Scientific foreknowledge in the bible ?

[daws101]

Yet you resist experimenting on your own. how odd.

talking to yourself?

 

[daws101]

Because He says so. I know you try to be amusing mocking God and belitting your opponents. But that really doesn't prove any of your points.

So you're saying you will only believe in God He does a miracle?

Because ""He" says so?

" We" have no reason to believe that "He" said any such thing.

On what authority do you speak for "him"?

Im not asking you to take my word for it. Why do you think I keep encouraging you to find out for yourself?

My authority comes from Him. Dont believe me? ask Him.

does the phrase been there done that. mean anything to you.?

 

[Hollie]

Because He says so. I know you try to be amusing mocking God and belitting your opponents. But that really doesn't prove any of your points.

So you're saying you will only believe in God He does a miracle?

Because ""He" says so?

" We" have no reason to believe that "He" said any such thing.

On what authority do you speak for "him"?

Im not asking you to take my word for it. Why do you think I keep encouraging you to find out for yourself?

My authority comes from Him. Dont believe me? ask Him.

I asked him. And you're right. He said I had to ask you, first.

 

[daws101]

Because ""He" says so?

" We" have no reason to believe that "He" said any such thing.

On what authority do you speak for "him"?

Im not asking you to take my word for it. Why do you think I keep encouraging you to find out for yourself?

My authority comes from Him. Dont believe me? ask Him.

I asked him. And you're right. He said I had to ask you, first.

lol!

 

[Youwerecreated]

bhahahahahahahah!
there is no scientific evidence of god or any evidence that could be tested for traces of god.
please post your experimental criteria to test for god.

Easy. You experiment on the Word. You try living the Commandments. Taste the fruits of doing so.

snicker....science not your forte..
testing above all else must be objective and analytical..
what you suggested is subjective and erroneous.

thanks for playing.

It definitely is not yours. You don't completely understand your theory nor the creationism theory.

How, then, is creationism—as opposed to “naturalism,” defined as “a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted”—scientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define “scientific.” Too often, “science” and “naturalism” are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.

Is creationism scientific?

 

[Youwerecreated]

On what authority do you presume to be an authority on your particular gawds?

How do know with authority that your gawds are "he". Note that I saw no reason to capitalize "he". You are simply ascribing human attributes to an entity which is a human construct.

Your insistence to the extant nature of your gawds conflicts with the claims of different gawds by those who will in turn dismiss your gawds.

We seem to be on the horns (maybe hormones) of a dilemma here. Many, many conflicting claims to gawds with no one stepping up to plate and introducing their gawds with maybe an obligatory, supermagical miracle or two so we can walk away impressed all to hell.

Lets resolve this the old fashioned way - biggest army and largest body count wins.

Because He says so. I know you try to be amusing mocking God and belitting your opponents. But that really doesn't prove any of your points.

So you're saying you will only believe in God He does a miracle?

miracles and plagues are god's best tricks .

What is your explanation for naturalism if it was not a miracle ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Take one item out of the op without quoting the whole article and let's discuss it. We can take each point on and not move on til we finished.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hey daws take a look at your theory and compare it to the creationism theory how is one more scientific and and don't give me this because I said so.


The creation model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:

The evolution model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:

I. The universe and the Solar system were suddenly created. I. The universe and the solar system emerged by naturalistic processes.
II. Life was suddenly created. II. Life emerged from nonlife by naturalistic processes.
III. All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created kinds has only occurred within narrow limits. III. All present kinds emerged from simpler earlier kinds, so that single-celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates, including man.
IV. Mutation and natural selection are insufficient to have brought about any emergence of present living kinds from a simple primordial organism. IV. Mutation and natural selection have brought about the emergence of present complex kinds from a simple primordial organism.
V. Man and apes have a separate ancestry. V. Man and apes emerged from a common ancestor.
VI. The earth's geologic features appear to have been fashioned largely by rapid, catastrophic processes that affected the earth on a global and regional scale (catastrophism). VI. The earth's geologic features were fashioned largely by slow, gradual processes, with infrequent catastrophic events restricted to a local scale (uniformitarianism).
VII. The inception of the earth and of living kinds may have been relatively recent. VII. The inception of the earth and then of life must have occurred several billion years ago.

Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

 

[Hollie]

Take one item out of the op without quoting the whole article and let's discuss it. We can take each point on and not move on til we finished.

A number of those lies were already debunked as lies.

Why are you cutting and pasting the same lies?

 

[Hollie]

*

Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

Duane Gish and the ICR.

Partners in promoting stupidity.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Take one item out of the op without quoting the whole article and let's discuss it. We can take each point on and not move on til we finished.

A number of those lies were already debunked as lies.

Why are you cutting and pasting the same lies?

What lies hollie ? The problem with you is you can't take on what is presented this is your typical rhetoric, "Debunked and lies" but you can't back up what you're saying. You're proving the point of the article and can't show why naturalism is a more credible theory over creation.

 

[Youwerecreated]

*

Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

Duane Gish and the ICR.

Partners in promoting stupidity.

See your naturalism is no more viable than creation.

 

[Hollie]

Take one item out of the op without quoting the whole article and let's discuss it. We can take each point on and not move on til we finished.

A number of those lies were already debunked as lies.

Why are you cutting and pasting the same lies?

