Scientific foreknowledge in the bible ?

[Hollie]

Hollie the creationists are coming and eventually they will be accepted with open arms back in the sciences where they use to be welcomed. I told you the creationist movement is being well funded it's just a matter of time that they reclaim the fields of science they produced.

Did you notice that it only took two pages of this thread to expose creationists as frauds and bumpkins?

"The creationists are coming". I suppose you'll be thumping your bibles and heralding the return of the Dark Ages.

As long ad you're coming, I do have some landscaping and grounds maintenance chores you can perform.

Wishful thinking on your part.

"The creationists are coming"

snicker.

 

[Derideo_Te]

By the time I saw #2 on the list it was obvious this was nonsense. The term "atom" comes from the ancient Greeks in 460 BC who believed that "atomos" was the smallest possible particle of matter. FYI they knew about electricity over a century earlier than that. The bible is not the source of this knowledge. Instead it merely recorded what people from all over the ancient world were thinking about. Had the library of Alexandria survived all of this would be found in non religious texts.

 

[Youwerecreated]

By the time I saw #2 on the list it was obvious this was nonsense. The term "atom" comes from the ancient Greeks in 460 BC who believed that "atomos" was the smallest possible particle of matter. FYI they knew about electricity over a century earlier than that. The bible is not the source of this knowledge. Instead it merely recorded what people from all over the ancient world were thinking about. Had the library of Alexandria survived all of this would be found in non religious texts.

The bible was written before that and atoms were not discovered til the 18th century. They knew of static electricity that is not difficult to discover and try to give explanations of the evidence.

The bible once it was written down was 3,500 years ago.

 

[daws101]

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?

of course you'd pick a biased source .....

Scientific Creationism Isn't Science

Though many scientific creationists deny their religious affiliations, creationism is fundamentally a religious theory, not a scientific one. As mentioned above, it is not based on real evidence. In reality, creationism appeals not to the scientifically-minded, but rather to those seeking to protect their religious beliefs from what they see as the threat of Darwinism. If scientific creationism were a science, it would not take all the "evidence" it offers from a holy book written thousands of years ago, before the advent of anything approaching modern science.
Moreover, scientific creationism's fundamental assumption - that the Bible is literally true - is the exact polar opposite of true science, which is always open to disproof or revision. For those who argue that creationism is not religious, consider this statement from the Institute for Creation Research: "The Bible . . . is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological" (ICR Tenets of Creationism).
It is for this reason that scientific creationism does not belong in the educational systems. Scientific creationism is religion, not science, and religion cannot be taught in public schools as literal truth. It could be appropriate to discuss the creationist movement and tenets in history or sociology classes, but creationism does not meet the criteria required for inclusion in scientific curricula.
Evolution as Religion?
Evolution vs. Creation

 

[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?

miracles and plagues are god's best tricks .

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

it's natural..

 

[Youwerecreated]

miracles and plagues are god's best tricks .

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

it's natural..

Yes chance produced necessity after necessity

 

[Youwerecreated]

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?

of course you'd pick a biased source .....

Scientific Creationism Isn't Science

Though many scientific creationists deny their religious affiliations, creationism is fundamentally a religious theory, not a scientific one. As mentioned above, it is not based on real evidence. In reality, creationism appeals not to the scientifically-minded, but rather to those seeking to protect their religious beliefs from what they see as the threat of Darwinism. If scientific creationism were a science, it would not take all the "evidence" it offers from a holy book written thousands of years ago, before the advent of anything approaching modern science.
Moreover, scientific creationism's fundamental assumption - that the Bible is literally true - is the exact polar opposite of true science, which is always open to disproof or revision. For those who argue that creationism is not religious, consider this statement from the Institute for Creation Research: "The Bible . . . is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological" (ICR Tenets of Creationism).
It is for this reason that scientific creationism does not belong in the educational systems. Scientific creationism is religion, not science, and religion cannot be taught in public schools as literal truth. It could be appropriate to discuss the creationist movement and tenets in history or sociology classes, but creationism does not meet the criteria required for inclusion in scientific curricula.
Evolution as Religion?
Evolution vs. Creation

It went over your head once again.

