.

I guess Jesus must've been a Greek philosopher or a hierophant of the heathen mysteries then? If not why do the doctrines of Greek philosophers, pagan cults, etc. keep showing up in the New Testament?

As to Genesis, the creation tale is standard fare for ancient Near Eastern creation fables, save that a single divine force rather than a pantheon of deities is the First Cause.

John the author borrowed the use of the term "Word" not only from the vocabulary of the Old Testament but also from Greek Philosophy, in which the term was essentially impersonal, signifying the rational principle of "divine reason", "mind", or even "wisdom". John, however, imbued the term entirely with Old Testament and Christian meaning, where God's Word is His powerful self expression in Creation, wisdom, revelation and salvation, and made it refer to a person, i.e., Jesus the Christ. Greek philosophical usage is not the exclusive background of John's thought. Strategically, the term "Word" serves as a bridge word to reach not only Jews, but also Greeks. Both would have been familiar with it.

how arrogant of john: "John, however, imbued the term entirely with Old Testament and Christian meaning"-UR

 

[UltimateReality]

nothing to respond to since it's all speculation ..what's the point?

Exactly!!! That is exactly what the article said about the TOE! Finally you get it.

 

[daws101]

nothing to respond to since it's all speculation ..what's the point?

exactly!!! That is exactly what the article said about the toe! Finally you get it.

got it the first time ,the only problem is toe is not speculation...you have no evidence proving it is. Just speculation and no hard evidence to validate your claim of a intelligent creator..

 

[daws101]

Avoiding the Issue
A reasoner who is supposed to address an issue but instead goes off on a tangent has committed the fallacy of avoiding the issue. Also called missing the point, straying off the subject, digressing, and not sticking to the issue.

Example:


A city official is charged with corruption for awarding contracts to his wife’s consulting firm. In speaking to a reporter about why he is innocent, the city official talks only about his wife’s conservative wardrobe, the family’s lovable dog, and his own accomplishments in supporting Little League baseball.

wrong as always ! the issue here is credibility of the evidence...or a lack of it in your case.
you constantly post speculation, myth and fantasy and try to play it off as fact.
all in an effort to rationalize the non rational .

Did you make the claim that atheism didn't exist in the time of Newton ? That is a myth.

no not the way you are attepmting to spin it.
I said newton was NOT A CREATIONIST!
may be I should have said (since you have a comprehension deficit) that CREATIONISM AS YOU AS YOU KNOW IT DID NOT EXIST:Creation Science or scientific creationism[1] is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.[2][3] It began in the 1960s as a fundamentalist Christian effort in the United States to prove Biblical inerrancy and nullify the scientific evidence for evolution.[4] It has since developed a sizable religious following in the United States, with creation science ministries branching worldwide.[5] The main ideas in creation science are: the belief in "creation ex nihilo"; the conviction that the Earth was created within the last 10,000 years; the belief that mankind and other life on Earth were created as distinct fixed "baraminological" kinds; and the idea that fossils found in geological strata were deposited during a cataclysmic flood which completely covered the entire Earth.[6] As a result, creation science also challenges the geologic and astrophysical evidence for the age and origins of Earth and Universe, which creation scientists acknowledge are irreconcilable to the account in the Book of Genesis.[4] Creation science proponents often refer to the theory of evolution as "Darwinism" or as "Darwinian evolution".

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[7][8] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[9][10]

AS TO ATHEISM I never said it did not exist what I posted was this :and that link just strengthened my point, I did not stereotype Newton, you have..I posted SEVERAL TIMES WHY NEWTON HAD NO CHOICE IN WHAT HE BELIEVED.

Notes on Religion in 16th Century Europe


Atheism
The word "atheist" in the 1500s was commonly used to denote a libertine rather to claim that one did not believe in God. To be described as an atheist was an insult. As the French historian Lucien Febve wrote, there were "conceptual difficulties" in the 1500s in denying the existence of God. "Every activity of the day ... was saturated with religious beliefs and institutions." And asking someone whether he believed in God was to suggest the possibility that he did not and must have been as insulting as asking if he were a sodomite or murderer. Peter Watson in his book Ideas agrees with Febve. Watson writes that "One reason Montaigne never really doubted that there was a God was because to do so in his lifetime was next to impossible."