What lies hollie ? The problem with you is you can't take on what is presented this is your typical rhetoric, "Debunked and lies" but you can't back up what you're saying. You're proving the point of the article and can't show why naturalism is a more credible theory over creation.

What lies? The lies contained in the massive cut and paste from "Anointed one" website.

That is the same cut and paste you dumped repeatedly in the "Creationist" thread. I spent time exposing the falsified "quotes" and here you are again, cutting and pasting the same garbage with the same falsified "quotes"

 

[Hollie]

*

Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

Duane Gish and the ICR.

Partners in promoting stupidity.

See your naturalism is no more viable than creation.

Believe all the creation ministry lies if you need to. Just take a moment and ask yourself why both you and your phonies at those creation ministries are forced to lie in order to present their arguments for supernaturalism.

 

[Youwerecreated]

A number of those lies were already debunked as lies.

Why are you cutting and pasting the same lies?

What lies hollie ? The problem with you is you can't take on what is presented this is your typical rhetoric, "Debunked and lies" but you can't back up what you're saying. You're proving the point of the article and can't show why naturalism is a more credible theory over creation.

What lies? The lies contained in the massive cut and paste from "Anointed one" website.

That is the same cut and paste you dumped repeatedly in the "Creationist" thread. I spent time exposing the falsified "quotes" and here you are again, cutting and pasting the same garbage with the same falsified "quotes"

What did he say that was a lie be specific.

You're sounding like a broken record with nothing to back your accusation.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Duane Gish and the ICR.

Partners in promoting stupidity.

See your naturalism is no more viable than creation.

Believe all the creation ministry lies if you need to. Just take a moment and ask yourself why both you and your phonies at those creation ministries are forced to lie in order to present their arguments for supernaturalism.

Why don't you take a second and ask yourself Why with so many tenets of naturalism that can't be put to the test like science calls for but yet I believe it.

Why am I so willing to reject design and creation but accept naturalism when there is no evidence to support naturalism over design and creation.

 

[Hollie]

What lies hollie ? The problem with you is you can't take on what is presented this is your typical rhetoric, "Debunked and lies" but you can't back up what you're saying. You're proving the point of the article and can't show why naturalism is a more credible theory over creation.

What lies? The lies contained in the massive cut and paste from "Anointed one" website.

That is the same cut and paste you dumped repeatedly in the "Creationist" thread. I spent time exposing the falsified "quotes" and here you are again, cutting and pasting the same garbage with the same falsified "quotes"

What did he say that was a lie be specific.

You're sounding like a broken record with nothing to back your accusation.

Cute. You made this same argument in another thread and I posted multiple examples of your lies.

Take a look through the "Creationist", thread for you multiple cut and paste from "anointed one". The exposition of the falsified "quotes" and your attempts to defend them are there.

 

[Hollie]

See your naturalism is no more viable than creation.

Believe all the creation ministry lies if you need to. Just take a moment and ask yourself why both you and your phonies at those creation ministries are forced to lie in order to present their arguments for supernaturalism.

Why don't you take a second and ask yourself Why with so many tenets of naturalism that can't be put to the test like science calls for but yet I believe it.

Why am I so willing to reject design and creation but accept naturalism when there is no evidence to support naturalism over design and creation.

That's a reasonable point. With all of science being a global conspiracy, supernaturalism is the best option.

 

[Youwerecreated]

A number of those lies were already debunked as lies.

Why are you cutting and pasting the same lies?

What lies hollie ? The problem with you is you can't take on what is presented this is your typical rhetoric, "Debunked and lies" but you can't back up what you're saying. You're proving the point of the article and can't show why naturalism is a more credible theory over creation.

What lies? The lies contained in the massive cut and paste from "Anointed one" website.

That is the same cut and paste you dumped repeatedly in the "Creationist" thread. I spent time exposing the falsified "quotes" and here you are again, cutting and pasting the same garbage with the same falsified "quotes"

Look at your model closely.

The evolution model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:
I. The universe and the solar system emerged by naturalistic processes.
II. Life emerged from nonlife by naturalistic processes.
III. All present kinds emerged from simpler earlier kinds, so that single-celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates, including man.
IV. Mutation and natural selection have brought about the emergence of present complex kinds from a simple primordial organism.
V. Man and apes emerged from a common ancestor.
VI. The earth's geologic features were fashioned largely by slow, gradual processes, with infrequent catastrophic events restricted to a local scale (uniformitarianism).
VII. The inception of the earth and then of life must have occurred several billion years ago.

Both theories can be put to the test but one is best supported by the evidence. They are both driven by presuppositions. If you're an atheist you accept naturalism if you believe in God and creation you believe the creationism model.

But your views and mine are both driven by preconceived beliefs. That affects how we interpret evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What lies? The lies contained in the massive cut and paste from "Anointed one" website.

That is the same cut and paste you dumped repeatedly in the "Creationist" thread. I spent time exposing the falsified "quotes" and here you are again, cutting and pasting the same garbage with the same falsified "quotes"

What did he say that was a lie be specific.

You're sounding like a broken record with nothing to back your accusation.

Cute. You made this same argument in another thread and I posted multiple examples of your lies.

Take a look through the "Creationist", thread for you multiple cut and paste from "anointed one". The exposition of the falsified "quotes" and your attempts to defend them are there.

You tried this the other day and never showed support for this accusation. Is this really that hard you can't point out what the lies are and let's discuss them one at a time ?