 

[daws101]

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)

the Irc...is not a credible source.. it's based on the same false premise ALL your other shit is based on.
you know this .. so why do you keep endless looping these false hoods.?

 

[daws101]

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?

of course you'd pick a biased source .....

Scientific Creationism Isn't Science

Though many scientific creationists deny their religious affiliations, creationism is fundamentally a religious theory, not a scientific one. As mentioned above, it is not based on real evidence. In reality, creationism appeals not to the scientifically-minded, but rather to those seeking to protect their religious beliefs from what they see as the threat of Darwinism. If scientific creationism were a science, it would not take all the "evidence" it offers from a holy book written thousands of years ago, before the advent of anything approaching modern science.
Moreover, scientific creationism's fundamental assumption - that the Bible is literally true - is the exact polar opposite of true science, which is always open to disproof or revision. For those who argue that creationism is not religious, consider this statement from the Institute for Creation Research: "The Bible . . . is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological" (ICR Tenets of Creationism).
It is for this reason that scientific creationism does not belong in the educational systems. Scientific creationism is religion, not science, and religion cannot be taught in public schools as literal truth. It could be appropriate to discuss the creationist movement and tenets in history or sociology classes, but creationism does not meet the criteria required for inclusion in scientific curricula.
Evolution as Religion?
Evolution vs. Creation

It went over your head once again.

sure it did slapdick!
what a vivid fantasy life you have..

 

[Derideo_Te]

By the time I saw #2 on the list it was obvious this was nonsense. The term "atom" comes from the ancient Greeks in 460 BC who believed that "atomos" was the smallest possible particle of matter. FYI they knew about electricity over a century earlier than that. The bible is not the source of this knowledge. Instead it merely recorded what people from all over the ancient world were thinking about. Had the library of Alexandria survived all of this would be found in non religious texts.

The bible was written before that and atoms were not discovered til the 18th century. They knew of static electricity that is not difficult to discover and try to give explanations of the evidence.

The bible once it was written down was 3,500 years ago.

Why are you so obsessed with "proving" that your bible is the "source of all scientific knowledge"? Is it because the sheer volume of actual scientific knowledge available to anyone with access to the internet is completely swamping what you believe exists in your bible?

No one wants their knowledge wrapped up in superstition and mythology any longer. That is for Hollywood and Harry Potter these days. When it comes to dealing with reality the scientific facts are far superior to fairy tales.

 

[daws101]

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

it's natural..

Yes chance produced necessity after necessity

nature is not chance.. hance [chans, chahns] Show IPA noun, verb, chanced, chanc·ing, adjective
noun
1.
the absence of any cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled: often personified or treated as a positive agency
as always you refuse to to to accept that conditions preclude that kind of randomness.
you might want to study up on probabilities.

Probability (or likelihood[1]) is a measure or estimation of how likely it is that something will happen or that a statement is true. Probabilities are given a value between 0 (0% chance or will not happen) and 1 (100% chance or will happen).[2] The higher the degree of probability, the more likely the event is to happen, or, in a longer series of samples, the greater the number of times such event is expected to happen.
These concepts have been given an axiomatic mathematical derivation in probability theory (see probability axioms), which is used widely in such areas of study as mathematics, statistics, finance, gambling, science, artificial intelligence/machine learning and philosophy to, for example, draw inferences about the expected frequency of events. Probability theory is also used to describe the underlying mechanics and regularities of complex systems.[3]

 

[daws101]

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.

ALL OF IT is a lie .you can't be more specific than that.
again it not a accusation it's a STATEMENT OF FACT...

 

[daws101]

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.

HOLD ON A SEC SLAPDICK , Your pov is the ultimate example of preconceived beliefs. based on subjective experiences not evidence or objective observation.
meaning you're not by even the loosest standard qualified to judge the interpretation of evidence.

 

[daws101]

Hollie the creationists are coming and eventually they will be accepted with open arms back in the sciences where they use to be welcomed. I told you the creationist movement is being well funded it's just a matter of time that they reclaim the fields of science they produced.