Atheism was little more tolerated in the late 1600s, as indicated by the Enlightenment's John Locke claiming that atheism was “not at all to be tolerated” because, “promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human societies, can have no hold upon an atheist.”


and this:1. Newton ( 25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727) was not a creationist, the pseudo science of CREATIONISM HAD NOT EVEN BEEN INVENTED YET .
In its modern form, creationism sprung up around the same time as evolution, as a response to defend against what was seen as a threat to their faith.
The people who developed both are either not known in the first case, or many and varied in the second.
Read more: Who invented creationism

he was a man of his time ..eveyone was indoctrinated in religion.(by default everyone believed in creation.)
your blatant intentional misrepresentation of history is not only a logical fallacy, it's arguing from ignorance and appealing to a non existent authority .

'nuff said

 

[UltimateReality]

"When you ask an evolutionist how profoundly complex biological designs, that even today confound our best scientists and engineers, evolved, they will explain that the organic wonder increased the fitness of the organism in which it evolved. In other words, the new design fulfilled a need. They will explain this in great detail, as though that suffices as an explanation to the question. The brain evolved because it was needed.

Likewise, when you ask a cosomologist how the universe was finely tuned, they will explain that it must be finely tuned because, as British physicist Brandon Carter explained, we are here to observe it. If it weren’t finely tuned, it wouldn’t be observed because life would be impossible. Simply put, our universe is what it is because we are here.

It would be like hitting a thousand jackpots in a row in Las Vegas and explaining it by referring to the money you collected. True, if you hadn’t hit those jackpots you couldn’t have collected the money, but that doesn’t explain the astronomically unlikely event."

Darwin's God: Worshipping the Creature Rather Than the Creator

 

[UltimateReality]

I can show how absurd it is to believe in abiogenesis it's so absurd the only explanation is an intelligent designer. I have tried this before but I think it just went over peoples head but The formation of Amino Acids and Proteins are the evidence of the creator.

There is no way life could have come into existence without being created. There is just no way an unintelligent process could create life.

how does amino acid show the need for a creator?

religious nuts just cling on to whatever science hasn't proven yet in order to justify their illogical belief in god.

First it was the rain & sun god, then the crop god, and on and on all the while science disproved their nonsense.

What will the nutbags do when science has proven everything and their creationist garbage is finally put to rest for good?

Here in case you missed it.

Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins which are the main substances of living cells. Amino acids couldn't link to form proteins in the beginning.

It would be like claiming that if bricks could form in nature they would get together to build houses.

Proteins are so hard to form that in all of nature they never form except in already existing cells. This scientific fact stands in direct contrast to what you students are taught.

Oh but it gets better. We know that proteins do not form outside of living cells,the amino acids from which proteins are built,there are two kinds. half are left handed and right handed, proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them.

Here:

Uncommon Descent | For non-biologists: Why proteins are not easily recombined

 

[Caractacus]

John the author borrowed the use of the term "Word" not only from the vocabulary of the Old Testament but also from Greek Philosophy, in which the term was essentially impersonal, signifying the rational principle of "divine reason", "mind", or even "wisdom". John, however, imbued the term entirely with Old Testament and Christian meaning, where God's Word is His powerful self expression in Creation, wisdom, revelation and salvation, and made it refer to a person, i.e., Jesus the Christ. Greek philosophical usage is not the exclusive background of John's thought. Strategically, the term "Word" serves as a bridge word to reach not only Jews, but also Greeks. Both would have been familiar with it.

Philosophical terms were used by Christians within a specific and narrow context (as compared to the rather flexible usage that the no-Christians applied to these terms), often bungling the ideas with their confusing theological notions (i.e. that the supreme God became a man and displayed himself on a cross to die and so on), facts attested to in the surviving fragments of early anti-Christian critics and their literary opponents.

 

[Youwerecreated]

how does amino acid show the need for a creator?

religious nuts just cling on to whatever science hasn't proven yet in order to justify their illogical belief in god.

First it was the rain & sun god, then the crop god, and on and on all the while science disproved their nonsense.

What will the nutbags do when science has proven everything and their creationist garbage is finally put to rest for good?

Here in case you missed it.

Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins which are the main substances of living cells. Amino acids couldn't link to form proteins in the beginning.

It would be like claiming that if bricks could form in nature they would get together to build houses.

Proteins are so hard to form that in all of nature they never form except in already existing cells. This scientific fact stands in direct contrast to what you students are taught.

Oh but it gets better. We know that proteins do not form outside of living cells,the amino acids from which proteins are built,there are two kinds. half are left handed and right handed, proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them.

Here:

Uncommon Descent | For non-biologists: Why proteins are not easily recombined

A little more thourough