Did you notice that it only took two pages of this thread to expose creationists as frauds and bumpkins?

"The creationists are coming". I suppose you'll be thumping your bibles and heralding the return of the Dark Ages.

As long ad you're coming, I do have some landscaping and grounds maintenance chores you can perform.

Hollie it was creationists that brought us out of the dark ages Strike three.

bullshit!

The Dark Ages were an age of little learning. They are regarded as having begun at about the fall of the West Roman Empire, in 476, and continued until 1000 AD. But if we look more closely, what we see is that a dramatic decline in learning in the West began in about 235 AD, and the signs of an increase in learning were already appearing by about 600 AD. We have very little in the way of records of the time, so we do not actually know why they were learning more. It might have been related to religion, but it might as easily have been related to law, administration, and commerce, all of which require a degree of record keeping.
There were schools opening before the end of the sixth century, which we know because the King's School in Canterbury, which is still operating, opened in 597. In fact Cor Tewdws, a school in Wales, opened before the fall of the West Roman Empire and was closed by King Henry VIII, so there was at least one school that was open for the whole period, though with a possible hiatus after a fire, until the school buildings were rebuilt. When Charlemagne set up his educational policies, he drew on the best scholars he could find, and among these were highly educated teachers who were Anglo-Saxons, Visigoths, and Lombards. Clearly, by then the descendants of the people who had pulled the West apart were being educated already.
What pulled Europe out of the dark ages

 

[Agit8r]

Sure, primitive peoples obviously made some scientific observations and mixed them with their myths, like:

"And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ring-streaked, speckled, and spotted" -- Genesis 30:38-39

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sure, primitive peoples obviously made some scientific observations and mixed them with their myths, like:

"And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ring-streaked, speckled, and spotted" -- Genesis 30:38-39

What is your point ?

You have to understand the bible in whole to get to accurate meanings of some verses. I don't believe these verses are implying what you think.

 

[theword]

Sure, primitive peoples obviously made some scientific observations and mixed them with their myths, like:

"And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ring-streaked, speckled, and spotted" -- Genesis 30:38-39

What is your point ?

You have to understand the bible in whole to get to accurate meanings of some verses. I don't believe these verses are implying what you think.

What Christian understands the Bible in whole? Not even the religious Pharisees, who could quote the scriptures from memory, could understand the symbolism in the prophecies. Only God knows why He used symbolism in the prophecies.

I haven't met a religious Christian yet with any knowledge of God to interpret the prophecies correctly.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sure, primitive peoples obviously made some scientific observations and mixed them with their myths, like:

"And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ring-streaked, speckled, and spotted" -- Genesis 30:38-39

What is your point ?

You have to understand the bible in whole to get to accurate meanings of some verses. I don't believe these verses are implying what you think.

What Christian understands the Bible in whole? Not even the religious Pharisees, who could quote the scriptures from memory, could understand the symbolism in the prophecies. Only God knows why He used symbolism in the prophecies.

I haven't met a religious Christian yet with any knowledge of God to interpret the prophecies correctly.

If that was the case why would God provide it ?

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,

 

[Agit8r]

Sure, primitive peoples obviously made some scientific observations and mixed them with their myths, like:

"And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ring-streaked, speckled, and spotted" -- Genesis 30:38-39

What is your point ?

You have to understand the bible in whole to get to accurate meanings of some verses. I don't believe these verses are implying what you think.

Is that what the evidence points to?

 

[theword]

What is your point ?

You have to understand the bible in whole to get to accurate meanings of some verses. I don't believe these verses are implying what you think.

What Christian understands the Bible in whole? Not even the religious Pharisees, who could quote the scriptures from memory, could understand the symbolism in the prophecies. Only God knows why He used symbolism in the prophecies.

I haven't met a religious Christian yet with any knowledge of God to interpret the prophecies correctly.

If that was the case why would God provide it ?

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,

The Romans who produced the new testament after killing all the true saints didn't understand this verse either.